The Louisiana Coalition for Science demonstrates how those duplicitous “Family” organizations just can’t keep their stories straight, especially when the Discovery Institute is involved, too. The cracks in the “oh, but it’s not about religion … it’s about critical thinking” facade concerning the deceptively-named academic freedom bills had started to show right here in Florida (FCS documented it here.) That was just the beginning, though, as the Louisiana folks have discovered.
The discrepancies in the public statements of the proponents of this year’s “academic freedom†legislation highlight once again the dishonesty that is inherent to the promotion of creationism as merely “good science†and “critical thinking.†Clearly, the bill’s promoters themselves need a crash course in critical thinking, not to mention ethics.
See? What did I tell you about organizations with “Family” in their names? It’s “family” equates to “religious, moralizing, dishonest assholes who want to legislate their own version of morality for the good of the chiiiiiilllldreeeeeeeeeen”. Jerks.
I reeeaaaally want this to go to the Supreme Court.
No No No. Teh creationists is smart!
I donno … I trust those fine folks. I believe that they’re finally gonna get some good science teaching in Louisiana. (Of course, I’m defining “good science” to include Noah’s Ark.)
I went to Ken Miller’s lecture in Newton, MA this past Tuesday (got my copy of Only a Theory signed) and he had a slide discussing the LA bill. He predicted that it would lead to a court case sooner rather than later.
I agree with Miller. It probably will come up fairly soon. When school starts, there will be some teachers eager to start handing out, or at least teaching from their favorite “supplementary materials.” There are rational parents who will have their kids all primed to be alert to such events.
The first suit will get filed before Christmas. It may take that long only because the subject of evolution probably won’t come up on the first day of school.
How come the fact that ID supporters are religious is a big deal, and yet the atheism of Barbara Forrest…she is active in atheist groups in Louisiana… and others is never metioned?
So religion is behind it…that does not make it false by default.
Just as atheism does not make it true by default.
Who ya kiddiin? Both sides have their agendas.
Christensen Says:
Right, that doesn’t make it false. But it’s unconstitutional to teach religious doctrine in state-run schools.
ID does not qualify as science since it depends on supernatural causation. Like earlier forms of creationism, it attempts to find weaknesses in evolution without presenting a single piece of data supporting ID in the scientific literature. To present a concept that has no data to back it up as science is utterly dishonest, and, furthermore, there is no secular reason for it (see the Supreme Court’s Lemon Test). So yes, both sides have their agendas: ID tries to force nonscientific dogma into public schools, and scientists and other advocates for science (including both religious and non-religious people) try to protect science instruction from this incursion.
Yeah Christensen, I want my son to learn science in science class. That’s my agenda. I can teach him about religion at home.
OT-sorry … fc – is Favre coming to Tampa?
Atheism, regardless of whether you view it as a “faith” in itself or not, has nothing to do with the context of what is being debated. If there were an “Atheist Agenda” behind evolution, then every lesson on evolution would end with some variation of “and class, that’s why there is no such thing as God.” If this were the case, I’d be petitioning to have this warped, twisted, and not to mention, very unscientific version of evolution removed from the classroom. The problem here, is that not only the ID/creationist proponents are motivated by religion, the “alternative theory” they are proposing is based on their religious teachings, not to mention a paper trail that clearly outlines their religious motives behind the very wording of ID. The difference here is that evolution is scientific theory, while ID is a reworded version of creationism with a paper trail to prove it.
If you want to consider evolution as part of some atheist agenda just because a few of its promoters happen to be atheists, then what of the many supporters of evolution who are Christian? Based on this logic, could evolution be part of a Christian agenda as well?
Ken Miller, referred to by some of the posters, reports in his book Finding Darwins God, that “atheism is endemic in academic life.”
So, to Scott and others I say that I too want my kids to learn science in science classes. And I don’t want religion denigrated in ANY classes; just as the law does not allow the establishment of religion, it does not allow restriction on the free exercise thereof.
If you start drawing philosophical conclusion from science, and using them to front for atheism, you have gone beyond science education. That is what the likes of Barbara Forrest…who is not even a scientist, but a philosopher…have done.
If you want quality education for your kids, and for them to have the best chance at top colleges, send them to quality private schools.
Note, Ken Millers discussion of the fact that atheism is endemic in academic life is on page 19 of his book, Finding Darwins God.
Christensen, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t merely a concern troll and advise you that Barbara Forrest’s degree in philosophy really should not matter to you when the head honchos at the Discovery Institute, who are pushing IDcreationism are politicians (Prez Bruce Chapman),philosophers (VP Stephen Meyer), and various lawyers, authors, and engineers. By your reasoning, they are qualified to judge the validity of real science HOW? Likewise the morons in Louisianna who are pushing the anti-science legislation? Aren’t they politicians?
Now, then, dealing with your whining about Ken Miller’s correct observation that “atheism is endemic in academic life”, simply put, the more you learn about how things really work, the more ridiculous religious belief is revealed to be unless you are a real die-hard. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
Finally, if sending your kids to private school is your answer, then what the heck do you care? Seriously. Those that can’t afford to send their kids to private schools have to fight to keep religious BS out of the science classroom. And private schools can teach whatever crap they want to in their science classes so I shudder to think of the religious indoctrination which goes on there. But, I suppose that that’s the real reason for most people to send their kids to private schools which are mostly sectarian around these parts. Which is why I deplore the whole “school voucher” program, BTW. I don’t want my tax dollars being spent on religious schools. So, of course, the fundie-pandering Republicans are behind the push for it. I really grow more and more ashamed of my political party’s misguided direction as time goes by…
Christensen,
When administering a petition supporting the new science standards I had a comment from a student at Yale about the fact that he had to take remedial classes before being able to pursue a biology major there because he had not been taught evolutionary theory in an unbiased system. I also had a college admissions officer from a major university say he would think twice about admitting a student if he know the school system they came from had not taught evolution and other concepts in science in an unbiased way.
Real science is value neutral and we need to apply our value systems, religious and otherwise, to decide how to use it. But you don’t interfere with the process of science with ideology if you don’t want to interfere with your own physical safety and economic prosperity.
Yes, but MaryB, this proves how BIASED those snooty, intellectual elitist professors are against academic freedom and how you have to subscribe to the dogma of Darwinism or you’re expelled!!!1111!!ELEVENTYONE!!!
🙂
(Warning – Shameless self promotion)
I’ve decided to Take Some Action!
I posted my support.
Thanks! Would you like to be my running mate? 🙂
That wouldn’t help your chances. I’ll stay in the background.
Thank goodness! A candidate I can actually vote for! 🙂
Well, Thank you! 🙂 I promise to do my best!
Turns out I gave Christensen more credit than he deserves. I got the scoop on our newest troll from one of the forum mods at Talk Rational:
“That’s the same person that was banned for trolling continuously at the KCFS forums. He is legion…and re-registered multiple times and was banned before he finally gave up, or Jack IP banned him.
There’s actually a family of them, home schooled, YEC, very very crazy…”
So, since he was homeskooled, he and his “kind” have no dog in this fight, except to bitch. I am just SO surprised — NOT!!
“A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.†Charles Darwin
That’s illegal.
Only if you lie and try to impose your religion on others
So what if one side doesn’t have any facts?
ABO –
I have asked you repeatedly to state your facts. You have yet to give me anything. If you have no facts to support your beliefs, then how could your Darwin quote mine be at all relevant?
FACT: The Bible is word of God. It says it is. That’s good enough for me.
FACT: The Bible sez God poofed everything into being in 6 days. So, this “billions of years” thing is a crock. See fact #1.
FACT: Those smarty-pants scientists are wasting everybody’s time and money by not embracing fact #1 and abandoning their misguided “research”. See fact #1.
That about right, ABO?
Oh… well, if the book says that it is the word of a god… it must be. After all, books never lie, right? 😉
MaryB
That makes sense and really explains a lot. I’ve often wondered how it worked. So to impose a lie on others is acceptable as long it’s called a scientific fact. Thanks.
No, no, no, you have “science” confused with “religion” once again. You truly ARE a one-trick pony, ABO. So sorry that science contradicts your ridiculous dogma to the point that you can’t accept observable reality but that’s YOUR failing.
Once again, teach whatever stupidity you want to your own benighted children at home or at church or both, but keep your superstitious crap out of my kid’s public school. Why is that so difficult a concept for you godbots to grasp? If I want to stuff my kids’ heads full of bronze age nonsense I’ll take them to church. It’s sad that your faith (and obviously your kids’ faith) is extremely weak or you wouldn’t feel so threatened by a few hours, AT MOST, spent on the concepts of evolutionary theory. No wonder you’re scared.
Wolfy
Scared? Are you kidding, this stuff is funnier than the Beverly Hillbillies.
I agree 100% religion should not be promoted in public schools.
“I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.†Charles Darwin..
Yes, I agree, creationism IS funnier than the Beverly Hillbillies and the arguments for it are at about that level of sophistication. And its adherants at about that level, too.
So, that Darwin quote is the entire basis for your absurd contention that ToE is a religion so shouldn’t be taught in school? The quote, fabricated by Elizabeth Hope/Lady Hope? The quote, which was witnessed by NOBODY other than this Liar for Jesus, and certainly never written down by Sir Charles? The quote, which was answered by Darwin’s children thusly: “Lady Hope’s account of my father’s views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply. My father’s agnostic point of view is given in my Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I., pp. 304–317. You are at liberty to publish the above statement. Indeed, I shall be glad if you will do so.” and: “I was present at his deathbed, Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. … …The whole story has no foundation what-so-ever.”
How about a REAL quote, from the man himself?
“By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Hope
You creotards should really stop swallowing whatever bilge your masters at AiG and the DiscoTute feed you. There really is no depth to which you will not sink or a lie you will not continue to perpetuate. And creotards wonder why freedthinkers, in general, hold them in such contempt at times. This is one such time. You really do make your side look even sillier than usual with this one, ABO. 🙂
“You really do make your side look even sillier than usual with this one, ABO.”
ABO’s posts appear to indicate that is his basic intention in posting here 🙂
RAmen ABO
“So to impose a lie on others is acceptable as long it’s called a scientific fact.”
Are you alluding to the Wedge bait & switch Wedge con ABO?
-“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”
-“This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy.”
-“The objective (of the wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.'”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Excellent ABO! Very subtle. Good to remind everyone of he DI’s stated political and social engineering power grab agenda.
Keep up the good work ABO! Great to have you on the side of rational objectivity in science 🙂
Calling evolution an atheistic conspiracy has about as much sense as calling Christianity “that Jew-hating, heathen-burning cult full of prospective necromancers and zombies”
ABO, do you have any actual arguments to present or are you going to continue being the resident DI media whore?
That was a rhetorical question, wasn’t it, Karl?
If difficult to say if Karl’s question was rhetorical, he as a fantasy land prostitute would consider whores bad for business.