- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Religion
Louisiana Keeps Getting Busted for Teaching Creationism
People have the right to believe what they want about human origins, but they have no right to use the public school system to propagate religion. Insanity, it has been said, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
In light of that, the state of Louisiana might want to get a mental health check-up. Legislators and some education officials there keep promoting creationism in public school science classes – and they keep getting busted on it.
Here’s the latest round: In 2008, Louisiana lawmakers passed a law that allows the use of “supplemental” materials in science class so long as the materials “promote critical thinking skills, logical analysis and open and objective discussions of scientific theories being studied.” The law lists three scientific theories that would fall under this: the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.
By “origins of life,” the legislature clearly meant evolution. Cut through the rhetorical fog about “critical thinking” and “logical analysis,” and what legislators really want is to teach religion in biology class.
Pelican State lawmakers have been gunning for Darwin’s theory for decades. Remember, this is the state that passed a “balanced treatment” law mandating equal time between “creation science” and evolution, only to see it struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987.
It has been one thing after another since then. Legislators in Louisiana (and other states) have promoted “evidence against evolution,” the “theory of abrupt appearance” and “intelligent design.” Most of this stuff turned out to be non-starters, but the supplemental materials law, backed by Louisiana’s Religious Right-loving governor, Bobby Jindal, passed.
Real scientists don’t think much of it. Seventy-eight Nobel laureate scientists have signed a petition asking that the law be repealed. Zack Kopplin, a former public school student from Baton Rouge now attending Rice University in Texas, has been leading the repeal effort, so far without success.
It has been difficult to tell how many public school districts in Louisiana, if any, have started using supplemental materials. But there’s no longer any doubt about that in the town of Central, La. Yesterday the Central Community School Board voted to take the plunge and approve the use of materials designed to provide “alternatives” to evolution.
The Baton Rouge Advocate reported that board member Jim Lloyd made the motion to approve the policy.
“We believe,” Lloyd said, “this resolution will give teachers the academic freedom they deserve to teach the controversy where appropriate.”
The policy passed 6-0. Barbara Forrest, a member of Americans United’s Board of Trustees and a prominent critic of creationism, was not impressed.
“It’s absolutely creationist code language that we’ve seen come up again and again in other states,” Forrest told the Advocate.
Forrest, a professor at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, added, “The only reason to do this is to give the teachers in Central some cover for teaching creationism.”
We’ve said this before, but will repeat it again: In the scientific community, there is no “controversy” over evolution. It is considered the foundation of biology. If there were anything to creationist “alternatives” they would be taught in public universities. They are not.
Students who walk into a university level Introduction to Biology class with their heads full of evolution “alternatives” are immediately put at a disadvantage. No thinking parents want that for their children.
Yet that’s what they will be getting in Central, a small city of about 28,000 in East Baton Rouge Parish (parish is the Louisiana term for county). And it comes at the behest not of the scientific community but from a band of fundamentalist Christians who are unable to reconcile their beliefs with the modern world.
Those people have the right to believe what they want about human origins. The Constitution, however, gives them no right to use the public school system to propagate religion.
Here’s hoping some sanity soon returns to Louisiana’s public schools. If necessary, the courts ought to impose it.
Issues: Creationism & EvolutionTags: Central, louisiana, Zack Kopplin, creationism, evolution, Bobby Jindal, Jim Lloyd, Barbara Forrest
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
"Insanity, it has been said,
"Insanity, it has been said, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
What is it called when a person attributes taking an unwavering stand for something as "expecting a different result"? Hasn't this person ever heard of knowing what is right and patiently waiting for the right result?
When creationists continue to
When creationists continue to ignore the evidence in front of them by pushing things that have been discredited many many times and then later expecting this evidence to "disappear"... yes... this is insanity.
Young earth creationists are the new flat earth society, denying reality in ways I never thought possible. They are at the very least, delusional.
No amount of evidence will
No amount of evidence will satisfy those who choose to deny reality. Close your eyes and it is much easier to believe anything you hear. Open your eyes and it forces you to recognize that you know so little. Certainly God created the universe, how He did it nobody knows for sure. Especially not ignorant sheep with closed eyes. Open your eyes wide enough and you can find the description in Genesis of the Big Bang written for those that weren't even aware the earth was a sphere. Open your eyes wide enough and you find that arguing over this contradicts anything Christ did or talked about. If Christians (I am one) spent as much time forgiving, feeding, loving and showing mercy as they do arguing irrelevant topics, the church would have an image that invited fellowship and welcomed those it claims to reach. Very sadly, they chose to pontificate and fight instead.
@tospsh: Do you really
@tospsh: Do you really believe some bronze age tribesmen have all the answers!
They had no clue on how the world and universe worked, when someone died in their sleep they thought demons did it.
You talk about blind sheep, ha. Read your bible it's the surest way to make a person an atheist.
Chuck
Any work from home business
Any work from home business owners depend on email for and send try to and from clients. Without all jobs depend on email this way, many do as well as should you don’t you will still utilize it to contact people which team you will then meet face to face.But email features a habit of encroaching on the day time, to ensure every time you hear that ping or note that a new email has come in,Nike Air Max 95, you really feel obliged to determine how it's. It could be a business email, junk email or even a missive from Amazon, but no matter if it's work related or otherwise not you should have broken your concentration and resuming work could take over you imagine.How do we fight the battle against email and that means you can easily work conscientiously both at home and stop enslaved by checking it every 5 minutes?Will must set parameters to utilize. It makes sense to test your emails very first thing in the morning mindful about may have been some urgent message from a business client that has appear in because you finished work the previous day. Once that task is conducted though, avoid checking them again until after lunch. Thus giving you the whole morning to spotlight other tasks that want doing, as opposed to constantly checking your mails.For the way you access your emails you may want to set the automated update to simply update every hour, instead of every five minutes. This makes it less tempting to see what emails you've received.Once you have had lunch you'll be able to go back into home business office, check your business emails and see what's can be found in during the morning. However urgent has cropped up it is possible to handle it before tackling the afternoon’s work.This 2 times a day method will make sure you aren't consumed using the have to constantly look at your emails. It a little while to get utilized to this new habit nevertheless it will certainly pay off. Plus your clients will also soon enjoy the fact you should only check them twice daily. The truth is if you want to tell them upfront how you are doing things, to put it simply a note from the signature line of your emails telling them that incoming emails are checked twice a day, at 9am and 2pm, or whatever times you plan to think about them.This will send an obvious message which you take your emails seriously and view them daily – but you will such like your own personal terms. This message will also send a good message to clients ensuring them that the work comes first and you also have to have a proper working environment to ensure the best quality effort is done.You may feel strange attempting to reduce how much time you may spend checking your emails. But when you receive accustomed to it you'll be amazed by the difference celebrate to your house business and day.
Christmas Lamps: The easiest
Christmas Lamps: The easiest way to Beautify Your houseXmas equipment and lighting; many of us have witnessed these and a lot people have used them prior to. With regards to Xmas lamps,Air Max 90 chaussures, we often associate people lamps together with Xmas bushes. While Christmas time lights are most commonly utilized to decorate Christmas time trees and shrubs, were you aware that they could also be used regarding a lot more? If you plan on decorating your property for Holiday this coming year, you happen to be encouraged to analyze exactly what in addition Christmas lighting can be used for. After having a close up exam, you'll probably observe that they can be used for in excess of maybe you have initially thought.Since previously mentioned, with regards to Christmas time equipment and lighting, we often affiliate Christmas time equipment and lighting along with Christmas time timber. It is because many folks beautify his or her Christmas bushes with Xmas lamps. What is good with regards to employing Holiday lighting on the Xmas sapling would be that the lighting are available in many different styles and sizes. It can be done to get Christmas time equipment and lighting along with small bulbs, along with huge kinds. Traditional Xmas lights come whitened colored or which has a blend of all different hues. In recent years, the buzz of numerous colored lights features increased. You is now able to obtain single tinted Christmas equipment and lighting or lighting which has a distinct color mixture. These types of lighting is ideal for those who are looking to style their own Christmas woods.Although some individuals decide on Xmas lights for their Christmas time woods, mentionened above previously earlier mentioned, there are additional uses of them. One of people uses is made for adorning the outside of your house. Online and in a lot of shops throughout The usa, it is simple to uncover Christmas time lights which can be created for outdoors utilize, certain about your house. These kind of lighting is often referred to as icicle Christmas time equipment and lighting. Icicle Christmas lamps allow the lights to hang over aspect of a property. While it's possible to find various colored outdoor Christmas lights, you will recognize that these are normally purchased in the standard white shade.Along with redecorating the exterior of the outside of your house using Holiday equipment and lighting, you can even decorate the particular bushes beyond your property. A quantity of home owners, annually, beautify the particular trees outside their home, typically just like their own interior Christmas time tress. Often times, these kind of trees and shrubs are usually comparatively tiny in size; consequently, the identical types of Holiday equipment and lighting you can use on the typical sapling also can, at times, be utilized by using an outside sapling. Decorating the little trees and shrubs on your lawn is a superb approach to provide some Holiday in your town.You can also employ Christmas time lights to brighten any of the suites that can be found in your home. There are numerous those who hang Christmas time lighting over the surface of their particular partitions. This is the good way to deliver added Christmas nature in the room that your Christmas time woods is, and various areas. In reality, you may even utilize Xmas lamps to be seen one of your residence's sleeping rooms. This thought can often be liked by simply teens and also other children; a lot of take advantage of the brilliant lighting and colours. Adorning your own home's master bedrooms is a good approach to bring the particular Christmas nature in to a place that you may have or else certainly not adorned.Because wonderful since it is to decorate your home regarding Christmas, it's also possible to wish to enhance your working environment or perhaps your workspace. Unfortunately, not every person enjoys Holiday. This may possibly create an issue, with regards to redecorating work work area. However, you can still, in many cases, make use of Christmas time equipment and lighting to be seen work. In many instances, you will see that it is the adornments which yell Xmas that create the difficulties, not really the actual lights them selves. As a result, if you superiors agree, you can very easily hang up Holiday lighting close to your office walls or along the sides of one's work desk.Don't you think remarkable the many various methods you may use Holiday lamps to embellish your home or perhaps your workplace? What is a lot more amazing will be the previously discussed examples are a few of the many different ways used Holiday lighting to create the vacation spirit into the office or house.
Actually, it was me "opening
Actually, it was me "opening my eyes" that pointed towards evolution for me. It was me opening my eyes that made me realize that the earth was round and that the sun actually wasn't some guy named Helios. Much as I am for your right and mine to discuss our religions, it is annoying when we spout off rhetoric like you just did. Open your eyes is something I've only ever heard about a million times, particularly in any cheesy self discovery themes childrens' movie or in old king fu flicks. Open your eyes is not something that EVER helps. Opening my eyes led me to believe that there MAY be a God, and that I'll put my money on it, but that there also may not be.
If you think about it,
If you think about it, considering the possibility of something and considering the possibility of its opposite at the same time has nothing to do with belief.
This article is absolute
This article is absolute trash. Horrible bias, and word twisting "Cut through all the rhetorical fog about 'critical thinking' and 'logical analysis'...." So what you really mean is TWISTING WORDS. Here's another bigot who believes that not only should the subject of creationism not be discussed, it should not even be OPEN to discussion in schools. Evolution is %100 right and there is no way that even a fraction of what is in creationism can be right according to guys like him. I give full support to schools who want to ALLOW supplemental material to foster debate on a subject, especially a controversial one such as this.
Are we really at that point now where we will criticize the educational system for providing alternatives to evolution? I think this is the most hypocritical turn around in quite some time. I've always heard what a crazy storm it was when people started teaching alternatives to creationism. I have no problem with someone calling creationism flawed, nor even 100% wrong. And I personally find evolution to be much better supported, but if we are going to simply silence the discussion on such a subject in te academic community, then I fear the worst for our educational system. This is in no way shape or form an attempt to teach creationism INSTEAD of evolution, but an attempt to bring discussion to the other views on the subject. That would be why these materials are SUPPLEMENTAL. Discussing and debating the merits of evolution vs creationism does not require the teaching of religion. Also, I'm just going to say it. The sentence that this is all "code" made me laugh so hard. Sounds like someone is a little bit paranoid.
To be sure, parents who want their kids to believe in creationism are going to force that opinion upon their children anyway. Wouldnt you rather such a matter be discussed by a PROFFESSIONAL educator and not some RAVING zealot? And I would really recommend AUSCS get their head straight stop criticizing those who are not going to blind themselves to alternatives before he rights another sloppy, slapped-toggether, and biased article.
@ Lethal1ty: Your a
@ Lethal1ty: Your a delusional fool, evolution is the foundation of modern biology.
Why don't we teach alternatives for mathematics or revise history to fit the christian point of view.
Why have the word "truth" in the dictionary.
Keep your superstitious mythology to yourselves and out of the public education system.
Chuck
The Act does not permit the
The Act does not permit the teaching of creationism in schools, so why mention this, even as a possibility?
@John Allman: Get a life in
@John Allman: Get a life in reality, please.
Chuck
My my Chucky :3 butthurt
My my Chucky :3 butthurt much? I'm delusional? For simply keeping an open mind to other possibilities aside from the one that is while strongly supported, not entirely 100% proven? Shouldn't You be mucking around with the FFRF and other intolerant imbeciles? If you are going to be this rabid and zealous about people having an open minded discussion on the Internet, perhaps it is you who needs to get a life. How very pre-teen of you... ;)
@ Lethal1ty : There is
@ Lethal1ty : There is nothing to be open minded about, "EVOLUTION" is a fact, the truth,the real deal,the foundation for modern biology.
Your closed mind obsession with the sky-fairy has you delusional.
Chuck
Evolution is THEORY. Not
Evolution is THEORY. Not FACT. Please educate yourself. Go to the store. By a Dictionary. READ. Also, if your feeling froggy, you should also try getting your information from reputable places such as Google Scholar or any other scientific article database.
@Lenthal1ty: You don't know
@Lenthal1ty: You don't know what a scientific theory is do you, and you tell me to educate myself.
What a fool you just made of yourself.
Chuck
Actually, it is you who don't
Actually, it is you who don't know your terms. A theory is a proven model of scientific explanation. It is supported by facts, and explains facts. It is not a "fact."
You are confusing the layman's understanding of the word "theory," which actually means "hypothesis" in science. This is why it is called the THEORY of evolution and not the evolution HYPOTHESIS.
I know this is confusing for ignorant, but a scientific theory is not the same thing as forming a theory about who stole your bicycle.
@CRW I was going to suggest
@CRW
I was going to suggest to Lethality and Chuck agreeing to say that evolution was a "model", before I noticed your posting.
Lethality told Chuck that evolution was a theory, not a fact. You agreed with Lethality that evolution was a theory, not a fact, but for some reason, said that Lethality didn't "know" his "terms". Apparently, you assumed that Lethality was "confusing" different usages of the word "theory", though why you assumed that, is anybody's guess.
Based on Lethality's other
Based on Lethality's other posts, his stand on evolution is very clear.
Invariably when people say that evolution is not a FACT, they are making a claim that it is somehow "less than true." Evolution is a supported and proven theory. It is supported by facts.
The problem is that people confuse the role of "facts" in a scientific theory. A fact is a data point, observation, etc. A theory is false or at least limited, if facts arise that contradict some of its assertions.
A theory also will generate several active hypotheses. For example, the evolutionary paths of many species are often hypotheses since there is insufficient data to confirm the evolutionary pathways. This is not say that theory is incomplete. Rather, a theory does not generate all facts - it explains them and predicts others. This is the fallacy of the "missing link" argument by creationists, who claim that since evolution does not list every step of development for man, it must be false.
CRW: "Based on Lethality's
CRW: "Based on Lethality's other posts, his stand on evolution is very clear."
Here's what Lethality wrote recently, in this present thread.
Lethality: "I have no problem with someone calling creationism flawed, nor even 100% wrong. And I personally find evolution to be much better supported, but if we are going to simply silence the discussion on such a subject in te academic community, then I fear the worst for our educational system. This is in no way shape or form an attempt to teach creationism INSTEAD of evolution, but an attempt to bring discussion to the other views on the subject."
CRW: "Invariably when people say that evolution is not a FACT, they are making a claim that it is somehow 'less than true'."
CRW himself, said recently that evolution wasn't a fact.
Please stop playing word
Please stop playing word games....
You know exactly the relationship between facts and theories and hypotheses because you have seen it discussed many times.
Your remark is deliberately disingenuous.
@CRW: That's because,John
@CRW: That's because,John Allman is a troll.
Chuck
The "game" being played here
The "game" being played here is old "straw man" game, of criticising individuals, not for anything that they write, but for their alleged writing of something that they haven't actually written.
In the "straw man" game, one pretends that somebody else has written something that one could easily refute, and that one wished an imaginary opponent would write, so that one could have the joy of refuting it, and then the even greater joy of belittling the opponent, for having written something so obviously wrong in the first place. The player of the "straw man" game abuses a real person, just as if they were the non-existent opponent whom he longed to be able to refute and to belittle, hoping that nobody present notices that the object of his abuse has never said that ridiculous things the abuser has pretended that the abused said.
The "straw man" games makes message boards like this extremely unrewarding. I am getting fed up of it.
I suggest you look at the
I suggest you look at the rest of Lethality's posts. I think my position is more than vindicated.
You refusal to see the intention behind this law and your narrow focus on the precise wording of the law completely ignores that nature of American jurisprudence. The system here is adversarial. This law is a set up to allow people to defend creationist views or to make them appear reasonable by supposedly criticizing evolution. Your inability to grasp this nuance of intention is much more frustrating than any fallacies you claim are common on OV. It is very much like your attack on B. Nye.
"your narrow focus on the
"your narrow focus on the precise wording of the law completely ignores that nature of American jurisprudence"
Focussing narrowly upon the wording of the Louisiana Science Education Act is how I believe I discovered what utter rubbish the conspiracy theory was, that forms the content of the article, and which is centred around that act.
Courts in my country discern the intention of legislation by looking at the wording of the legislation, not by reading paranoid ramblings on the internet that make innuendos based upon which demographic groups or lobbyists would be likely to be pleased that the legislation was passed, and which disappointed. I'm not willing to dumb down my thinking, to the level that you allege that American courts deploy nowadays.
There seems to be a wide consensus that creationist views are not SCIENTIFIC, and that they therefore should NEVER be addressed in school science lessons in publicly-funded schools. That is not at all the same as claiming that creationist views are not "reasonable".
However, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that creationist views really AREN'T "reasonable". Even then, there is no rational reason for you or anybody else to fear that the academic freedom to "criticise" evolution (a word I don't remember reading in the act, by the way), whilst remaining forbidden (inter alia by section 1D of the act in question) to teach creationism in science classes, will somehow make the creationist views that it remains virtually forbidden even to mention in science classes, appear to be "reasonable".
Let's see how "reasonable" an argument you can construct for your conspiracy theory. Maybe I'll accept your argument, once I've heard it.
By what mechanism, through what intermediate stages, are you imagining that the existing "animal" (so-to-speak) - the statutory academic freedom conferred by the Louisiana Science Education Act (q.v.) - is going to be able to "evolve" into the completely different future animal represented by the picture at the beginning of the article, of the word "creationism" written in chalk on a blackboard, underneath the word "evolution" crossed out.
In the above metaphor, the wording of the act, my "narrow" focus that so annoys you, is the "DNA" of the existing species inhabiting Louisiana, which you are nervous might evolve into the monster depicted. That statutory "DNA" codes for behaviours that you should welcome, if you want children to be educated rather than merely indoctrinated. How is the act possibly going to mutate, to code for the future indoctrination of children in creationism that terrifies you, the spectre raised in this article? I don't see it yet myself. Please help me to realise the awful danger they're in, in Louisiana, by being "reasonable" with me. How is this likely to happen?
I suggest you read some case
I suggest you read some case law in the US. Try the FindLaw site. It will teach you how the law works and how intention works.
Again, your unreasonable belief that this is all just paranoia is ignoring the folks who drafted and passed this law. Sorry... you just don't seem to get it. You seem smart, but subtle points seem beyond your myopic point of view.
I get it, really I do.
I get it, really I do. Creationists have persuaded legislators to pass laws in the past, which have been found unconstitutional, leading to propaganda victories for their militant opponents. Very cleverly, in 2008, they learnt from their earlier mistakes, and persuaded legislators instead to pass a completely different law, that none of those who despise creationists can fault as to its content, leaving the objectors sounding paranoid, appearing to prefer children to indoctrinated rather than to be educated, and having to resort to ad hominem, and the traditional tactic of setting casual opponents onerous homework to do offline.
Actually, there are grounds
Actually, there are grounds to object to the law, ignoring its creationist roots. Asking children without the scientific background to know better to see "both sides of the argument" or to consider "the weaknesses" of accepted science is dishonest and unfair. Would you ask a plumber to comment on heart bypass surgery?
I think we've already covered
I think we've already covered that.
@John Allman: Your bias is
@John Allman: Your bias is showing:
"I get it, really I do. Creationists have persuaded legislators to pass laws in the past, which have been found unconstitutional, leading to propaganda victories for their militant opponents".
Chuck
Are you suggesting we
Are you suggesting we shouldn't teach evolution until it's 100% proven? Then we shouldn't teach about about black holes, or quantum mechanics or the configuration of atoms in molecules or a wide range of things. None of these are 100% proven but they are the accepted explanations of things that have been demonstrated and have considerable evidence supporting them.
If you're suggesting that we shouldn't teach something until it's 100% proven we would have to eliminate much of scientific knowledge. Of course, by your rules, we would certainly not be teaching ID, Creationism or ANY other religious BS because none of that is proven. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever supporting those religious beliefs. That's why they're religion (taught in church) and evolution is science (taught in science class).
@State of Reason: Everything
@State of Reason: Everything we know as the truth is not 100% proven, but 99.99999999999999999999999% is very strong.
Chuck
Exactly, which is why I
Exactly, which is why I accept Evolution.
I am merely remarking that
I am merely remarking that neither side is 100% proven. Yes evolution I am quite certain is right, but as of yet, we still can't PROVE creationists to be wrong...
@Lethal1ty: Are you serious
@Lethal1ty: Are you serious when you said: "We still can't prove creationist wrong".
Evolution proves creationists wrong.
Chuck
Let me guess... this web site
Let me guess... this web site needed a clown, and they hired you?
You actually think you have a grip on reality and yet you think there is no proof for God, you have no idea what your purpose for living is, nor have you a clue what happens after you die. But we are the delusional ones? Is that your act?
@ vanityofvanitys : It's
@ vanityofvanitys : It's perfectly alright to say "I don't Know , but were're working on it."
It's delusional to say we have the truth and it's Jesus.
And to be certain of the fact of heaven and hell, you do see the difference don't you?
Chuck
@vanityofvanitys : The God of
@vanityofvanitys : The God of Abraham can be proven to be false to a 99.99999999999999% certainty.
Chuck
I would very much like to see
I would very much like to see your proof....
@Lenthal1ty: The Biblical God
@Lenthal1ty:
The Biblical God is not real.
There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
The Bible is historically inaccurate , factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
Chuck
I suppose you know then huh?
I suppose you know then huh? does god talk to you?
Haven't you noticed? He
Haven't you noticed? He created mankind above the animals. We are rational creatures with the ability to reason. Apparently, you have chosen not to exercise such gifts.
My apologies that I don't
My apologies that I don't believe in your god, or whatever proof you claim you have that he exists.
The US Constitution First
The US Constitution First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This places a strong limit on what public schools can teach. They cannot teach creationist dogma because that is "an establishment of religion." This has been established law for decades. Public schools also are prohibited from exposing what a fraud Intelligent Design Creationism, or "creation science" are because that would be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof (religion)." So all that these so-called "critical thinking skills" laws are intended to do is skirt around the clear wording of the Constitution, and findings of the courts. These laws are worded by creationist organizations
Those of us who closely follow these cases know this, but it might be news to some people. I suggest reading about the current crop of anti-science laws at the National Center for Science Education http://ncseweb.org/
Section 1D of the Act clearly
Section 1D of the Act clearly states,
"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."
If the Act conflicted with the First Amendment, I dare say somebody would have successfully challenged the constitutionality of Act by now.
It is obvious Mr. Allman that
It is obvious Mr. Allman that you had not paid attention to your civics class. A case will need to be initiated at the local level by a parent or teacher. If merely being unconstitutional worried fundmentalists, these laws would never have been proposed.
I've never attended a
I've never attended a "civics" class. What's that?
Gary, have you read the Act? What is it that you find objectionable about it?
Civics is the study of the
Civics is the study of the theoretical and practical aspects of citizenship, its rights and duties; the duties of citizens to each other. (From the Wiki online dictionary)
What are our basic laws? What is the US Constitution? How do Americans partisipate in government?
We had that in the 8th grade, and again in 10th, and 12 grades in California.
You never studied civics, Mr. Allman? I think I understand why you are so uninformed about the law. Were there science classes where you went to school?
In the current situation, there is a Federal District Court that found ID creationism unconstitutional- Dover 2005. For the case to move forward to the US Supreme Court (SCOUS), either the Dover case must be appealed (which won't happen), or a different District Court must find in a similar case that teaching ID creationism is constitutional. Then the appeal is automatic. There have been public admitions by fundamentalists that they think that the SCOUS had been packed with far-right activist judges and that they might see the First Amendment itself challenged.
On what basis are you
On what basis are you accusing me of being "uninformed"? With the internet, who needs to be "informed" in advance nowadays, for purposes like the present? It took me only a minute or so to locate online the full text of the Louisiana Science Education Act. Judging by some of the comments here, quite a lot of those commenting have never read the Act.
No, I've never studied Civics. So what? I've never read the US Constitution either, or set foot in California, nor Louisiana.
I have recently read on Opposing Views of a case in which a federal court ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in publicly funded schools, which was probably the Dover case you mentioned. However, the article we're all supposed to be commenting on on the present page, isn't about the teaching of creationism in publicly funded schools, is it? So Dover's not relevant to the present discussion.
Please allow me to repeat my questions: Gary, have you read the Act? What is it that you find objectionable about it?
Mr. Allman, you wrote, "On
Mr. Allman, you wrote, "On what basis are you accusing me of being "uninformed"?"
And, then you wrote, "I've never studied Civics. So what? I've never read the US Constitution either, or set foot in California, nor Louisiana."
Thanks for that. I enjoy a good laugh.