Louisiana, Intelligent Design, and Science Classes 989
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."'"
African American person evolve from white person? (Score:5, Informative)
Enough said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1Prm_vQQcM [youtube.com]
Nope. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:They certainly don't know science. (Score:1, Informative)
you must have been educated in LA (and I don't mean los angeles california)
Falsifiability is a very important concept to science, closely related to testability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Re:They certainly don't know science. (Score:1, Informative)
No, he means falisfy, as in you can't disprove the opposite. Science doesn't really work on proving a hypothesis, but on disproving enough alternative hypothesis that you can be fairly sure you're close to the truth. As is my understanding, having gone to a school where we didn't have to deal with this bullshit.
Re:I hope they *do* add this to the curriculum (Score:4, Informative)
The first amendment? Free speech? ????
Also a few other things, such as freedom of religion.
(But cue discussion about the viability of stapling amendments to people as a constitutionally protected form of speech anyway, because it's funny.)
Re:I hope they *do* add this to the curriculum (Score:5, Informative)
I only hope you are still in school and as such have not taken the appropriate History or Government classes that cover the first amendment. Let me give you a head start, it reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Let me give you a hint here: the FIRST TEN WORDS might be of interest to you.
Re:They certainly don't know science. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Two different branches... (Score:3, Informative)
There are the Young Earth And Nothing Changed Since (Yes God Buried Dinosaur Skeletons) creationists which you note. Then there are the wishy washy liberal Young Earth With Subsequent Minor Evolution (Just Not For People (Unless You Want To Argue Africans Are Less Evolved in Which Case I Ain't Going to Argue)) branch. After that, you've got the Old Earth But Time Began With Its Creationists, and I think there's even a few pinko Old Universe But All The Parameters Were Pre-Set So It Really Is All Designed Except For Human Free Will Of Course (And Exception Again For Me When The Devil Makes Me Drive Drunk) recidivists.
Re:Yes, please. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yes, please. (Score:4, Informative)
If I descended from my great grandmother, why do I still have cousins?
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm okay with it. (Score:2, Informative)
As long as they also include every other creation story. There should be text from scientology, islam, hinduism, buddhism, and thousands of other creation myths from all over the world, in a separate book called "Creationism".
AFAIK, Buddhism has no creation myth of its own. In some particular cultures it may have adopted the prevailing local myths as metaphors, much like the local gods and goddesses were adopted as representative of aspects of the human psyche.
Theologists debate whether Buddhism can even be considered a religion because there is no belief in god. It slides in when you widen the scope to include a "belief in salvation" which in the case of Buddhists, is enlightenment and nirvana (non-existence).
Re:Let them?! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:teaching ID without knowing it (Score:3, Informative)
That was basically my experience in Catholic School in the United States.
Re:You know... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I hope they *do* add this to the curriculum (Score:4, Informative)
What is this, civics class on /.? Refer to the fourteenth amendment and Everson V. Board of Education. [wikipedia.org]
Re:They certainly don't know science. (Score:3, Informative)
And falsifiability isn't just an arbitrary criterion. It's the essence of why science is relevant.
Falsifiability means that you can do things with the information: it makes a prediction that if you do X, Y will happen. If Y doesn't happen, you know X was wrong.
If Y does happen, it doesn't actually prove X, but if Y was something you wanted, you've created something of value. Something you couldn't have gotten without the theory.
Not every prediction is immediately useful, but it's all part of the enterprise of science. If it weren't involved in making useful predictions, there would be no point in learning science.
Re:African American person evolve from white perso (Score:3, Informative)
It's good to criticize ID advocates. But I really hate when people try to deny them even a *term* for those they disagree with, which you do when you say that there's no such thing as "evolutionists".
They can't use the term "biologists" because there are people (though not many) who study biology but agree with the IDers. Claiming that they have to refer to their opponents as "biologists" is like saying you can't have different terms for "physicist" and "proponent of the theory of quantum mechanics".
It's an attempt to deny, not just the validity of someone's arguments, but their ability to express them. Which is really petty.
Teach creationism? Sure! (Score:3, Informative)
You can. In a religion class. Creationism is not science however, so it cannot be taught in a science class. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
Re:African American person evolve from white perso (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Get the government out of schools (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing to prevent it other than the courts. If each state has it's own 'agenda', you'd end up with every schools students learning different subjects, with differing standards applied to them. This is not putting all of your eggs in one basket, as you are implying if it should break, everything breaks. Obviously not the case as there is nothing to break. The government sets the standard according to the voters and that standard is then applied evenly throughout all school districts.
This will be struck down (and rightly so), by the supreme court, as they have already decided this very case:
Re:Well they didn't seem to have them in the past (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Rise_to_power_and_initial_international_spread_of_fascism_.281922.E2.80.931929.29 [wikipedia.org]
http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/the_vatican.htm [fantompowa.net]
Re:This is clearly a hoax (Score:1, Informative)
Good answer. Science in fact proves nothing. It is always tentative. The strongest form of science is deductive in nature, supported by experimentation that can be replicated by others. The weakest is inductive in nature, supported by inference from observations that we make of the natural world, but that are not replicable. Think of forensics, and you know what I mean.
The folks in Louisiana are confusing science and religion, but science and religion, particularly Christianity, are indeed quite compatible with one another. Virtually all modern branches of science were founded by devout Christians, not by coincidence, but because they believed in a rational, caring creator who wanted us to know Him and observe and understand His creation. Now, of course, one does not need to believe this to do good science, but consider alternative beliefs regarding the origin of the universe and life and you find that they do not encourage science but instead discourage it.
Re:Get the government out of schools (Score:3, Informative)
Amusingly, much like the "under God" in the Pledge, "In God We Trust" had no official status until the mid 20th century. Without bringing "Communists are atheists and we need to prove we're nothing like them" into it, neither would have likely happened.
Re:This is clearly a hoax (Score:3, Informative)
It was a case in Dover, PA.
The "Intelligent Design" folks had their collective [pbs.org] asses [cupolitics.org] kicked [wikipedia.org].