Louisiana Establishing Rules To Challenge Teaching of Evolution

Gradual Change

Parents who object to teaching established science on religious grounds should be told to shut the frak up–not be taken seriously. I’ve previously noted the move towards teaching creationism in the schools in Louisiana. Now rules are being  writen in Louisiana to make changes in science instruction based upon objections to teaching evolution:

The state’s top school board Wednesday approved procedures for residents who object to materials that challenge the teaching of evolution in public school science classes.

The rules, which were praised by evolution critics, stem from a law approved last year by the Legislature.

Backers say the law is needed to give science teachers more freedom to challenge traditional theories, including Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Critics contend the measure, called the Louisiana Science Education Act, is aimed at injecting religious themes into public schools.

Science is established through rigorous testing, not popular vote, and cannot be judged by whether scientific findings are consistent with religious beliefs. Evolution is established science which has repeatedly passed the tests of the scientific method. As Doug Mataconis comments:

…science should not, cannot, be subject to “due process” or majority will. If it is, it’s not science, it’s propaganda.

Be Sociable, Share!

8 Comments

  1. 1
    Adam Petrovsky says:

    » Lousiana Establishing Rules To Challenge Teaching of Evolution … http://bit.ly/AIUZS

  2. 2
    impactadam says:

    » Lousiana Establishing Rules To Challenge Teaching of Evolution … http://bit.ly/AIUZS

  3. 3
    Adam Petrovsky says:

    » Lousiana Establishing Rules To Challenge Teaching of Evolution … http://bit.ly/AIUZS

  4. 4
    Bestmedia says:

    Its not the teachers job to interject his opinion. Its one thing to spark debate between students, its another to degrade ones beliefs.

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    Plus teaching evolution in science class is not a matter of opinion–it is basic science.

  6. 6
    Eclectic Radical says:

    ‘Its not the teachers job to interject his opinion. Its one thing to spark debate between students, its another to degrade ones beliefs.’
     
    I’m not sure I understand the spirit behind this remark. Is this a claim that the teacher’s representation of the scientific facts is the expression of a personal opinion that should not be offered if it offends the beliefs of the superstitious who deny science out of fear of reality?
     
    I can’t accept such a thesis as valid. At all.
     
    I don’t say this to denigrate religion, I say this because I object to the Inquisitorial approach to science by the religious right. I’m a Christian, my mother is a preacher, but denying scientific fact because of religious metaphor is a dangerous worldview. Regardless of what people believe, science classes need to teach scientific fact. People of faith should have the strength of faith to wonder at God’s miracles as science depicts them, not ban learning and brandish their ignorance like a badge.
     
    I suppose this is elitist and proof of cultural chauvinism on my part but, as a critical realist,  I find Jack Chick and Richard Dawkins equally offensive in their contempt for scientific fact on the left hand and religious truth on the right.
     
     

  7. 8
    Eclectic Radical says:

    I think Objectivists are smart teenagers who never took the step to being smart adults and I don’t like some of the language of some of the Randian statements on the subject, as a critical realist. That said, the first writer does a great job of demolishing the idea that  ‘intelligent design’ as advocated by creationists is a scientific theory. I certainly agree with his argument there.
     
    I’ve said this before, ‘intelligent design’ is a quantum physics concept, not a testable theory. Ideas like ‘irreducible complexity’ may themselves have scientific merit that can be explored in some way, but they cannot simply be stated without research and said to contravene biology as we know it. Conceptual debates among quantum physicists about the reasons behind the universe are not at all the same as the definition given to the phrase ‘intelligent design’ by creationists as ignorant of quantum physics as biology.
     
    Even if you find the notion of an ‘intelligent designer’ attractive, as some quantum physicists do, considering or choosing to accept the quantum physics concept of ‘intelligent design’ is entirely different from rejecting biology. Some people shouldn’t pretend to know anything about science, and ‘Discovery Institute’ is a pathetic name for an ogranization that exists to get as many people as possible to bury their heads in holes and deny the facts of the world.
     

Leave a comment