Home » News, science education » Attempt to repeal Louisiana’s “okay to teach Darwin’s flaws” bill fails

Attempt to repeal Louisiana’s “okay to teach Darwin’s flaws” bill fails

In “Committee kills effort to repeal Louisiana Science Act” (Town Talk, April 19, 2012), Mike Hasen reports,

BATON ROUGE — State senators have rejected an effort to take off the books a law that allows teachers to introduce alternatives to evolution in science classes.

With a 2-1 vote, the Senate Education Committee rejected SB374 by Sen. Karen Peterson, D-New Orleans, which sought to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act adopted in 2008.

Proponents of the repeal say the law “opens the door” for the teaching of creationism in science classrooms but opponents say federal and state laws forbid that.

Well, if the Science Act was adopted in 2008, and in four years no one has come up with an instance of violating federal or state laws, the opponents of the bill should find something better to do with their time.

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

4 Responses to Attempt to repeal Louisiana’s “okay to teach Darwin’s flaws” bill fails

  1. F/N: Let’s remind ourselves on just what is being objected to — as opposed to everyone’s favourite creationist strawman-scapegoats(from the linked article):

    [The LA law] “requires the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a local school board, to allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

    That is, this is not any individual teacher going off on a limb, the state Board has to act, on request of a local board. That is two tiers of public accountability.

    So, now, the actual evidence and cases of religion being taught as if it were science — apart from the religion of materialist high priests dressed up in the holy lab coat — is? _____________

    After four years? ______________

    ANS: Plainly, ZIP, or it would have been triumphantly headlined and trumpeted to the skies, with suits heading for the US Supreme Court.

    In short, we are back to materialist ideologues setting up imaginary strawmen, simply because after decades of their failure to police themselves, elected representatives of the people have stepped in and said that we will support education through critical awareness, not indoctrination in the name of education in science.

    Quite revealing.

    KF

  2. F/N 2: Notice the rhetorical tactics of opponents (given evident lack of actual cases after four years):

    __________

    >> Kopplin, current students at Baton Rouge High Magnet School Nathan Babb and Martin Brown, retired nationally certified science teacher Darlene Reaves and LSU Department of Science Dean Kevin Carman spoke in favor of the bill [to repeal the law].

    Carman said two top scientists who rejected his offer to come to LSU cited the Louisiana Science Act as the reason they wouldn’t come to LSU. Also, “I just lost an evolution biologist” who said he was leaving the state because his children are nearing school age and he didn’t want them to attend a school where they might not be taught true science.

    “Teaching pseudo-science drives scientists away,” Carman said.

    a –> Boycotting on talking points

    b –> Observe absence of headlined cases in point that would make claims of teaching pseudoscience a matter of fact

    c –> So, we can make a definition on the content of the law on the implied nature of “pseudoscience” per the ideologues: “promot[ing] critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning”

    d –> ouch!

    Reaves, answering Walworth’s statement that “evolution is only a theory,” said “gravity is only a theory. It’s a scientific theory, based on research.”

    e –> Gravity is an observation [Remember, this is "retired nationally certified science teacher Darlene Reaves"]

    f –> There are theories of gravitation. The Aristotelian failed, and was replaced by the Newtonian. this was shown to be limited, and now we have in hand Einstein’s relativity, which was under scrutiny with those apparently fast neutrinos

    g –> So, theories of gravity have been controversial, have been subjected to objective critique and have in some cases been replaced, in others, turned into limiting cases.

    h –> And of course gravity and gravitation are about the world in the present as an observable going concern, i.e. operations science

    i –> The relevant part of evolution, microbes to Mozart body plan evo, is an origins science theory about the unobserved past and indeed the unobservable past, inferred as a best explanation per traces we see in the present and forces we see in the present.

    j –> inferences to best current explanation need to be held in a context where there are no politically correct rules that block otherwise viable factors or candidates, precisely the issue that is a major root of controversy about Darwinian Macro-evo as taught in schools.

    k –> So, we see good grounds for insisting on objectivity, critical awareness and addressing strengths and limitations.

    l –> Oops again.

    >>
    __________

    Quite inadvertently revealing. KF

  3. Thanks, KF! It seems, overall, that the repeal-ists didn’t make their point because they didn’t find a case where anything bad had happened before they waded in.

    If a Darwinism prof chooses not to move to Louisiana because the school system doesn’t enforce Darwinism, that’s not an instance of things going wrong. Nor is the fact that a high school student (now at U) was/is upset about it.

    If someone can show evidence of a fundamentalist smackdown in the Bayou – oh, but wait, the legislation explicitly forbids that. Which just means the legislation isn’t being enforced. So they should enforce it, not repeal it.

    This is one case where ignoring “major science organizations” in favour of local facts is a really good idea. There are other such cases.

  4. It sure looks like the bad guys trying to silence the good guys.
    Its another stupid story of censorship in mankind.
    If the state censors an opinion then the state is either saying the opinion is false or regardless of its truth its still prohibitive.
    Gibberish for a advanced people and gibberish to say its from centuries of precedent.
    They just don’t want creationisms and are using any means to stop it in public institutions.
    Creationism must have equal time or we know the reason why.

Leave a Reply