Anti-Evolution "Academic Freedom" Bill Passed In Louisiana

Ars Technica is running a story about recently enacted legislation in Louisiana which will allow school board officials to "approve supplemental classroom materials specifically for the critique of scientific theories" such as evolution and global warming. The full text of the Act (PDF) is also available. Quoting: "The text of the [Louisiana Science Education Act] suggests that it's intended to foster critical thinking, calling on the state Board of Education to '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.' Unfortunately, it's remarkably selective in its suggestion of topics that need critical thinking, as it cites scientific subjects 'including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.'"

Comments

Weren't schools were supposed to do that already ?

[AftanGustur]

At least where I went to school, we were tought a thing, then that it didn't apply to all cases, we were encouraged to find other ways to solve things.

I even learned that common sense is often wrong.

The key point is that schools should teach people how to filter out bullshit, and scientific critical thinking is the only way to go. And there is absolutely nothing scientific about the "intelligent design" theory.

To the AGW deniers

[statemachine]

STOP!

For the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) deniers, start here:
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
It links to many articles and many peer-reviewed research sources.

If you simply just say something like "no, it doesn't have evidence" or say something that the above link disproves, (and apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) you just MIGHT be a troll.

If you read the articles and are damned sure, cite your sources. And they better link to peer-reviewed research that supports the premise. Or we will taunt you a second time...

Carry on.

Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread

[Anonymous Coward]

Creation Science doesn't try to test God's involvement, only the actual physical events described in the Bible (for example, that there was a global Flood around 2,000 BC or so that wiped out all humans and animals that couldn't fit in a really big boat). It doesn't look at whether the events described in Genesis were really caused by God, only whether or not they occurred as described (and the mechanics behind how they occurred).

And this is precisely why it isn't science. Creationism says "God did it" without any way to test it. The conclusion is pre-determined. I know you realize that it isn't science, but I still shudder when I hear people call it "Creation Science? ID is creation science. They're not just similar, they're the same thing. Intelligent Design is just a different name.

If you recall the book that stirred controversy and went to the supreme court Of Pandas and People was originally a creation "science" book, but when the 1987 ruling that banned the teaching of creation science, Pandas was edited, replacing all instances of "Creation" with "Intelligent Design." The concepts are exactly the same, the arguments are exactly the same. Even though Intelligent Design does replace the Judeo-Christian God with a "fill in the blanks with whatever you want to believe" entity, the people pushing it are the same people that pushed creationism.

Re:religion and evolution

[Epeeist]

Very very small mountains. More like molehills, compared to what we should have been able to find by now. What we have been unable to find is far more telling than what we have found. And given past indiscretions, it's difficult to see any current evidence as particularly trustworthy.

Piltdown man was suspicious from the start (see Miller's letter from 1915) and was debunked in 1953. A 50 year old fake hardly helps your case.

And as for evidence - have a glance at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ I think you might find a fair amount there. And a nice simple example can be found here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

Radio-carbon dating is less accurate than using a random-number generator. It relies on far too many assumptions. There are other dating methods that are more likely to be close to the truth, although none of them have a particularly good track record.

How about dendrochronology, varves, ice cores, coral banding, thermoluminescence etc. Care to tell us why all these are wrong? And why they are all wrong by the same amount?

I can show you gravity in action, to your face, on video, and to crowds. Evolutionary theory is based on guesses and unproven scientific methods (such as radio dating), and fossil "evidence", which is circumstantial at best.

I can show you evolution in action too, look at Google Scholar for the origin of Spartina Anglica. I can point even more close to home - why do you think I need a new flu shot every year?

Oh, nice conflation of "evolution" and "theory of evolution" by the way.

Re:And here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest problem with all these idiots is that they don't know what the world theory means.

All theses right wing religious people try to play off that the word 'theory' means the same thing as a 'guess'. Thats simply not the case

(n) theory; a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.

Gravity is a theory for fucks sakes, nobody questions why we stick to the surface of the planet! Evolution is under attack because it directly contradicts the Christian's creation myth, where as god was remarkably silent on topics like why we don't float off the planet.

I'm continually stunned on how bullshit laws like this keep popping up in a society that spells out a specific separation of church and state. Don't get me wrong, teach your creation myth all you want, but do it in a religious studies class, not a science class.

And for the record yes I'd stop calling it a myth if any evidence to the contrary was brought forward.