Home » Darwinism, Evolution » Louisiana disparages Darwin

Louisiana disparages Darwin

Darwin Defeated in the Bayou: Louisiana Encourages ‘Critical Thinking’
Richard Monastersky | Chronicle of Higher Education | June 12, 2008

The title of this article is self-explanatory (teaching Darwin critically seems now to be becoming the big thing at the state level). Here are some of the reactions:

“It’s Louisiana. If they can abuse it, twist it, or turn it upside down from the original intention…they will.”

“Raise the kids as stupid as there parents and there parents and what do you get, religion.”

“The idea that one can distinguish between ID and astrology is ludicrous.”

“Critical thinking should only be applied to approved beliefs.”

“Didn’t God invent astrology? I don’t have proof but I have faith therefore I think astrology should also be taught.”

“Lee Bowman says ‘there will be no abuse of the new provisions.’ Duh. Why would there be? The new provisions ARE the abuse.”

Also check out the badastronomy blog (go here and here).

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

19 Responses to Louisiana disparages Darwin

  1. Note the reporter’s almost optimistic spin. He didn’t say, “science defeated”, he said “Darwin defeated”.

    Darwin Defeated in the Bayou: Louisiana Encourages ‘Critical Thinking’ About Evolution

    94-to-3 vote on the bill.

    This isn’t just a defeat for Darwin, it’s a rout.

  2. Off topic but somewhat related:

    I was checking out Dr. Robert Hazen stuff to make a presentation about OOL to an organic chemistry course, and found this most amusing:

    http://hazen.gl.ciw.edu/sites/.....Con-ID.ppt

    Emergence of the gaps? I mean, like if you gather enough pandas you see a supernova of flamings emerging?

  3. My only question is this: Will anyone who knows anything about ID ever be given a chance to cross examine Barbara Forrest in a public forum.

  4. MaXAug,

    The term “emergence” is an important concept among the materialists. It is a way to explain something for which you have no credible explanation.

    It is often used when two disparate items are merged and an unexpected third property appears as a result. A traditional example is hydrogen and oxygen and water which emerges with completely different properties than each of its constituents.

    Hazen is a fairly honest guy but holds the naturalist line. Otherwise he would never get any grant money. He is a geologist who pushes the origin of life in things like clay and other minerals causing some unusual emerging properties when they are combined.

    He has written a recent book on the subject and has a Teaching Company course on OOL. Nothing in either is a threat to ID. Essentially he admits they are no where while maintaining a happy materialist position.

    Many of us here would agree that

    “If biological complexity can be shown to arise spontaneously as the result of natural processes, then ID is unnecessary.”

    The problem is that there is nothing to support such a natural process. Notice that Hazen did not present any in his power point presentation. Only a framework for which there is no support.

  5. Speaking of people in need of education…

    RE: “Raise the kids as stupid as there parents and there parents and what do you get, religion.”

    “Their” (not “there”) shows possession.

  6. Will anyone who knows anything about ID ever be given a chance to cross examine Barbara Forrest in a public forum.

    Well, somebody other than those yahoos from the Thomas More Law Center. Why they didn’t consult with an ID thinker, in order to devise a strategy to back her into a tight spot and then turn the screws, is beyond comprehension.

  7. Bill wrote:

    Louisiana disparages Darwin

    Recall that a certain Darwinist judge ruled that it is unconstitutional to:

    denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution

    Judge Jones
    Dover vs. Kitzmiller

  8. —–”Well, somebody other than those yahoos from the Thomas More Law Center. Why they didn’t consult with an ID thinker, in order to devise a strategy to back her into a tight spot and then turn the screws, is beyond comprehension.”

    Actually, even those yahoos were capable of exposing the fact that Barbara Forrest is an atheist ideologue, knows little about science and nothing about intelligent design. I think that point deserves to be publicized every time she enters into the fray.

  9. Reading this brings to mind Dallas Willard:

    “We live in a culture that has, for centuries now, cultivated the idea that the skeptical person is always smarter than one who believes. You can almost be as stupid as a cabbage as long as you doubt.”

    Try on a conversation with a neighbor, a colleague, or an average college professor.

    It is disappointing.

  10. toc: A Catholic priest friend of mine attended Yale as an undergrad in the late 40s / early 50s. He found that the secret to getting an A on a paper was to assess four competing positions, sniff skeptically at three of them and then make sure to sneer at the remaining one.

  11. Hi Poachy,
    Cute vise reference.
    Try it with a little honesty next time.

  12. “Critical thinking should only be applied to approved beliefs.”

    Those darn evilutionists! They have no consideration. How are we supposed to parody them outrageously now?

  13. Jerry, to be completely honest with you, i have a problem with terms like “fairly honest” :D

    Anyway, my two main sources for the task will be:

    http://www.amazon.com/Emergenc.....038;sr=8-1
    http://www.amazon.com/Lifes-Or.....038;sr=8-1

    The first book is pretty nice, and the author is not afraid to include difficulties. As for the second, my impression is that they omit too much.

  14. 14

    Regarding these Louisiana academic freedom bills —

    Something, anything is needed to counteract the intimidating effect of the infamous Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. Judge John E. “Jackass” Jones III showed extreme prejudice against ID and the Dover defendants — regardless of whether or not ID is a religious concept — by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the Constitution’s establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions. It is surprising that it took 2½ years after the Dover decision to pass bills of this type — maybe a major reason for the big delay was legislators’ fear of a backlash from tightwad taxpayers because of real or imagined litigation costs. But many of those same taxpayers would just love to see a billion tax dollars spent on defending in court a law requiring public schools to teach that there is no conflict between science and religion (or even a law requiring that the public schools teach that Darwinism proves that there is no god).

    Also, there is a widespread misconception that ID is the only scientific (or pseudoscientific, to some) criticism of evolution theory. There are also non-ID criticisms of evolution theory.

  15. oh, the horror. People will now have the awful job of teaching evolution as a scientific hypothesis, and not as a religious dogma.

    Man, science will go insane.

  16. This just in from evolutionnews.org by John West:

    By a unanimous vote of 36-0, Louisiana’s state Senate has just approved the Louisiana Science Education Act, which seeks to protect the right of teachers and local school districts to encourage “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” Because the bill passed the Louisiana House last week by a vote of 94-3, the bill now goes to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal for his signature.

    The rout continues….

  17. Here is a youtube video of Bobby Jindal about his approval of teaching ID in the class room

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va84asuu1zQ

  18. From the http://www.NCSEWEB.org

    Louisiana creationism bill is on Governor’s desk

    Louisiana creationism bill is on Governor’s desk

    On June 16, 2008, the Louisiana Senate approved Senate Bill 733 as amended by the state House of Representatives. If Governor Bobby Jindal signs the bill or does not veto the bill within 20 days, it will become law.

    I speculate Bobby will not veto it. He has the option of not taking any action and letting it become law…..

  19. Governor Jindal’s college professors lent his voice to the same press release. Professor Arthur Landy is University Professor at Brown University, and taught Jindal genetics. He reminded Jindal that “Without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn’t make sense. In order for today’s students in Louisiana to succeed in college and beyond, in order for them to take the fullest advantages of all that the 21st century will offer, they need a solid grounding in genetics and evolution. Governor Jindal was a good student in my class when he was thinking about becoming a doctor, and I hope he doesn’t do anything that would hold back the next generation of Louisiana’s doctors.”

    Governor Jindal thinks God had a hand in biology.

Leave a Reply