Home » News, science education » Ken Miller’s science problem

Ken Miller’s science problem

In “Bobby Jindal’s Science Problem” ( Slate, July 30, 2012), Catholic Darwinist Ken Miller advises us that “Romney’s education surrogate promotes creationist nonsense in schools”:

When Jindal stepped into Republican politics in Louisiana, he had a choice to make. He could defend mainstream science, which sees evolution as the powerful, strongly supported, and widely tested theory that it is today. Or he could have joined the doubters and deniers that populate the electorate in his party. Campaigning for the governorship in 2007, Jindal touted his Christian faith, shied away from specific statements about evolution, and emphasized his commitment to local control of education. Louisianans didn’t have to wait long to find out what this meant for science.

Jindal signed the LSEA into law in 2008, endorsing the thinly veiled attempt to allow creationism into the science classrooms of his state. The backers of the law made it clear that material on intelligent design would be high on the list of supplemental materials that local boards and teachers could present to their students.

Apparently, this is all in aid of preventing Jindal becoming the vice-presidential nominee. Which means he may well be a good choice. Here is the law that Miller has been ordered to oppose:

285.1. Science education; development of critical thinking skills

A. This Section shall be known and may be cited as the “Louisiana Science Education Act”.

B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall 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, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

(2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection.

C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

E. The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other local public school board shall adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Section prior to the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year.

Acts 2008, No. 473, §1, eff. June 25, 2008.

(A friend argues that Jindal should be shot for fronting anything like this because public education could start to be about learning real skills again, and then what would happen to the rubber rooms for incompetent teachers?)

Meanwhile, Ken Miller’s science problem is irresponsible Darwinism.

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

12 Responses to Ken Miller’s science problem

  1. When Jindal stepped into Republican politics in Louisiana, he had a choice to make. He could defend mainstream science, which sees evolution as the powerful, strongly supported, and widely tested theory that it is today. Or he could have joined the doubters and deniers that populate the electorate in his party.

    He says nothing but bleating rhetoric.

    Miller had the choice to make of defending intelligent design as the powerful, strongly supported, and widely tested theory that it is becoming today. Or he could have joined the deniers and doubters that populate the employed in his field. You know, those that are instructed to DENY design regardless of how compelling it is, and constantly reassure themselves that evolution is a “fact”.

    JG

  2. Not the first example of Ken Miller’s credibility issues. See An information systems prof has some questions about Ken Miller’s “spitball” mousetrap.

  3. Ken Miller, equivocator:

    He could defend mainstream science, which sees evolution as the powerful, strongly supported, and widely tested theory that it is today.

    What “evolution” is he talking about? Blind watchmaker evolution is NOT powerful, not supported and cannot be tested.

    I would love to get that clown on the witness stand, under oath.

  4. Joe,

    are you of the profession of law? just curious.

    sergio

  5. No but Judge Judy would make Miller look like the fool he is.

    But let’s say there is another trial like with Dover, PA and I am somehow involved. And Miller is brought in as their pet-christian evolutionist. I will have a series of questions that the lawyers for my side would ask him. That alone would be worth the price of admission.

  6. Joe,

    “But let’s say there is another trial like with Dover, PA”

    i am not recognizing this reference? is famous American court trial? How long ago?

    sergio

  7. 7

    With “Catholics” like Miller, who needs atheists?

  8. Blue_Savannah,

    are “Catholics” not accepting of intelligent design?

    sergio

  9. Sergio, Michael Behe — one of the two leading design Theorists (originator of the Irreducible Complexity investigation) — is a practicing Catholic. Around UD, several major commenters and contributors are too. KF

  10. 10

    kairosfocus,

    perhaps then splitting support of I D among catholicos? also for orthodoxos, protestantes, evangelicos?

    sergio

  11. Sergio: When there is a major, unsettled debate in a culture, it tends to cut across prior lines. KF

  12. 12

    kairosfocus,

    you are member of Christ Body, yes? discovering Bible knowledge in your speaking.

    sergio

Leave a Reply