News -> INDReporter TUE, JUN 14 11:09AM by Walter Pierce

They’re ba-ack! Creationists launch new attack on science education

Louisiana’s science community is sounding the alarm over a Louisiana Family Forum-backed (need we say more?) bill in the Legislature that would compromise oversight of textbook adoption and the use of taxpayer money in purchasing textbooks.

House Bill 580, according to the Louisiana Coalition for Science, is another “stealth creationism bill” that attempts to do an end run around the state Board of Elementary & Secondary Education’s lawful oversight of the textbook-approval process. The bill, the LCFS asserts, also expands the reach of the Louisiana Science Education Act “by removing from current law crucial protections that ensure quality science education materials.

The LCFS goes on, saying HB 580:

Replaces BESE’s power to “prescribe and adopt” textbooks and instructional materials with the power merely to “recommend.” This will gut the board’s power to protect the quality of science textbooks and learning materials. Students could end up using substandard materials that teach pseudoscience.  

Allows local school boards to adopt and purchase — at taxpayer expense — textbooks and other materials that are not on the state list, without proper screening by scientists, educators, and curriculum experts, and with no spending limits. This blank check for bogus materials comes during a severe recession when schools face stiff budget cuts and teacher layoffs.

Eliminates the Department of Education’s crucial role in (a) screening and reviewing textbooks and instructional materials to ensure their quality and (b) assuring that textbook adoption committees are composed of properly qualified members, as currently provided for under current law.

The bill will likely be heard by the Senate Education Committee on Thursday. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Frank Hoffman, R-West Monroe, made a name for himself promoting creationist “academic freedom” while serving as an assistant superintendent in Ouachita Parish a few years ago.

“HB 580 is a bad law that threatens the quality of learning materials on which Louisiana students depend at a time when they need the highest quality science education possible,” the LCFS concludes. “It is also a disaster for school budgets.”

Read an analysis of the bill here. http://lasciencecoalition.org/docs/LCFS_Analysis_HB_580_6.13.11.pdf


Walter Pierce
About the author:


Comments (39)add
...
written by Tujac , June 14, 2011 - 05:09 pm
Time to contact my legislators and ask them to oppose this bill!

Creationism/intelligent design is not science but faith and as such does not belong in the public science classroom.
...
written by Yankee Noodle , June 14, 2011 - 05:19 pm
Walter, I agree with you, evolution makes more sense but you must have a big woody on this issue. If you really want a debate, debate the existence of god. Now, religion, that's a fantasy land.
...
written by Northern Cynic , June 14, 2011 - 05:46 pm
Mr. Pierce, I would like to point out that the majority of the people who live and raise their families in Louisiana believe in creation (need we say more?) And it is that Joie de vivre that liberals enjoy and find so nice here!
...
written by JAT , June 14, 2011 - 06:10 pm
What is wrong with teaching creation. Is your science that you teach proven. Each day, new archeaological digs prove the bible correct. The information that is taught to our kids is so sub par to the rest of the world. We continue to drop the standards instead of raising them to push our kids. We do not need more scholars studying the problem. Start doing something about it. That is what is wrong with America.
...
written by Walter Pierce , June 14, 2011 - 06:38 pm
A woody, Yankee Noodle?
Please, no weiner references!
...
written by El Hefe' , June 14, 2011 - 07:12 pm
JAT, where are you getting your information on "Each day, new archeaological (sic) digs prove the bible correct."?
Are you saying that each day, an new archeological find is made? Anthropologists would be giddy to hear that. You should let them know what you know. I also do not think that any archeological find is going to "prove" that the world is only 10,000 years old, as creationists suggest.
And Northern Cynic, I think you would be the one surprised at how many people who live and raise their families in Louisiana actually see thru the fundamentalists. Believe it or not, a lot of people actually think for themselves. I think humanity decided to start questioning things after that whole "the world is flat" debacle.....
...
written by Cescante , June 14, 2011 - 08:23 pm
JAT, you do not know what you are talking about:

"Is your science that you teach proven." - What does that even mean? Scientific theories are never proven to be the absolute truth (unlike religion), they are proven to be reasonable and accepted by the scientific community by supporting evidence.

"Each day, new archeaological digs prove the bible correct." - That's precisely what we cannot teach in science class rooms: [blank 1] findings proves [blank 2] correct. In almost all real-world cases this statement can only be true if [blank 2] is a existence statement, or negating a universal quantification. Even then, the prove itself needs to be proven to be not false or accidental...and so on. No complex theory is ever absolutely correct.

"sub par to the rest of the world" - Like what? Turkey? Muslim faith dominated Middle-Eastern countries? Those are the only places in the world that embraces religious ideas more than people do in the U.S. Creationism is not even a debate in the academic arena in Japan, China, Russia, much of the E.U., it's just treated as supernatural claims and therefore - NOT SCIENCE.

And if you look down on the current quality of education of U.S., look again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Ranking_of_World_Universities.
Yes, only the VAST MAJORITY of the top 100 universities in the world are in the U.S. None of who's science departments accept creationism as scientific.
...
written by citizen , June 14, 2011 - 08:45 pm
Mr. Northern Cynic,

It has nothing to do with the people who live here or how much they enjoy life or how much you hate liberals.

The subjects found in a science classroom are things that have been proven with the scientific method. No scientist anywhere will tell you that science has all of the answers. Science only has the answers that we can prove.

If you can prove creationism is a scientific reality then you will save us all a lot of trouble. So if you could just give God a call, and ask him to come on down and answer a few questions, I'm sure we can get this all cleared up right away.

Until then, creationism belongs in a religion class. They are entirely different topics, like geology and music theory; they have nothing to do with each other. I don't see any scientists demanding that references to water being turned into wine be removed from religion class. Doesn't science deserve the same respect? In fact if you look back, you'll find the Church insisting that people believe all kinds of things that you yourself would consider ridiculous. Yea remember that whole "The world is flat" thing?

Has it occurred to you that perhaps there is a God, but the Church has it completely wrong and that Mankind doesn't have the capacity to understand how big and complex God is anyway? Maybe I'm wrong, but personally I find anyone who thinks they understand God enough to teach it in the science classroom is a bit arrogant and misguided.
...
written by The Original Northsidian , June 14, 2011 - 11:30 pm
Some religious folk can tell you how to have sex with little boys, some can tell you how to pick up hookers on Airline Highway, and some can tell you about donating 10%! But, they sure as hell can't teach anything about GOD!
...
written by Rinkelstein , June 14, 2011 - 11:33 pm
The number one reason that creationism doesn't belong in the class room is this: the people who believe that only THEIR god created everything also believe that he had a son that defied physics." It is ludicrous. They believe in miracles but they won't accept the miracle of evolution.
...
written by Bob D. , June 14, 2011 - 11:43 pm
Darwin’s theory of evolution is false. The operative word is theory. There are many scholarly papers that show this theory to be false or weak and unproven at best. Basically there has never been a series of fossils that show anything ever evolved into something different. Even Darwin in later lifer stated that without such evidence his theory had no basis. Why is this theory ingrained as fact throughout our education system? Very simple – it would mean the secular humanists who have taken American education hostage would have to give consideration to the concept of God. Truly sad that America's education system suppresses critical thinking.
...
written by Mark T. , June 15, 2011 - 01:44 am
Bob,

Please exit the right-wing religious bubble world. It's really nice out here! :)
...
written by Mark T. , June 15, 2011 - 01:50 am
You want "critical thinking"? Ok... let's scrutinize the very concept of "God" in our public schools. Let's examine the dogma of all the relgions, and see if there's any truth there. Let's remove religion's "special anti-criticism shield", and treat it just like anything else. Let the kids have a hearty chuckle over virgin births, people rising from the dead, etc., etc.
...
written by AGreenhill , June 15, 2011 - 02:35 am
Bob D. - you should try learning something about biology before giving such commentary on it. Darwin is irrelevant. Sure he pushed scientists in the right direction, but he didn't even invent the concept - he popularized it. Over the years we have found that some of Darwin's ideas were good, others off-base. With the slew of fossils and DNA analysis that came after him, we have analyzed the idea beyond any level Darwin could have imagined.

What pisses me off is people like you – people who don't care about biology or understanding the world – but are vocal about dismissing the things humanity has discovered. It's despicable and disheartening.
...
written by Rinkelstein , June 15, 2011 - 03:03 am
Yeah, because critical thinking means that a magic guy in the sky's son walked on water. And critical thinking means that a woman had a baby without a man's sperm.
...
written by Natural science software , June 15, 2011 - 01:08 pm
One customer returned The Digital Trip to The Desert ( http://www.digitalfrog.com/products/desert.html ) because it mentioned evolution. I cannot imagine how those students will cope in the real world when they are never exposed to any ideas that does not conform to the parents' rigid belief system.
...
written by EXISTENTIALIST HOMME , June 15, 2011 - 01:14 pm
In the beginning, I was not there
So, I'll be honest brief and fair
But, to believe it started with two monkeys swinging in a tree
My God, This you will have to prove to me
While some of you believe, those two monkeys did seed your nee
I ask that you explain just a few odd wonderous things to me
Wh? Is the "Sky baby blue, this should be an easy one for you
What, causes the beautiful colours of the "Rainbow's "Hues
Why, does the water in the Waterfall, fall Down
Why, is our world not square, why is our world "Round
Why, is it that so many of you can answer these things for me
You really believe, you can answer this for me, because you owe your thought process,to those two monkeys swinging in a tree.





...
written by EXISTENTIALIST HOMME , June 15, 2011 - 01:15 pm
Oh, Why is not everything, " Black or White ?
...
written by EXISTENTIALIST HOMME , June 15, 2011 - 01:20 pm
Oh, EL HEFE` is El Jefe` with a "J, God taught me this.
If there is no God , how is it that Religion came to use his existence to Rip-Off the masses....
...
written by Dr. Gary Hurd , June 15, 2011 - 01:24 pm
In the comments to Mr. Pierce's news item, several creationists have made the same old errors of fact, and reasoning that were popularly refuted decades ago.

Taking Bob D. as a fine example of the breed, he began with an assertion as if it were fact, and then confused the meaning of “theory” with “just a guess.” Darwin’s original contributions to evolutionary theory were 1) common descent, and 2) natural selection. He later added entire books adding the concepts of 3) co-evolution (1862 fertilization of orchids by insects), and 4) behavioral selection (1871 “The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex”). In each of these contributions Darwin has been demonstrated by over a century of experiment and observation to have been correct. Darwin’s ideas about the specific mechanics of heredity were entirely wrong which was not entirely surprising as he (like most of his contemporaries) missed the significance of Gregor Mendel’s research on plant genetics.
...
written by Dr. Gary Hurd , June 15, 2011 - 01:58 pm
Bob D. went on to deny that there is fossils evidence for speciation, particularly what is called “gradualism.” Paleontologist Steven Gould made a career for himself making the similar claim. Gould was not rejecting evolution, but arguing that the rate of evolutionary change was not constant. Darwin had already anticipated this, and had not himself thought that the rate of would be constant. However, we do indeed have long sequences which do show gradual transitions in morphology from one species into others. But these are best preserved in the microscopic marine organisms called foramifera, and rarely excite the public. Similarly, we have long series of aquatic snails which show centuries of tiny variations which accumulated to form new species. But, fossils are a poor substitute for directly observed living species that have undergone evolutionary transitions to new species. I have collected a list of dozens of examples from the scientific literature and posted them to “Emergence of New Species” at http://stonesnbones.blogspot.c...ecies.html

...
written by Dr. Gary Hurd , June 15, 2011 - 02:18 pm
Bob D.’s next error was, “Even Darwin in later lifer (sic) stated that without such evidence his theory had no basis.”

This is a mishmash of two creationist claims. One is based on Darwin’s statement in “The Origin of Species,” Chapter VI, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And the second “in later life” part is the echo of the “Lady Hope” fraud. Lady Hope was a British evangelist who falsely claimed, in great detail, how she attended Darwin on his deathbed in 1882, and led him to renounce science, and reconverted him to Christianity. This was a lie, as attested by Darwin’s wife Emma at the time, and later by his daughter Henrietta in 1922.

The fact is even if Darwin had come to doubt his work, it would not alter the validity of evolutionary theory in any way. The modern science of biology which Darwin contributed so much to is independently verified by observation and experiment, and not by personalities.

...
written by Now Gone , June 15, 2011 - 02:36 pm
It is interesting to see the sides on this debating PAST each other... Often, people of faith think if they can discredit Darwin as a person or his work, they can undermine evolution. But the mindset of science doesn't care about that... it just follows the facts.
...
written by Registered names aren't working for me, IND , June 15, 2011 - 02:56 pm
Put "creationism" in theology or sociology classes. Not science. I don't want my kids learning about a god, but I do want them to know about people who buy into things like that. It's important for them to know whom they can exploit, etc.
...
written by Dr. Gary Hurd , June 15, 2011 - 03:54 pm
JAT makes some slightly different errors. They began with the claim that “new archaeological (sic) digs prove the bible correct.” I doubt that JAT reads archaeological journals, but I’ll make a few suggestions. (As a personal note, I am a professional archaeologist among other things). Here is a brief, easy to read news article; Andrew Lawler, “American Schools Of Oriental Research Annual Meeting: A Change of Biblical Proportions Strikes Mideast Archaeology” (Science 10 December 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6010 pp. 1472-1473). Basically, there has been precious little science in Biblical Archaeology since the first Christian missionary excavations in the 1800s. This has changed, beginning with the first ever systematic archaeological surveys conducted in post-1967 war Israel. For two book length reviews, a “prolegomenon” of sorts, see;

Dever, William
2001 “What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know IT?: What Archaeology can tell us about the reality of ancient Israel” Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Finkelstein, Israel, Neil Silberman
2001 “The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts” New York: The Free Press

These men have quite different ideas of how the Hebrew Bible, the “Old” Testament, can be employed in archaeological understanding, and historical reconstruction of the Ancient Mideast.

Many of the place names from the Bible and been located archaeologically, and this is the most common “proof” of the Bible offered by creationists. The Harry Potter books mention many real places, such as London. Finding London on a map does not “prove” that Harry Potter was a real boy wizard. What is archaeologically certain is that the claims that “digs prove the bible correct,” are nonsense invented to sell to the fundamentalist public.
...
written by Dr. Gary Hurd , June 15, 2011 - 04:26 pm
JAT shows that they have no understanding at all of the educational trends in American public schools for the last three decades (the period my wife and I have been teachers). JAT wrote, “We continue to drop the standards instead of raising them to push our kids.”

Nothing could be farther from the truth. We have in fact raised criteria, and loaded the curriculum. Second graders in California (and most other states) are learning algebra today when 30 years ago it was just long division and fractions. The “pass” criteria for the National Assessment of Educational Achievement was just arbitrarily shifted from 50/50 to 66/33 automatically dropping ~17 percent of student scores into the “failure” range. The real truth is that selling standardized tests is annually a multibillion dollar drain on public education.

...
written by Dr. Gary Hurd , June 15, 2011 - 05:12 pm
JAT and Bob D. finally converge on what they are really after; the imposition of fundamentalist Christian religious training by the government in public schools. America’s founders knew what a religious totalitarian state was like, and they knew the power the State could use to control the population if they were allowed to claim that God ordained their rules and powers.

Sadly, the far-right seems determined to undermine, and destroy the Nation they claim to love, and so many patriots died to create. As Sinclair Lewis wrote, “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” It is up to the real patriots to stop them before they can again enslave us.
...
written by Morrow , June 15, 2011 - 08:59 pm
Just watch how those lilly-livered ho's in the state legislature sign on with this. I sure feel sorry for them that they do not have the moral fortitude to keep religion in religion classes or church and science in the classroom. They remind me of the money changers....
...
written by Morrow , June 15, 2011 - 09:08 pm
NO, NO MORE GRANDSTANDING WITH RELIGIOUS UNDERTONES - NO TEN COMMANDMENTS MONUMENT ON PUBLIC GROUNDS. People, follow the ten commandments; having them posted on grounds or in courthouses will not accomplish anything if you're not following them or teaching them to your children. First, set the example for your kids & then teach them to your kids and you will NOT need to pacify yourself by having monuments to them. You cannot force people to follow them by having them standing on a rock.
...
written by Larry H. Christ , June 15, 2011 - 09:40 pm
If Creationism was ever found to be a better explanation for the workings of biology than Natural Selection, it wouldn't need to be inserted into classrooms via legislation. Scientists WANT to use the best explanations. Unfortunately for believers, it simply isn't a very good hypothesis. Its primary claims prevent scientists from fully understanding their observations of nature.

For example, let's say a biologist is attempting understand the odd placement of the Larygeal nerve. This nerve starts at the bottom of the brain, travels down the neck and under the aorta, located in the chest, and back up the neck to connect to the larynx, not too far from where it began. This is even true for the giraffe, making for an extremely long and inefficient design. According to Creationism, this nerve was there from the beginning by purposeful design. Since God stubbornly refuses to call the biologist back to help him understand exactly why he placed the nerve in such an awkward position, the investigation must stop at simple observation.

HOWEVER, according to evolution, species change into radically different shapes over time. By looking further and further back in to the fossil record we see that there were periods of time, long before humans and giraffes existed, when the most complex creatures on the planet were fish. Now a fish's aorta and heart are located much closer to its head, resulting in a Larygeal nerve that is straight. Over time, a biologist could now infer, as species grew longer and necks began to move the brain away from the chest, the nerve could not simply reroute itself. Instead it was forced to grow longer and longer over time resulting in the strange, roundabout layout we see in modern animals.

As evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."
...
written by Dr. Gary Hurd , June 16, 2011 - 02:08 pm
Good obesrvations, Larry.
...
written by ragin_cajun , June 16, 2011 - 03:14 pm
I Agree that teaching creationism in science classrooms is ridiculous. But, judging from the complete confusion exhibited here about proof, evidence, belief, informed opinion, etc....I think that this entire debate should be taught in high school philosophy classes in the hopes that the bulk of our citizenry can learn to think clearly and critically.
...
written by Just Askin' , June 16, 2011 - 05:27 pm
If Creationism is so demonstrably false, and the theory of evolution so superior, what does an evolutionist have to fear from creationism being offered as a competing idea? Seems that the supporters of evolution do not have much confidence that their dogma, errrr, theory can prevail should their be a free exchange of ideas.... What are you guys so afraid of?
...
written by ragin_cajun , June 16, 2011 - 08:28 pm
"What are you guys so afraid of? "

Ignorance.
...
written by Dr. Gary Hurd , June 17, 2011 - 01:41 am
Just Askin'

The more substantive reason to not allow creationism to be taught in public schools is that it violates the American Constitution.

Why did the Constitution forbid the government from forcing religion on the citizens?

And, why should science teachers in public schools not be allowed to expose creationism as the fraud it is?

Both answers are behind the reason for the First Amendment.

There is also the practical feature that there is too little time to work through the standard high school biology textbook as it stands. To waste time with refuting creatocrap is to deny time for more substantive work.
...
written by Irreducibly Complex , June 17, 2011 - 08:53 pm
Using statistical probability, it is impossible for the organization of the cellular structure of a single cell to randomly and selectively and naturally form to produce a living cell. The amino acids that make up the DNA strands are all the "L" version, not a mixture of the possible "D" and "L" forms...how did that happen randomly??
God is involved, and you folks are too arrogant and afraid to consider that you may be accountable to your creator.

Who's being the bigger religious lunatic?

Belief in God doesn't automatically mean someone stops thinking and only spouts scripture. Though it seems that some of you secular humanists are spouting a lot about nothing, and must use expletives to express yourselves.


...
written by Mamabear , June 17, 2011 - 11:39 pm
My children go to s creationist school in Louisiana and we don't believe in creationism. Schools suck here and aside from the crazy religion, the rest of the education is decent. Every time they teach creationism, it reaffirms to my teens that evolution is the better theory. The creationist theory is honestly insane.
...
written by Dr. Gary Hurd , June 18, 2011 - 01:28 am
Irreducibly Complex wrote, "The amino acids that make up the DNA strands are all the "L" version, not a mixture of the possible "D" and "L" forms...how did that happen randomly?"

Here is an excellent example of why the entire creationist nonsense should be discarded. First, there are no amino acids in DNA. Second, the "handedness," properly called "Chirality," of amino acids is not really an absolute rule. Next time a creationist claims to be an "expert" and that amino acid chirality "proves" something supernatural, you can gob-smack-em. The protein is called Gramicidin A and it has 8 L-amino acids, 6 D-amino acids, and one glycine which is an amino acid that is neither L- or D- in its structure. I have found that even many biologists will bet an "adult beverage" that all proteins are exclusive L- amino acids. In addition, nearly every living critter on Earth today uses some non-chiral amino acids. Even us humans.

So "Irreducibly Complex," you might, or might not be a religious lunatic. You are definately ignorant about biology.
...
written by B. Vidrine , June 27, 2011 - 05:01 pm
I just want to say that I am proud of the majority of commenter's here. Its refreshing to see reason and logic on display, which is a lot more than can be said regarding the comments on most of the stories posted locally.
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.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it