La.'s Creationism 'junk science' law nearing implementation
The state's Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will take up further debate over how and to what extent Louisiana's science curriculum in public middle schools and high schools will be invaded by the "junk science" of creationism. The Advocate reported last week that these new guidelines to be set by the board could be finalized by this Thursday.
For many of us interested and active in economic development and hopeful in a newly resurgent Louisiana — fresh from a (more or less) successful effort to reform its image as the corruption capital of the U.S. — this is not good news. It can’t be good news either for Secretary of Economic Development Stephen Moret who already has a difficult enough burden to attract the nation’s new technology-based entrepreneurs and their companies populated with some of the best and brightest talent. But his task will clearly be made much harder by this educationally regressive new law. Highly educated young professionals coming out of America’s top schools are not likely to cotton to the idea that their kids will be placed in public schools teaching this thoroughly discredited pseudo-science.
Why do we insist on Louisiana remaining the butt of Jay Leno’s monologue jokes? Aside from our reputation as one of the most corrupt in the nation (Illinois notwithstanding), we hold another dubious, perennial distinction: one of the nation’s most illiterate states. This attempt to pollute the teaching of science in our public schools with religious dogma does more long-term damage to ourselves than all the painful headlines about Edwin Edwards, David Duke or “Dollar” Bill Jefferson combined, because the damage is far more lasting. Is this the message of educational ignorance that we want to send prospective employers considering locating or relocating to Louisiana?
Ironically, as Gov. Bobby Jindal (who signed this dog of a bill into law) said, “We have to compete based on a skilled work force. We have to compete with states all over the country. We have to compete with countries all over the world." Indeed we do. And corrupting our science curricula with 19th century “science” does not do the least bit of good for Louisiana’s economic development future or our children’s ability to compete in a very competitive world. Gov. Jindal and our legislators lacked the will or the wisdom to kill this bill before it became law; now the only barricade standing between our kids and this discredited religious dogma masquerading as science is the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. BESE needs to hear from you that this is a very bad idea.
Complete lack of objectivity here written by Jay Bienvenu , January 12, 2009 - 06:09 pm
This article gets an F for its complete lack of objectivity and blatant attack on the faith of the people of Louisiana. It's Steve May, not BESE, who needs to be heard from.
Objectivity is the point here! written by Daniel Zimmerman , January 13, 2009 - 06:14 am
We need people in charge of our educational system whose only goal is to remain objective when it comes to the quality of the education of our children. Those who push for creationism in the science classroom are not people who are being objective. These are people that want to push their faith, their religious beliefs, on others who may or may not share their view.
Look, I personally believe in God. I don't need a science classroom to teach other people's children what I believe. And that is what it basically boils down to. These people's children will already be exposed to the belief that God created the universe. So the only reason to suggest that schools should promote that idea is to push the idea on the children of other people. Such use of our educational system is an abuse and should not be tolerated. And these people who push for creationism do so under the guise that they want to glorify God. In reality, these people are using God to promote themselves.
Creationism is not "junk science" written by Neil Thomas , January 14, 2009 - 03:01 am
The viewpoint that evolution is the only scientific method of explaining life is improper. The idea that intellectuals believe in evolution and only dolts accept creationsism is misguided. For purposes of education, both can be taught without introducing religion into the classrooms. Creationism is but an alternate theory. Both evolution and creation are theories, with neither theory confirmed as an absolute scientific fact. Be mindful that Bobby Jindal is a Rhodes scholar with an advanced degree in Biology. All religions explain the universe through creation. Thus, no one religion is being advanced for purposes of academic discussion in the classroom.
... written by Steve May , January 14, 2009 - 02:37 pm
To the author of the comment that "the viewpoint that evolution is the only scientific method of explaining life is improper," I offer this: I understand that there are individuals, including some scientists, who agree with your comment. But among those whose professional scientific opinions are held in highest esteem by the vast majority of their fellow scientists, this is no longer a topic for debate. The evolution debate was long ago resolved in circles of serious scientific discussion. No doubt the denial will continue to go on elsewhere, as it has for years, among the lesser informed.
French in the English Classroom? written by Andre Dupre , January 16, 2009 - 01:49 am
The main problem I see with the arguments from many proponents of intelligent design is that many of them tend to believe that evolution and ID reveal some sort of dichotomy. ID isn't the "other side of the story." Intelligent design is in no way an opposite or adversary to evolution; if Christian-based creationism is taught in the science classroom, then shouldn't the Hindu creation story veiled with scientific language also be taught, you know, to get "both sides?" It would go on until science teachers identified better with ancient religious historians than with other scientists, and had to regurgitate a textbook-modified "scientific" version of every creation myth in history.
Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory simply because it presents no testable data. Ask a physicist to measure the speed in which Zeus smites a sinner. ID shouldn't be taught in the science classroom for the same exact self-explicable reason that French shouldn't be taught in the English classroom.
Let's not forget that there are holes in the Theory of Evolution, but they continue to be closed with further research and free inquiry--not a quick creationist patch-up. For a concept to become a theory is a great scientific feat, not a reason to denounce it as "just a theory." My respectable Darwinist high-school Biology teacher never said or implied that God doesn't exist, and no science teacher would do so in their right mind, even if that's what they believe. It's certainly not their job to teach "junk science," so let's respect them and make no such demand.
... written by Barbara Forrest , January 16, 2009 - 08:22 pm
To the gentleman who said ââ?¬Å?The viewpoint that evolution is the only scientific method of explaining life is improperââ?¬Â: Evolution explains how organisms have changed during 3.5 billion years of lifeââ?¬â?¢s history on Earth. There is no other scientific explanation. People who reject that are not ââ?¬Å?dolts.ââ?¬Â They are mistaken. Either they donââ?¬â?¢t understand the science or they subordinate scientific facts to their religious beliefs. Creationism isnââ?¬â?¢t a scientific alternative; it isnââ?¬â?¢t science at all. Itââ?¬â?¢s a religious belief to which people are entitled under the Constitution. But that doesnââ?¬â?¢t make it correct and certainly doesnââ?¬â?¢t extend to using other peopleââ?¬â?¢s children in public schools to advance that belief. Bobby Jindal has an undergraduate, not an advanced, biology degree. His degree is from one of Americaââ?¬â?¢s finest schools, and Jindal knows better. He has subordinated the scientific facts to both his religious beliefs and his political ambitions. As for the gentlemanââ?¬â?¢s last two statements: they prove my point ââ?¬â? creationism is religion. But freedom of religion does not equal scientific accuracy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.
There will soon be a whole lot of shakin’ going on at Benny’s Sportshack Supplement Depot, a new concept by Opelousas native Benny Nele. Located at 2002 Johnston St., the supplement shop, smoothie bar and café, featuring hot off the press paninis and wraps, plans to open in late May.
Philip deMahy Sr., a once respected New Iberia ad exec, was sentenced May 2 to spend the next two years (he faced up to 100 years) in a state penitentiary after state and federal investigators found dozens of images depicting children engaged in lewd sexual acts on his personal computer.
This year’s Cool Town issue is all about people who are not native to South Louisiana but made a conscious decision to be here, to be among us, to participate in our culture and contribute to it.
A shelved ordinance transferring $200,000 from a northside drainage project to a south Lafayette development may not break any laws, but it stinks to high heaven.
An effort to restore a shuttered dancehall and document other vacant or razed honky-tonks could serve as a model for saving an endangered species of entertainment.
Lafayette’s gene pool has been host to a long line of eccentric characters who have blurred the lines between crazy, genius, disturbed and curiously entertaining.
Subscribe to this comment's feed