Repeal of Louisiana Science Education Act Rejected 318
egjertse writes "A Louisiana law that opponents say leaves the backdoor open to teaching 'creationism' in public schools will stay on the books after a Senate committee Wednesday effectively killed a bill that would repeal the statute. After hours of testimony for and against House Bill 26, which repeals the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act, the senators narrowly deferred the legislation, effectively killing it in committee. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans."
And then there's this asshole: (Score:5, Interesting)
Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, said he had reservations with repealing the act after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had. He said he thought repealing the act could "lock the door on being able to view ideas from many places, concepts from many cultures."
"Yet if I closed my mind when I saw this man -- in the dust, throwing some bones on the ground, semi-clothed -- if I had closed him off and just said, 'That's not science. I'm not going to see this doctor,' I would have shut off a very good experience for myself," Guillory said.
this is great (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only that, but you're extremely naive if you think that most people want what you want. You'd get a very rude awakening if a real democracy were put in place, North Africa is learning that the hard way right now. The urban liberals in Egypt thought that democracy would make things better, but they're learning that what the majority wants is in fact a society based on oppressive religious conservatism. Large groups of people are ruled brutally by the bell curve. They are of average intellect and average wisdom, and in a place where averages are lower, so goes the entire effect. And as Polybius and contemporaries documented long ago, such simplistic political forms fall inevitably into ochlochcracy. Study history.
Re:So sue them. (Score:4, Interesting)
The point of my post wasn't to say that giving your kids a religious upbringing is as bad as drunkenly beating them; rather, to attack the motivating "logic" of "why should I care if someone else' kids suffer." Perhaps it's my religious upbringing and Christian beliefs talking here, but I don't think "fine if only someone else gets hurt" is a good basis for deciding how to act. You might decide not to interfere for other reasons, like "I respect the right of other parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs," or "the kids aren't really harmed, anyway" --- but "screw you if you're not me or mine" is not a philosophical stance I am particularly friendly towards.
Re:History (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you (or someone else) expand on this? I am not a physicist and am curious as to what you are referring to.
Ready for a 6 month lesson? ;-)
First off, DVD players use a laser. Lasers obey to certain rules, it's an interaction between electrons, atom nuclei and photons (light, the laser light).
We can reliably predict the behavior of those "systems".
I'll try an example now (to stick with the lettuce).
Let's assume you are a farmer and are growing lettuce. No you find several heads of lettuce. Some fresh, some with leaves withered, some rotten.
As a farmer you can determine how long ago the lettuce head was cut.
Physicists do the same. They know how long lettuce (atoms) need to decay, based on physical laws that make the laser produce light.
So when you look at a stone, you look at the "withered leaves" and can tell how old it is.
Hope this makes sense.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Democracy looks like Proposition 8. Majority gets what it wants, even if it means a minority is oppressed.
Yep. And it also looks like the democratic movements to create marriage equality in many other states (despite gays being just as much a minority). You win some, you lose some. I haven't particularly seen our antidemocratic overlords stepping up for marriage equality against popular opinion, either.
The wealthy are a minority, so we'll just vote to take their money make everybody poor.
Yeah, it's so important to protect that minority, that we'd better put them in control of who gets rich and who gets poor. What's that? The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer? What a shocker!
And as Polybius and contemporaries documented long ago, such simplistic political forms fall inevitably into ochlochcracy.
Right, because democracy can only take the most simplistic strawman forms, and the ancient Greeks were the final word on all political science. Better to stay safe with oligarchy.
This is my home state (Score:2, Interesting)
and I'm still baffled that it could have
I'm not sure another state in the south has such a progressive history, and still manages to lean progressive in some fields, and yet still lets crap like this through the legislature.