Anti-Evolution "Academic Freedom" Bill Passed In Louisiana 898
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.'"
Anti-Evolution in other countries? (Score:2, Interesting)
We always hear about ID and anti-evolution schemes in the USA.
Can readers in other parts of the world reflect on ID-like movements in their own countries?
How evolution-denial movements fare in Europe for example?
Re:saying it is so (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, but how are they going to generate the waves of stupid people we need to continue our way of life in this country? Guess what, education leads people to stop believing in this country. The more educated you become, the more you see the fundamental flaws. The more you see through the facade of the American Dream. Of course, then they pay you a lot and you stop worrying about all that :)
All I'm saying is, if Louisiana wants to screw itself, let them. What difference does it make to a dirt farmer if he's decended from monkeys? It's just going to make him that much more depressed, and make it that much more difficult for him to get up in the morning to tend his crops. LET PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM. It's ok if someone doesn't want to know everything. Just because you do, and see the logic, does not mean other people do.
If you want to be a doctor, guess what? Medical school is not going to take credits from a biology class with creationism on the syllabus. The guy who invented the styrofoam beer can insulator probably didn't believe in evolution. Yet miraculously, somehow, this great progress was made and our beer can be kept cold.
When the framers said "church and state" et al, they weren't talking about facts. Politicians lie all fricking day. They talk like their policy hurts no one when we all know that someone is the loser in EVERY transaction, be it monetary, social or otherwise. There is no happy medium. So, maybe having a poor class with no education that believes in creationism is the way to go? And if they want to sacrifice their public education dollars in that way, let them. I won't be one of them, but if they want to, god help them.
Re:saying it is so (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just when you think... (Score:5, Interesting)
Its happening everywhere, not just in the US. What we tend to find is that in the US these things make it into the public eye more easily.
It does worry me, this trend back to a less well informed age, but like most trends, it will probably change.
After all, The US was all but ready to disregard Darwinism and much of science in education just before Sputnik flew over and freaked everyone the fuck out.
We simply need to wait for the event that will prove the error in ignoring a progressive, scientific approach to education. I just hope it won't be too harsh.
My personal opinion is that it will come in the form of drastic economic and research decline as the older (and currently poorer) nations start to evolve to fill the gaps a US withdrawal from the field will create.
This sort of thing goes on all the time, The US went into the ascendancy with its scientific thinking when Germany and Europe went into decline in the late 18th early 19th century. Now that trend is reversing, with the more interesting work tending to occur in Europe.
Not that it's end game time for the US, it's still pretty strong academically. It's just that this strength is somewhat elitist, with the level of achievement required for success now being so high that people who would formally have moved to the US to advance their careers are choosing to stay at home or go elsewhere.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:4, Interesting)
"intelligent design" is not scientific,and definitely NOT a theory. Its a philosophical construct at best, and belongs in a philosophy class.
As a Creationist, I happen to agree with you 100%.
Creation Science is built around the idea that if you start with the Bible as the source of your hypotheses, you should be able to find scientific evidence that is consistent with those hypotheses. If the evidence instead contradicts your hypothesis, then either your evidence is flawed, your interpretation of the evidence is flawed, or your interpretation of the Bible is flawed.
Intelligent Design, in contrast, does not start from the premise that the Bible is a literal historical document, because that would mean religion is involved. Instead, ID simply says that life is too complex to have evolved spontaneously on its own, therefore God must have done it. On the surface this sounds similar to Creation Science (both say God did it), but ID doesn't bring anything falsifiable to the table.
The question of whether or not God (or the FSM or space aliens) caused a particular event is not testable empirically, even if it is true. 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).
Re:Anti-Evolution in other countries? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not well in Scotland, though possibly on the rise - there were a number of smallish religious parties at the last Holyrood election. It's possible that they're on the rise, though Scotland has a history of religious parties and independents (until the 50s Scottish politics was dominated by independents, and parties tended to be religious in flavour). My 10-year old niece goes to a (public, i.e. state-funded) Catholic primary school and is well aware of evolution, though that's possibly from her parents and relatives as much as school. Certainly she's not said anything (and her parents haven't said anything) about ID at school; maybe because it's a state-funded school the fundies can't push ID?
In New Zealand ID doesn't seem that big either, though I've not been back long enough to really notice. There is a big religious party here, based round the Destiny Church, but they don't seem that extreme. I've heard their Bishop, Brian Tamaki, on TV and he seems reasonable enough - well, reasonable enough for agnostic old me.
The main churches in Europe and Australasia seem to be fairly established; the Kirk (Church of Scotland - Presbyterian) and the Catholic Church in Scotland, and the Anglicans (~Church of England - Episcopalian) and the Catholics in NZ, for example. The Church of Scotland, Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church all seem to cheerfully accept evolution. I gather ID is mainly supported (in the US) by certain smaller Protestant churches; while these churches exist in Europe and Australasia the established churches are far, far larger.
I believe NZ has more Jedis than anywhere else, however. Personally, if I had to give up my agnosticism, I'd be a Pastafarian.
Re:Topical is not selective. (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously everyone has some axe to grind even if they don't know it. Learning that things are often not what they are represented to mean is something we must all learn. Is
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite right, and not only these... (Score:5, Interesting)
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'
Right. And I'm glad we aren't limited to these, because I'd like to add my own little list:
- Government policies
- Existence of Jesus
- Development Aid
- Love to the flag
- Selective Religion
- Comparative Religion
- Nationalism
- Capitalism
- Sports as spectacle
- War on drugs
- News spinning
- Education system
I'm sure many other topics can be added, much improving general education.
Re:Anti-Evolution in other countries? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are some ID/creationism proponents in the Swedish Christian Democrat party, but they are usually silent on the issue, since they know that raising the issue will inevitably cause them to be laughed into the ground. That's what has happened those few times when one of them did that.
Intelligently designed intellectual property (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not so sure your thesis is correct (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm considered by most to be highly educated, and I still believe in the American Dream as it were, largely because I have lived it. I went from homeless to middle/upper middle class by hard work, the way it's supposed to be done. Do not confuse the fact that our Government is horribly broken with the falsehood that America is broken. The spirit is still there, despite the best efforts of Government, Media, Academia, and Law to beat us down.
Re:And here we go again (Score:1, Interesting)
yeah religion fanatics suck. Doesnt even matter which religion. As soon as people start believing that their beliefs should be applied to other people things just go horribly wrong.
Belief for yourself... as soon as you think "they must", "they can't" and so on, and so on, please2realize... it's your religion... not mine, and i dont need to be saved!
This sums it up.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:2, Interesting)
scientific critical thinking is the only way to go.
So critical thinking about the basis of the scientific method itself, and claims made for science are to be excluded from the critical thinking?
No, critical thinking has to be critical thinking, not some subset of critical thinking that exempts science from examination. Otherwise, science becomes just another religion, with claims exempt from examination.
Ethics of Belief (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No one is allowed to Question theory? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a little more complicated than that... (Score:2, Interesting)
"Why?" one might wonder... "In the end, they're talking nonsense, and I base my facts on science!"
Well... it's difficult to draw the line between "real nonsense" and "stuff that I/we believe to be nonsense". And it's very dangerous... Some people believe western medicine to be nonsense, others believe chinese medicine to be nonsense, some believe to the string theory to be nonsense... you get the picture
So, what's the simple way to disregard people talking such (to us) obvious nonsese as the ID people?
Unfortunately, there's no simple way, but what parent said is IHMO the best approach; don't attack the theory, attack the "science" part of their name. Because, fortunately, "science" is a pretty well defined term. There's a wide consensus about what's science and what's not: if it's falsifiable (i.e. if there's a way to *prove* it right or wrong, e.g. by experiment), then it's science. Else it's not.
And that is something that's difficult for ID people stand up against just by being stupid, because it is (for a change) simple enough for everybody else to understand...
And. as soon as you've reached a bright consesus that ID is *not* sicence, just count on the desire of normal people not to trust in science. They'll step away from ID simply because it's not science
(of course, if normal people choose *not* to trust in science, then you've lost and ID has won, but then you've lost anyway, because the outcome of the discussion is not a matter of arguments anymore...)
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:4, Interesting)
It's also interesting sociologically and psychologically, in that it represents of what happens when an irresistible force of scientific evidence meets the immovable object of faith.
We can test this scientifically. What happens when the Juggernaut (can't be stopped) charges into the Blob (can't be moved)?
Re:I call foul on "Anti-Evolution" headline (Score:2, Interesting)
The pivotal question here is whose money bought that law?
If it was a religious group who supports teaching creation myths along side science it's not too hard to guess which direction the focus of their next laws will be moving in.
On it's own it isn't too worrying, as real scientists will be able to use it just as much as the god botherers.
But when there are a hundred of these laws which all contradict apart from carefully selected loopholes which align to allow the rich and powerful through it may be different.
Oh, and the law is three pages.
If you didn't realize that you might not have read the part where "the parish" is given the right to create material to be taught in science classes.
Re:And here slashdotters goes again (Score:2, Interesting)
critical thinking on the origins of life and evolution aren't completely the same. You can have a belief that an all power being created life, and that evolution happened from there, and it makes them different subjects with a point in common.
Anyway, the issue with critical thinking on the origins of life is when religion is mentioned. Which religion is mentioned? All of them or none of them are the only fair options.
Leaving out any religion once you begin to mention them is giving insufficient information for proper analysis.
As a Louisiana teacher (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually read it. (Score:2, Interesting)
I just read the Act word-for-word and to me it's very vague. It's not clear to me that the intention is to knock down global warming, evolution, and cloning. Of course, given the vagueness of the article it is a possibility.
The key words used are "critique" and "critical thinking". So it depends on which definition you use for these words.
Critique could mean anything from "evaluate something critically" or simply to "evaluate and review".
I understand the knee-jerk reaction to immediately be on the defensive and bash the Act, but it could be a stepping stone to officially include the discussion and topic of global warming, cloning, and evolution into the classroom. Then, once introduced the kids will be exposed to the subjects and be able make their own decisions.
Yes, at the worst the subjects will be painted in the worse possible light, but kids aren't idiots and they will discuss the topics amongst themselves and hopefully will be aware that there are two sides to the topics.
We've all been through public schools and I'd like to think that the entire community (including us /.ers) are not brainwashed monkeys believing whatever we read just because it's in print.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm... Have the folks at Wiki put in code that stops an article on the Bible from citing itself as the source?
Re:And here we go again (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a Good Thing(tm).
i.e. you got it backwards. it's 2 steps forwards no steps back.
If the US government was mandating NON science in classrooms, this law would be heralded as progressive and moreover, PRO-SCIENCE. Yes it can be abused (as many laws are and it will be in some cases). The assumption that scientific material on nearly any subject is both widely available and beyond reproach, in classification, is a relatively new occurrence and not an altogether permanent situation. Being able to question your source material in a classroom, openly, is SUPER important to teachers with students who both have access to a wealth of realtime information that may prove "approved" curriculum, false. As it is now, in the US, this situation leads to ridiculous instances of "old school thought" being taught as the only "school of thought". Again, it's ironic that this will be used to do the reverse but not invalidating the importance of the law.
Re:No one is allowed to Question theory? (Score:3, Interesting)
I would like to see teachings on both sides
Wait, wait - what "both sides"?
In science lessons, science should be taught. In some cases there might be more than one scientific viewpoint, but this is not the case when it comes to explaining the diversity of life on this planet.
Religion is a necessary part of any culture as is science and learning. Whether you accept it or not religion does play a big part in keeping civilizations civil in most cases.
So teach about it in religious education and history lessons then, as appropriate. That's an entirely separate issue, and even the most "militant" atheists do not oppose that (and many are actively in favour of teach about religion, in the appropriate classes). The "atheists want to ban all mention of religion from all teaching" is a common straw man argument that seems to have little basis to it.
Re:I actually read it. (Score:1, Interesting)
I just read the Act word-for-word and to me it's very vague. It's not clear to me that the intention is to knock down global warming, evolution, and cloning. Of course, given the vagueness of the article it is a possibility.
The key words used are "critique" and "critical thinking". So it depends on which definition you use for these words.
Critique could mean anything from "evaluate something critically" or simply to "evaluate and review".
I understand the knee-jerk reaction to immediately be on the defensive and bash the Act, but it could be a stepping stone to officially include the discussion and topic of global warming, cloning, and evolution into the classroom. Then, once introduced the kids will be exposed to the subjects and be able make their own decisions.
Yes, at the worst the subjects will be painted in the worse possible light, but kids aren't idiots and they will discuss the topics amongst themselves and hopefully will be aware that there are two sides to the topics.
We've all been through public schools and I'd like to think that the entire community (including us /.ers) are not brainwashed monkeys believing whatever we read just because it's in print.
Thank you. I grew up in Louisiana and went through public school 24+ years ago. In those days, if you questioned what was written in the textbook, or came up with questions the textbook had not addressed, or solved a math problem by a method not outlined in the textbook, you went straight to detention or the Principal's office, depending on how subversive your contra-textbook thought crimes were.
I have one son in the 11th grade @ a private school - he is allowed and encouraged to think critically. I have a stepson in the 5th grade (public school) who is a Mensan, and every time I go to his school it reminds me of Orwell's Oceania. We are fixing to get him out of that hellhole.
Re:And what of 'religious freedom' (Score:2, Interesting)
The link is screaming an implied 'christian argument'. Also some christians seem to be set on blurring the lines between moral and 'spritual' 'arguments' and scientific arguments. There is nothing, I'm aware of, currently stopping anyone teaching the real and important facets of the complex global warming debate, some undermining the sky falling take, some bolstering it.
in short, what are the scientific arguments against these concepts? Scientifically is evolution, the mean global temprature or cloning in ANY doubt, apart from in the minds of the religious right. Note I acknowledge and draw attention to your ethical point. Teach ethics PLEASE! But don't teach it as science.
Re:And here we go again (Score:5, Interesting)
The hole here is people who honestly and truly believe that evidence from a 3000 year old book (often poorly translated and frequently edited by various Powers that Be) trump evidence gathered by observation. These people take a conclusion: "The Bible is right", and go out to find evidence to support the conclusion. Totally the opposite of the scientific method but enough to be convincing to other people already predisposed to believing the original premise.
The point is that to a Biblical literalist there is no difference between science and religion. If a current scientific model contradicts what they believe happened according to the Bible, then the science is a) in conflict with their religion, and b) wrong. Not just wrong in a "Gee, I think this is guy is wrong, but I'll just ignore him and do my own thing" sort of way. Wrong in a "This man and the entire establishment that created him are evil, and must be fought at every turn" sort of way.
Compromise of the type you talk about here is reasonable, perhaps even sensible. It won't work. You can't separate religion from science in the minds of people who really believe in creationism. That's the essential problem, you can't separate anything from religion in their minds. The Bible is not a book of tales intended to teach moral lessons and instruct people in how to behave in order to receive God's blessing. It's a 100% factually accurate text handed to mankind literally by God, and it is THE authority on matter as diverse as moral judgment, scientific fact and historical events. It even tells the future! Whoo hoo.
On a side note, I swear if the Lafayette School Board makes these "supplements" available in there schools I will make it my mission to visit every biology class in the Parish to point out how every point is stupid. Except of course that it's probably illegal for me to do that.
Re:And what of 'religious freedom' (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem with sharing the views of the wackos is it obscures the truth. How many people do you know who still believe there's scientific controversy around global warming? It's just people shouting "No! No! No!" without any scientific backing who've given doubt to the whole concept. If your science isn't valid (evidence driven, scientific method), it doesn't belong in the classroom.
Time to teach the controversy... (Score:4, Interesting)
...in other ways. See this set of T shirts, [wearscience.com] which would be appropriate to any such lessons on "intelligent design."
Re:And here we go again (Score:2, Interesting)
Gosh, so many elements of stupidity here, but let's just go with a single thought experiment: what more effective response to Hitler would the poster have proposed?
Or would he prefer to live in a nation that enjoyed a capitalist accommodation to Hitler, as Henry Ford favored? (Check it out: the pre-Nazi German government protested Ford's financing of Hitler.) Yeah, let's talk about Ford's expertise in assembly-line efficiency combined with a mutual anti-Semitism. That'd be a great US to live in! And think of the efficiency in removing all the degenerate Jews, Gypsies, mental defectives, artists, and other such trash!
Not all Christians support this law (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically what "alternative explanations" can there possibly be that are non-religious? This is the question that law supporters refuse to address. Sure teach ID or creationism or "God did through evolution" or... *but not in a public school classroom*. Why do Christians want to coopt the power of the State in order to advance (a probably warped notion of) Christian mission?
I object to the law also because it is so dishonest. Supporters know exactly what it is supposed to achieve, and all this "academic freedom" and "critical inquiry" rhetoric is a smokescreen.
Re:And here we go again (Score:3, Interesting)
Cool!
Let me be the first to offer my services to help develop a program for Louisiana's teachers and principles to improve students' critical thinking skills. I'll be more than happy to show how science is rigorously tested and reviewed and how much is required to have a hypothesis become a theory. Then I'll show how none of that applies to the mythology du jour of the various students. After a while maybe we can teach critical thinking and get rid of religion altogether. Personally, I think it oversteps the bounds of government to specifically teach children to reject their religion but I'll be glad to help them in this case anyway.
Re:To the AGW deniers (Score:3, Interesting)
But all you just did was link to a book report by authors who only claim some type of conspiracy.
Of course that's not all I did.
I went through that whole page you linked to, link by link, and practically none of the conclusions leaped to by NewScientist were backed up with peer-reviewed anything. There were buried links to actual research (i.e. none of the links on your first page, and a small minority of the links on the linked pages), but they were sidelines, not support for NewScientist's theories.
Paragraph after paragraph, I showed how they made claims which they immediately contradicted, set up straw-men and barely were able to shoot them down, and performed all the kinds of wild leaps they accuse their hypothetical adversaries of.
You told me you'd given me a link to a "many articles and many peer-reviewed research sources." Strictly speaking, you were right, but the impression you gave was different that what was on the link. The link wasn't science review, or logical conclusions following research. It was opinion editorials with tangential mentions of non-supporting research.
Please note, that I haven't claimed that NewScientist's conclusions are wrong. Thus I my conclusion needs no evidence that NS is wrong. I have only claimed they're biased and unscientific. You ask me to support my conclusion. I have. My conclusion (stated in the gggp?) was that NewScientist is biased. My support is NewScientist itself. If you see their conclusions as unbiased and scientific, rather than sensational editorializing, please show me how. Because what you gave me doesn't work.