Slashdot Mirror


Louisiana, Intelligent Design, and Science Classes

rollcall writes "The Livingston, Louisiana public school district is considering introducing intelligent design into its science curriculum. During the board's meeting Thursday, several board members expressed an interest in the teaching of creationism. 'Benton said that under provisions of the Science Education Act enacted last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she termed "critical thinking and creationism" in science classes. Board Member David Tate quickly responded: "We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this School Board believe in creationism. Why can't we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?" Fellow board member Clint Mitchell responded, "I agree...you don't have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution. Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom."'"

21 of 989 comments (clear)

  1. African American person evolve from white person? by nacturation · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  2. They certainly don't know science. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Creationism should not be taught in a SCIENCE class because it is not science. There is no way to falsify any of its claims.

    1. Re:They certainly don't know science. by samkass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll assume you meant there's no way to prove any of its claims. The same is true for vertical evolution.

      No, he meant falsify. If we started finding fossils that suddenly changed from one type of animal to another in a single generation, or fossils where the exact same collection of species are stagnant all the way back to the beginning of time, or even where identical complex features suddenly appeared in many species separated by a wide distance simultaneously... or if we weren't able to reproduce selective breeding or specification in the lab... or if no bacteria ever developed resistance to antibiotics... or if genetic tests on existing fossils hadn't shown genetic drift tempered by survivability in an environment...

      These types of observations would start to falsify the theory of evolution. The theory would have to change to accommodate them.

      There is no way to falsify creationism. Any observation anyone makes can simply be explained by "God made it that way." There is no way to refute it with evidence-- it is a belief-based system that depends on supreme being instead of natural processes.

      Thus, not science.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    2. Re:They certainly don't know science. by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, a lot of creationists' claims are falsifiable. They make arguments about geology, fossils, isotope dating etc. can that can be readily compared to reality. Trouble is they've all been thoroughly disproven, leading to a purely theological fallback position ("it's just made to look that way by God!") which is unfalsifiable.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  3. Let them?! by mc1138 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I still can't get over that he said "We let them teach evolution to our children..." as though this is some sort of compromise with liberals or something...

    1. Re:Let them?! by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      fighting the losing fight will improve his future political prospects."

      Ding ding ding, we have a winner. 9 out of 10 times, this is what is behind politicians trying to pass illegal laws. These are not stupid people, they know that it will get struck down, but they get free publicity and get a huge boost to their political visibility via public funds. It is a great way around having to spend private money on political aspirations.

  4. Creationism is Philosophy, not Science! by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you want to teach Creationism in school, then place the curriculum in a philosophy class, or Religion class if so desired. Keep it far, far away from Biology class.

    --
    THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
  5. Yes, please. by batquux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "you don't have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution."

    Please do. I'd like to hear them. We're waiting... all ears... go ahead... hello?

    1. Re:Yes, please. by IICV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have a hard time pointing out when the trickling sand in the bottom of an hour glass evolves from a pile into a heap, but that's not the sand's fault - we just don't have a good enough definition of "pile" and "heap", and honestly the sand doesn't care either way about that.

      The same thing for speciation (which is what you're talking about, not evolution in general) - it doesn't actually exist, it's just some label we've applied to various animals. It's not evolution's fault that we can't define a "species" well enough to tell when a group of animals switches from one to the other - it's a poorly defined concept we made up.

  6. Re:Just go to a religious school already by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What your tax dollars (if your from Louisianna) will be spent on is the inevitable court case brought on by the ACLU, the inevitable defeat, and the inevitable payout of taxpayer's money to settle.

    As Mark Twain famously said "God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board."

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  7. It's also nonscience because it leads nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's also nonscience because it leads nowhere. It merely says at some point "there's no point looking for why here" and that ends science.

    Science is the eternal curious ape asking "why's that, then?". As soon as you put in "irreducible complexity" you've closed off science.

    Because this is actually an attempt to end science for all. Religion has been cut back further and further, from being the reason why lions eat people, lightning strikes and illness happens. Now we know that lions are independent creatures that eat meat, lightning strikes are caused by electrical buildup in the clouds and that illnesses are caused by little organisms.

    Every time science answers a question "why's that, then?" god gets a little slimmer.

    And this is an attempt to kill science once and for all.

    1. Re:It's also nonscience because it leads nowhere by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My tax dollars should not be spent on indoctrinating kids into any cults or other magical thinking societies. You folks already get tax breaks on your fantasy, what more do you really think you should get?

  8. Nope. by khasim · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'll assume you meant there's no way to prove any of its claims. The same is true for vertical evolution.

    Nope. I mean that there is no way to set up an experiment to show that its claims are false.

    And you're going to have to define "vertical evolution" if you want to start making claims about it.

  9. Re:Just go to a religious school already by AndersOSU · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know maybe that's the tact reality based people ought to be taking.

    "Dear School board,
      I don't want my tax money going to the ACLU and I know you definitely don't want tax money going to the ACLU, therefore, for the sake of fiscal conservatism and the love of all that's good and holy, don't push creationism. We all believe in the his noodley-ness here, but we'd rather take care of teaching our kids in Sunday school than getting slapped down for the hundredth time by those damned liberal activist judges. Let's make a deal. After Sarah Palin appoints Scalia Jr. as justice Breyer's replacement then we'll try again, but in the meantime, but we're just wasting our time and money while the Court is made up of godless commies."

  10. Re:This is clearly a hoax by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    We already paid good money to relocate a good chunk of their population to Houston. Now we're paying to scrub their damned pelicans.

    What more do you want?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  11. Re:Get the government out of schools by sarhjinian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Other western nations have more government involvement in schools and don't see any of this nonsense. This is, if anything, the result of too little government involvement, especially at a high level: education, instead of being handled by professionals at a high level, is administered by local curtain twitchers with an agenda and little else.

    This is what happens when you let populism stomp all over everything, and it's going to get worse as opportunistic politicians try to wield populist ignorance for their own end.

    --
    --srj/mmv
  12. Re:teaching ID without knowing it by smurfsurf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I went to a high school in Germany that was funded and run by the catholic church. But for a school (and their diploma) to be officially recognised, the curriculum has to be accepted by a expert board in the ministry of education.

    So there was no teaching or mentioning of Creationism and the likes in biology. And even in religion classes, this was not a topic at all. No teacher and no parent would even entertain that notion. I was born in Poland and my parents are deeply religious and they would not think about that. The push to creationism in the US leaves me astonished and in disbelieve. It is mental.

    Aside: Although the catholic religion classes were mostly just that, you were not grated on your faith or being able to cite the bible at all. It was about interpretation, comparison of the books of the new testament etc. We even had a fairly objective study about other religions (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism), their history, their believes and customs. And even as it is a catholic school, we had about 40% evangelical christians, who had their own religion classes, and a few muslims, whose parents choose the school for its education quality and good standing.

  13. Re:Michael Behe is at the root of their advantage. by canajin56 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't call it a theory. "Irreducible complexity" is a demonstrably false hypothesis, not a theory. At any rate, his argument is basically "I can't see how this could evolve in steps, and as I am omniscient and omnipotent, that is proof of its impossibility, QED." At any rate, his implicit assumption that he's all knowing and all seeing is also easily refuted. He claims that there is a spider that shows irreducible complexity. However, it's easy to show steps how this spider could have evolved from a similar spider without ever being at a disadvantage, even though according to Behe, every single component is useless alone, and the spider is useless without all of them. Just utterly false. Irreducible complexity can also be shot down via Reducto Ad Absurdum. An arch is made of arch stones, and a keystone. Without the keystone, the entire arch collapses. Without the rest of the arch in place, the keystone cannot be placed. Therefore, one cannot build an arch, as it requires both parts to exist, and neither part can be placed without the other already in place.

    He also likes the mousetrap example. (Even though the mousetrap is designed). He says the current spring loaded wire mousetrap is irreducibly complex because without any of its components, it doesn't function. This is trivial to show as wrong: Start with a basic cartoon mousetrap. A box with a piece of cheese in it, and a stick on the cheese holding the box up. Flaws? The mouse can shift the box and perhaps escape. Solution: Hinge one edge so it is harder to shift the box. Next Flaw: It takes a lot of eating for the stick to fall, closing the trap. Solution: connect the stick to a latch, and place the bait on a pressure plate that will release the latch at a very light touch. Next Flaw: You can't move the trap because its bolted to the floor. Solution: Create a baseboard and hinge the lid to the base, not the floor. Next Flaw: It's still somewhat possible for the mouse to lift the box and escape underneath. Solution: Spring load the hinge so it closes with more force, and remains closed. Next Flaw: The mouse, being a rodent, can chew its way through the wooden box. Solution: Make the box out of metal. Next Flaw: When releasing mice into your field, they tend to head right back into your house for all the free grain. Solution: Remove the edges of the metal box except the hinged edge. This will strike the mouse with the force of the spring. Next Flaw: The sheet of metal distributes the force evenly over the mouse. A fair number survive, maimed and possibly trapped. You need to put them down yourself, and sometimes they escape and die in the wall. Solution: Replace the metal sheet with a metal wire so the force is focused on one point of their neck. And there you have it. You went from a primitive trap to a modern trap. Each step improved the efficiency of the design. Saying "A mousetrap needs the plate, the latch, the spring, the base, and the wire, and without any it is not functional" is true, but beside the point.

    With no exceptions, "irreducibly complex" bullshit that Behe has come up with can be shown to be reducible. And besides which, by asserting that all changes need to be beneficial, he's showing he knows nothing at all about evolution. Changes need only be not-highly-disadvantageous. They not only don't even need to be helpful, they can even be slightly harmful if it doesn't impact the creature TOO much.

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  14. Re:This is clearly a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think they should be allowed to teach "Intelligent Design" after they explain where their hypothesized Intelligent Designer was intelligently designed --their entire point, after all, is the claim that the complexity of life and intelligence is beyond the abilities of evolution to accomplish. Therefore, since their proposed Intelligent Designer is by-definition intelligent and complex....

  15. Re:This is clearly a hoax by couchslug · · Score: 5, Funny

    "What more do you want?"

    Our mistake. Drown the thugs and send the pelicans to Houston.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  16. Re:This is clearly a hoax by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If God does exist, and he created the universe, science would be the method us humans use to test, document, and explain the universe.

    It's akward because when [Abrahamic Holy Book] was written, science as we know it didn't exist and the writers attributed everything to God.
    Things go from "akward" to "my head hurts" when fundies insist that [Abrahamic Holy Book] is perfect and cannot be wrong.

    Hence the ongoing troubles with Bible Literalists sitting on schoolboards and pushing Creationism.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!