Bookmark and Share

Jindal's creationist folly

Louisiana's governor - and potential VP candidate - signed a bill that opens the door to intelligent design creationism in its schools


[Published 9th July 2008 09:27 PM GMT]


When the press refer to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, they inevitably mention that he is the youngest current governor (at 37), and the first Indian-American to serve the post. By all accounts the former Rhodes Scholar with a BS in biology from Brown University is an extraordinary individual. So, it was not surprising that his name appeared on John McCain's short list for potential Vice Presidential running mates. However, on June 27, he signed a bill that will turn Louisiana into an educational laughing stock for allowing the intelligent design brand of creationism to worm its way into science classes under the guise of academic freedom.

The Louisiana Science Education Act is yet another attempt to place creationism into science classes, orchestrated by the marketing geniuses behind the intelligent design movement. The bill, which easily passed both the state House and Senate, at first glance seems benign or even progressive: It allows teachers to use "supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials" to "create and foster an environment...that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied." Other than the false notion that the lack of supplemental materials in classrooms is hindering the state education system, what could be wrong with that?

The bill is derived from a model bill put forward by the Discovery Institute (yes, those guys again), and encourages examination of, you guessed it, "evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." Louisiana is now the first state to pass the new generation creationist bill under the guise of academic freedom. Five other states have similar bills pending, including Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, and South Carolina.

Unfortunately, Louisiana is no stranger to urine in the education pool. The legal case that forced creationists to rethink their strategy of ramming religion into science classes, Edwards v. Aguillard, started in the Bayou State. That case ended with the Supreme Court ruling in 1987 that Louisiana's Creationism Act was unconstitutional because it specifically forbade the teaching of evolution in public schools unless "creation science" was also taught. In other words, it openly pushed religion into science classrooms. As a direct result of that case, the intelligent design movement was born to manufacture support for the phony science of intelligent design creationism.

Jindal's signing the bill will forever label him an extremist in the eyes of many liberal and moderate voters. But perhaps that label is deserved? As he has come under the microscope, there has been more talk of a paper he wrote in 1994 for the Catholic journal The New Oxford Review entitled Beating a Demon: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare. In it, Jindal describes his participation in an exorcism and suggests that it cured a young woman named Susan of cancer. He makes it clear that this was more than a little hocus pocus amongst Catholic coeds. "Susan chose the perfect opportunity to attempt an escape. She suddenly leapt up and ran for the door, despite the many hands holding her down. This burst of action served to revive the tired group of students and they soon had her restrained once again, this time half kneeling and half standing." And then there is the kicker, "When the operation occurred, the surgeons found no traces of cancerous cells."

It is hard to tell what is driving Jindal to folly now; playing to his base, true delusion, or blinding self-confidence that inhibits the self-doubt required of great leadership. In a recent interview on Face the Nation, he showed his science education cards, "I'd certainly want my kids to be exposed to the very best science. I don't want them to be--I don't want any facts or theories or explanations to be withheld from them because of political correctness." But with a degree in biology from an Ivy League University, Governor Jindal knows very well that the opposition to the Louisiana Science Education Act was not about political correctness or manufactured controversy around evolution. He is also smart enough to know that intelligent design creationism is not science, and not naive enough to believe that this bill is about academic freedom - or that it was even needed to repair Louisiana's school system.

There's a twist: Few took notice of a provision in the bill that gives the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education unprecedented power to prohibit materials approved by local school boards. This is a politically appointed board and the bill provides no guidelines for making such Draconian decisions. This runs completely counter to the conservative principles Jindal cited in supporting the bill. In the same Face the Nation interview, he stated his philosophy, "I don't think that this [teaching evolution in schools] is something that federal or state governments should be imposing its views on local districts. You know, as a conservative, I think that government that is closest to the people governs best. I think local school boards should be in the position of deciding their curricula and also deciding what students should be learning." He has now signed a law that gives unprecedented powers to the state over local school boards - hypocritical on most days.

There is little question that this law is going to be challenged in the courts and that the battle will cost Louisiana millions of dollars in legal fees. While the bill expressly forbids religious material from being used, intelligent design is being falsely pushed as a legitimate science and therefore the state is likely to lose the case. In the end, signing the bill was strategically senseless, an embarrassment to his state and financially irresponsible. It is also not entirely Jindal's doing. He had accomplices in both the state House and Senate, but their names aren't the ones being bandied about as potential Vice Presidential nominees, and it is unlikely that they will pay as big a price. In the end, it was Jindal's choice and chips will fall.

Michael Stebbins is a co-founder of Scientists and Engineers for America, the Director of Biology Policy at the Federation of American Scientists and the author of Sex, Drugs and DNA: Science's Taboos Confronted. In April, he wrote an opinion for The Scientist encouraging interest in local elections.


Advertisement

 

Rate this article

Rating: 3.92/5 (117 votes )





You American are so silly
by Pekka Kohonen

[Comment posted 2008-08-02 04:18:53]
Nuff Said.



Again; sigh
by Mike Brennan

[Comment posted 2008-07-25 01:11:52]
To get blank lines between paragraphs, hit the "enter" key twice. It really makes it easier to read your posts.

I have plowed this ground so many times I have no enthusiasm left. I gave it a couple thousand hours over a number of years, learned much, and burned out. I will say that, in my opinion, DI would enhance their credibility if they were spending their money on research rather than politics.

Why don't you check out the discussion at LINK Tell them Mike B said, "Hi."



Whose science?
by Bill Tankersley

[Comment posted 2008-07-22 09:36:14]
Stebbins firmly assigns himself to the elitest group that blindly and rudely declares that any thoughts, theories, or beliefs other than theirs are not only invalid, but should be characterized as waste ("urine"). Readers should remember that this is the same group that adamantly declared(s) the factualness of the flat earth, spontaneous generation, and the benefit of blood-letting for restoring balance to the body's humours, etc., etc., etc. Evolution has been well documented while no shred of evidence supports the "science" of creation of matter or life from nothing. We don't need this kind of rude, narrow-minded essays.

Bill Tankersley



Fifth Response to Mike?s SIGH
by Nils Jansma

[Comment posted 2008-07-21 19:42:26]
You said: "As to your attitude: Get over yourself. You are not nearly as informed on this subject as you think. And you are way more snide than someone of your high level of spirituality should be comfortable with."
And I really mean the bit about paragraphs.

I respond: This sounds like you are getting a little angry Mike. If somehow I offended you, I apologize. As to your evaluation of my level of competence, I also apologize. It may be that my inept manner is what threw you off your game. If you can put that behind you, then I would be interested if you still think that the Discovery Institute promotes a creationist view or a theistic evolutionist view with some modifications to make up for differences in implementation causes.
One process that is currently being considered is viruses delivered through plants. Plants are the earliest environmental responders and immediately start adapting to any changes. If the animals eating them ingest viral components that allow them to likewise change, that would explain the relatively rapid response of the Punk Eek scenario. So there are differing opinions that will only be resolved by additional research. We are all confident, however, that time will tell us how the Intelligent Designer did it eventually. That should be interesting and at least a little comforting to know that SOMEONE UP THERE MAY LOVE US AFTER ALL. Good luck and good by Mike.
Nils



Forth Response to Mike's SIGH
by Nils Jansma

[Comment posted 2008-07-21 16:59:52]
Forth Response to Mike?s SIGH
Mike said: "As to the Panspermian faction of ID: I am pleased to see that they are trying to throw the Young Earth Creationists under the metaphysical bus, but I strongly suspect that should ID get any actual traction the "God did it" faction with be the ones driving, while the "Aliens did it" faction wears tread marks. ?

I respond: What can I respond to Mike? Like much of your commentary, this is just another unfounded personal opinion as far as I can see. Can you provide any supporting material to indicate that anything you said above is accurate? For one, the term "TRYING TO THROW THE YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS UNDER THE METAPHYSICAL BUS" indicates to me that you must not know very much about the Discovery Institute?s concept of ID. If you did, you would realize that YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS CONDEMN THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE in principle as being an INSTRUMENT OF THE DEVIL seeking to promote COMPROMISE through concepts like Theistic Evolution. The problem is Mike, you have been putting your trust in the propaganda being promoted by the humanists who are fighting for ABSOLUTE, UNQUESTIONING CONTROL of being the only source of TRUTH. Everything not based upon science to them is promoted as being an illusion, including God. Relying on this source is, in my opinion, a big mistake. It may get you into all sorts of embarrassing entanglements like the one above. I always try to check my sources before making them my own. I suggest you do the same.
Mike, if you are really interested, I have included below a paragraph taken from an article written by Henry Morris III of the Creation Research Institute located here in San Diego (county) California. All of the negative rhetoric in the article is being directed toward any hypothesis that suggests the earth was not created in 7 days of 24 hours each. They also advocate, upon pain of excommunication, that if you believe anything died, I mean anything, before Adam sinned, you are condemned. THESE ARE THE TRUE CREATIONISTS NOT THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE. For you to compare the Discovery Institute to them is truly beyond belief don?t you think? If you don?t believe me yet, you should review Morris?s article.

LINK
The Dangers Of Compromise
by Henry Morris III, D.Min.
"No, the "movement" is among the saints of God! [read this as Christians who promote a form of theistic evolution] It is the Christian scholars and theologians who are insisting that the words of God be aligned with the words of men. [ read this as science] It is the avowed "Bible believers" that are leading their followers down a broad road of compromise with philosophical amalgams like "The Progressive Creation Theory" or "The Framework Hypothesis." The common thread among all of these efforts, including the earlier attempts such as "Theistic Evolution" and the "Gap Theory," is to provide a way for "science" to have the long ages necessary for evolutionary activity, while still allowing for God to "create" mysteriously during the long ages of chaos."





Third Response to Mike's SIGH
by Nils Jansma

[Comment posted 2008-07-21 14:47:00]
Mike said: "As to Discovery Institute: They are the same people (allowing for retirement, death, and recruitment) who were behind the attempt to get "Scientific Creationism" into the classroom. Look it up. When they got shot down, they changed to ID without breaking stride."

I respond: I would be interested in the basis for your insight here Mike. All I can tell you is that I don?t think that the Discovery Institute has ?discovered? the insightful observation you have made above. The reason I say this is shown below in the form of a brief comment regarding who Michael Behe, of the Discovery Institute, suggests regarding identity of the ?Intelligence? in ID.
You may choose to go on voicing your version and not care that your views are unsupported but, if that be the case, maybe you would share with us the real reason for your Discovery Institute bashing.
I, personally, believe in the Christian God. However, if an alien source of intelligence is identifiable, that?s ok too. As far as I am concerned, anyone intelligent enough to design human life as we know it, is someone I want to know better and get to like me if possible.
Below is a statement by Dr. Michael Behe stating the Discovery Instute?s view on the identity of the Intelligent Designer.

?Critics of intelligent design theory often throw this question out thinking to highlight a weakness in ID. Richards shows that the theory?s inability to identify the designer is not a weakness, but a strength. ID does not identify the designer is because ID limits its claims to those which can be established by empirical evidence. As CSC Senior Fellow Dr. Michael Behe puts it: " [A] scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. Thus while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open."
This link below is to a verbal Pod Cast outlining the philosophical conflict that appears to exist between DARWINISM and CHRISTIANITY. This is probably a good explanation for the motivation behind the promotion of ID in the schools. If Christianity is outlawed from our schools, Darwinism should be also for the same reasons. Do you agree Mike??
LINK



Second Response to Mike's SIGH
by Nils Jansma

[Comment posted 2008-07-21 13:17:09]
I am glad you noticed that "THE REAL INTENT OF ID IS TO ASSURE CHILDREN AND ADULTS THAT SCIENCE DOESN'T TEACH THAT THERE IS NO GOD.? I assume that you mistakenly thought I included this remark because I am unaware that science does not deal with the supernatural. However, in your response, you say that "SCIENCE STANDS MUTE ON THE SUBJECT OF GOD." Mike, do you really believe this? Of course it should. However, why don?t you review some of the remarks associated with this article and see how MUTE many of the responders are. Also, in classrooms across the country, science teachers, who should be MUTE, are outspoken advocates against the existence of God for personal reasons I suppose. Certainly, according to you, not for scientific reasons,, right? If this were not a pronounced problem, there would be no need for the promotion of the ID concept. The fact that you are apparently unaware of this problem is sad.
Tell me. Do you really think that science would come to a screeching halt if a brief announcement was made to students that science does not assume that there is NO SUPERNATURAL as a statement of TRUTH. Instead, the ASSUMPTION IS MADE FOR CONVENIENCE to facilitate the boundaries of scientific research. I would be interested in your take on this statement I just made. If you agree with it, then you should have on objection to the ID concept. That is primarily all they want to achieve. Just let students know that SCIENCE hasn?t become the NEW GOD for us to accept as the only road to TRUTH.



First Response to Mike?s SIGH (sounds frustrated, sorry)
by Nils Jansma

[Comment posted 2008-07-21 12:47:58]
You said [Nils, please learn to divide your thoughts up logically, perhaps into paragraphs.]

My Response:
Thanks for the helpful information Mike. Sorry I confused you. I will be more careful in the future. However, I wish you had given me more direction, because I am not sure just where I lost you.



Sigh.
by Mike Brennan

[Comment posted 2008-07-21 01:10:04]
Nils, please learn to divide your thoughts up logically, perhaps into paragraphs.

Second, remember, or re-read, what you say. In your post of 2008-07-14 20:09:53 You said, and I quote: "The real intent of ID is to assure children and adults that science doesn't teach that there is no god. If atheistic scientists would stop trying to promote their personal philosophy as science, we wouldn't need to put warning labels on some science classes. We would like young impressionable minds to understand that scientists who seek to undermine their faith in god are not really scientists, they are humanist evangelists posing as scientists who are seeking converts to their faith." Those are your words, and I included a big enough chunk as to make sure you can?t say I took your words out of context. YOU state THE REAL INTENT OF ID IS TO ASSURE CHILDREN AND ADULTS THAT SCIENCE DOESN'T TEACH THAT THERE IS NO GOD. Those are your words; own them.

Science stands mute on the subject of God, as by its very nature Science can not work with the supernatural. Individual scientists can and do believe in God in all the myriad ways people perceive Him. In there personal lives their personal beliefs guide and inform their world view. In their professional lives, however, there is an underlying assumption that things happen due to natural rather than supernatural reasons. It has been demonstrated time and again that including supernatural aspects in a hypothesis does not make the hypothesis work better at explaining the observations.

As to Discovery Institute: They are the same people (allowing for retirement, death, and recruitment) who were behind the attempt to get "Scientific Creationism" into the classroom. Look it up. When they got shot down, they changed to ID without breaking stride.

As to the Panspermian faction of ID: I am pleased to see that they are trying to throw the Young Earth Creationists under the metaphysical bus, but I strongly suspect that should ID get any actual traction the ?God did it? faction with be the ones driving, while the ?Aliens did it? faction wears tread marks.

As to The Aliens Did It: I want there to be extra-terrestrial life and intelligence. I really do. I will celebrate for a week when someone provides even fairly good evidence. But they haven?t, yet. Nor does panspermia do as good a job of explaining the observed diversity of life on Earth as the Theory of Evolution.

As to your attitude: Get over yourself. You are not nearly as informed on this subject as you think. And you are way more snide than someone of your high level of spirituality should be comfortable with.

And I really mean the bit about paragraphs.



Intelligent Design is not creationism or atheism (continued)
by Nils Jansma

[Comment posted 2008-07-18 10:23:18]
Mike another comment (I bet you wished you had never asked)
With regard why ID material doesn?t get published, you should note the comment below and wonder what type mentality thinks uninformed idea bashing will make a problem go away. If a person is really seeking to establish the truth of an issue, they you should debate the merits and not just pontificate about the woes coming upon their world. Below is an example of how some who apparently think they are SCIENTISTS deal with difficult problems such as ID. The NOTE TO READERS below, is an AMAZON editorial warning people what to expect from a branch of self appointed THOUGHT POLICE that seek to dissuade the reading of controversial material in the only way they, apparently, are mentally equipped to act. The title of the book is: Billions of Missing Links: A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can't Explain (Paperback)
AMAZON EDITORIAL -- NOTE TO READERS: This review was subjected to a negative vote campaign beginning December 29, 2007. There is a small cadre of Amazon reviewers and cohorts who vote down any review that is not a uniform attack on a book advocating intelligent design. Their express purpose is to try to dissuade people from reading the book. This is a juvenile tactic which undermines Amazon's whole voting system. Please keep in mind that the huge number of negative votes given to the bulk of reviews on this page do not reflect upon either the author or the book. Review follows.
---------------
Mike, is this how you would tackle the problem of competing with ID concepts? I hope not.
Nils



Intelligent Design is not creationism or atheism (continued)
by Nils Jansma

[Comment posted 2008-07-17 23:18:28]
Hi again Mike,
In reviewing my comments, I think I left out a response to your concluding questions. I got so caught up with the other items that I forgot to tell you about the feelings of the ID community regarding the source of the intelligence. Whether you believe me or not, I welcome any alternate source you can think of for explaining those things that science apparently cannot. Why would I care? You seem to think that ID proponents are on some sort of religious mission to convert the world to belief in Jesus Christ or maybe Islam. In Ben Steins movie EXPELLED, a prominent atheists was featured as an ID advocate based upon the evidence. I wish I could recall his name. I would like to know within what context an atheist can believe in ID. Wouldn?t you find that interesting? I don?t want to put you down Mike, but your last questions makes it appear that you apparently learned very little during your lengthy involvement with the ID subject. We only want the world to know that the evidence is beginning to show that philosophical humanism (PH) is not the only source for knowledge. Of course, PHers want to continue their monopoly and will do so, apparently, by any means possible. In my experience, this includes among other things, name calling, misrepresentation, and THE SKY IS FALLING arguments. Most of the arguments I review are based on misinformation or misunderstanding. Do you think that is just an accident or might you suspect something else more sinister?
Nils



Intelligent Design is not creationism or atheism (continued)
by Nils Jansma

[Comment posted 2008-07-17 22:16:08]
Hello Mike,
Thank you for your response. I respect your sincerity and background but differ with your conclusions. Apparently, you do no believe ID is being offered as a sincere assessment of how things appear to be based upon current scientific data. You seem to think it is a conspiracy to get god into the lives of people who are apparently determined to exclude such nonsense. I am not certain what your FAR TO MANY HOURS IN DISCUSSING THE TOPIC included. It may be that you might include our discussion within that category. That is a shame. Apparently, you didn?t learn anything of any value in your former involvement worth repeating. For that reason I should feel very gratified that I apparently achieved with one comment what was not achieved in the years of your former involvement. At least that is how I interpret your statement, I ADMIRE YOUR HONESTY IN ADMITTING THAT ID IS ABOUT GOD AND NOT SCIENCE. However, I have to correct an apparent misimpression that either you missed or that I didn?t make clear. It is the collected opinion of non-creationists ID proponents that an extraterrestrial intelligence is behind the complexity found in living organisms. I say NON-CREATIONISTS ID PROPONENTS because there are creationists groups that also refer to the supernatural, 7-day creative event as being the product of ID. The Discovery Institute, however, does not in any way support such a claim. For anyone to suggest otherwise, as I have said, is either dishonest or uninformed. Since I believe you have expresses such an opinion, I would appreciate it if you would give me one example supporting your claim. That should not be hard to do since the Discovery Institute is fairly open about its position. If, however, you cannot find such support, then you can put one more item on the list of things learned since this conversation started.
I am also interested in your INFORMED OPINON, stating that ID is an attempt to DEGRADE SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THIS COUNTRY. What does ID say that supports this statement? ID encourages honest investigation into topics of science without the OLD BOY influence. Again, give me one example showing that the Discovery Institute is seeking to degrade science education. Those are powerful but maybe to easy words to say and so I would be interested what your sources are and how consideration of an alternate opinion to complexity can hurt science. The normal mantra I have heard is that, if ID is correct, then what is the use of seeking any further explanation, God did it so what. Newton found it one of the most fascinating aspects of his life to find tiny pearls of information showing how God might have done it. Do you include Newton among those seeking to DEGRADE SCIENCE? What has changed since then? You talk about Gravity as if you had more answers to the subject than the rest of us. You should write a paper and reveal to the world what the science community has been trying to prove ever since Einstein expanded upon the subject. Just because you discover the mathematical manipulations necessary to calculate an answer to 25 significant figures does not mean you understand the causes. I am thrilled that apparently you have discovered the G waves and field forces that produce the space curvatures in accord with current observations that causes the earth to suck. I have to wonder how a person could think that I personally would not be thrilled to pieces if I could contribute one smidgen of information that would move the scientific community closer to discovering a natural solution to a similar perplexing problem. I would also like to know more about DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY. What can you tell me about those subjects?
My last observation concerns your criticism of ID proponents for not doing any research. I assume that your complaint extends to, say, Fazale Rana?s recent book, THE CELL?S DESIGN. To be frank, though I may be wrong, the problem may not be that the information is not out there, it may be, again, not to give offense, it may be that you are just too busy to know about it. I can give you, easily 6 informative book titles you could review about the subject and then maybe you might change your opinion. If your opinion doesn?t change, I can almost assure you that the content of your arguments will.
Lastly, I want to reiterate my concern for my children. Atheists who assume that God does not exist find nothing wrong with imposing that assumption on others as if it is a scientific certainty. If, however, the options were left open and one was able to honestly peruse the results of their experiments with the idea that a SUPERNATURAL source may be an explanation, then there would be no problem. At this point in time, if you are honest about the ORGIN OF LIFE issue, God has it almost all the way. However, this is not to say that the atheistic FUTURE DISCOVERY GOD is not a possibility. If you somehow verify that the DNA molecule can self-assemble a minimum of (as currently understood) 1,354 individual gene products to successfully replicate itself, then you have to deal with the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE. So, it should not be hard for you to say WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT REALLY MAKE? unless you are on a mission to destroy all belief in God for personal reasons and are using science as your tool. I don?t really know what motivates you. However, anyone who tells me that they have all the answers has to be lying about other things too. I say this in good humor and more as a joke, to interject some levity into what may be, to some, a very boring subject.
Nils



Re: Intelligent Design is not creationism or atheism
by Mike Brennan

[Comment posted 2008-07-16 01:13:59]


Hi, Nils.

First, let me assure you that I am well informed about ID, evolution, and the discussion. I spent what in retrospect was far too many hours in discussing the topic, and I listen as well as talk.

I am almost at a loss on how to respond. Your statement, "The real intent of ID is to assure children and adults that science doesn't teach that there is no god." is, in my informed opinion correct, although it is absolutely NOT what Discovery Institute says ID is about. As I said, I think you are right, and ID is a religiously motivate attempt to degrade science education in this country, perpetrated by people who feel that the success of science in explaining the observations without relying on God threatens their ability to pass their faith on to their children.

As for atheist scientists promoting their philosophy as science, well, here I believe the problem is in your understanding of the philosophy of science. It is axiomatic that when constructing hypotheses that you don?t add in things you don?t need. For example, when discussing the gravitational you say, "The gravitation attraction force between two point masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation distance." You do not add "By the Grace of God", because that does not make the formula work better. And it turns out lucky you didn't add it, because if you had, and you found that the observations didn't quite fit your model, you might assume that was because God willed it so, and not continued poking until it became clear that Relativity explained the discrepancy.

I actually would not have a problem with ID supplanting evolution if, and only if, the proponents would get off their butts and do the research that would demonstrate ID did a better job of explaining past observations and predicting the results of experiments. But they don't. Instead they spend all their efforts on political battles to get ID treated as if it had already passed through the gauntlet and proven it's value in the scientific toolbox, which it has not.

I admire your honesty in admitting that ID is about God and not science, but I have to ask you: would you be comfortable if as a compromise it was agreed to teach ID along side evolution, but state that the Intelligence behind ID was Gaia, the Earth Godess?



ID is not about religion, it is about honesty
by Nils Jansma

[Comment posted 2008-07-15 20:02:31]
To Harry Roy,
Thank you Harry for your observations. You say, WE SCIENTISTS which I assume is intended to describe what your profession is. You also say that you respect the principle of independence between CHURCH AND STATE. I wish everyone was like you, then there wouldn?t be as much concern for honesty in the science classroom. So I would like to ask you if you are as upset when an atheistic humanist scientist tells his students that evolution proves that there is no god? Or makes statements to the effect that belief in god is a fantasy and not real? Or that the only reality is what you can prove scientifically? If you are consistent in your concern for mixing philosophy with science, good for you. I only wish all of your fellows were as honest. If however, you do not see any dishonesty in suggesting that science proves that there is no supernatural or that there is no god, then you should understand completely why the ID community is seeking to put honesty back into the science classroom. nils@jansma.ws



Preaching Bogus Crap to the Choir
by Rick Ryals

[Comment posted 2008-07-15 11:09:54]
The title misleads:
"Louisiana's governor - and potential VP candidate - signed a bill that opens the door to intelligent design creationism in its schools"

Michael Stebbins must be preaching to the choir rather than trying to influence the opinion of the "wobbly-middle", since the title of the article is a totally bogus lie.

He bases his assertions on unproven assumptions that are common to extreme left-winged reactionaries, not mainstream Americans, since these academic freedom bills, which typically work in conjunction with the science standards, are written to strictly prohibit the teaching of religion, creationism, ?creation science?, ?creation facts?, and ID.

Any attempt to violate the law will put teachers and/or schools in jeopardy of prosecution, so all of the necessary mechanisms to prevent this from happening are in place.

Like most, Michael automatically over-reacts to assume that the DI has simply repackaged their game, rather than to change it?s tactics, but this has NOT been established, and is NOT what the law allows, so his bogus assertions are based solely on his paranoid fear of the unknown.

This kind of stereotypically predictable reaction-ism, and the ideologically distorted half-truths or blatant lies that go with it are the reason why I?ve started this very incomplete list for the next go-round in Florida.

Bobby J. also got a copy, and I hope that I had an effect on him!

LINK



ID is about religion and politics, not science
by Harry Roy

[Comment posted 2008-07-15 09:18:49]
In response to Nils claim that the ID people want to let students know that the ultimate origin of life could be supernatural or at least extraterrestrial glosses over the significance of the movement's goal to insert this idea into science classes, as opposed to classes on sociology, political science, or religion.

ID is not science. There is no ID research program, only a program of political agitation and rhetoric. Contrary to his claim, often the only thing that need be done to refute a particular ID claim is to look into past discovery! A great example is the work debunking the infamous ID claim about the irreducibility of the bacterial flagellum (Google Ken Miller). It is because we scientists are members of the community like anyone else that we oppose the ID movement, for we have respect for the principle of independence between church and state. The ID people are frankly interested in undermining this and forcing a religious concept on the impressionable minds of children.



Intelligent Design is not creationism or atheism
by Nils Jansma

[Comment posted 2008-07-14 20:09:53]
To Mike Brennan
Thank you for your comments even though, in my opinion, they miss the point of the discussion. The real intent of ID is to assure children and adults that science doesn?t teach that there is no god. If atheistic scientists would stop trying to promote their personal philosophy as science, we wouldn?t need to put warning labels on some science classes. We would like young impressionable minds to understand that scientists who seek to undermine their faith in god are not really scientists, they are humanist evangelists posing as scientists who are seeking converts to their faith. At least that is what their actions would suggest. Why can science promote atheism and not theism? As far as Intelligent Design being a creationists sham, I think the evidence shows that people who promote that idea are really not very well informed. To condemn the Discovery Institute for using material and methods once associated with failed attempts by others to get a fair hearing is like saying that Einstein didn?t believe in an expanding universe. I can show you material to prove that he didn?t. Of course, Einstein later changed his mind with good reason. It is also the same with the Discovery Institute. Why shouldn?t they likewise be able to learn from the failures of others`? You have to look at the content of what they propose. The issue all along has been to counteract atheistic ideas that are unconstitutionally being taught in the classrooms as science. Creation science was an attempt to combat atheism by supporting a young earth, 168 hour creation-week. That premise had no scientific support at all despite arguments to the contrary.. Intelligent Design is also attempting to counter the promotion of philosophical humanism or atheism in the science classroom. Naturally, ID cannot identify God as the source but must look to something like Francis Crick?s Directed Panspermia as a possible source. If Crick can do it, why not ID? Instead, they both say the intelligent designer or the life source may be from outer space. People like Mike Brennan should be willing to admit that he cannot say what caused life but, I would suspect that he does say he knows it wasn?t God. I may be wrong in this but Mike sounds like he believes that life just happened without any purpose. The evidence right now, however, is in support of an intelligent designer using aspects of evolution as a causal mechanism. This concept is called the cosmological imperative that is becoming more and more supported scientifically. Atheistic scientists who down play Intelligent Design, replace it with their own faith called the Future Discovery claim. Their Faith is that anything not explainable now will be cleared up by Future Discovery. However, the problems that need solving are getting more and more complex to the point that Future Discovery is starting to sound more and more god like. That is all the Intelligent Design people want students to know. They want students to know that atheism is as unscientific as creation science. Both concepts are dogmatically founded and rely on cult-like methods to silence their opponents. They are against the free flow of ideas and some devotees will resort to name calling and ridicule as if that should prove their point. So I repeat, the concept of Intelligent Design in not Creationism nor Atheism. It seeks to let the evidence lead us where it will without fearing the outcome. That is the reason why many Intelligent Design proponents are evolutionists. I wish Mike Brennan would tell everyone how an Intelligent Design theistic evolutionist can also be a young earth creationist at the same time. If he can?t explain that, then he should stop referring to ID as Creationism. nils@jansma.ws



crass and crude
by Darby Brooke

[Comment posted 2008-07-14 18:43:27]
Michael - this is a crass, crude, extremely unobjective effort to discredit proponents of the teaching of so-called 'intelligent design' in schools. Any good scientist knows how to deal with the argument at stake, and avoid such nasty, ad hominem attacks.



Shame, shame, shame
by anonymous poster

[Comment posted 2008-07-14 13:53:28]
I find it interesting that the tone of papers like this whether written by the left or by the right are to discredit and belittle the person that it is directed against rather than to argue ideas. It is such a shame that people who claim to be so intelligent, can't stand to be disagreed with. Another case of close-mindedness.



Re: Macro-evolution idiocy
by Michael Holloway

[Comment posted 2008-07-14 13:42:45]
Ken Miller has an interesting observation about anti-evolution propagandists misrepresentation of macro-evolution and homonid fossils in his new book "Only a Theory". He made a table of anti-evolution authors' assignments of homonid fossils to either clearly human or clearly ape. Not only did none of them agree with one another, but in subsequent writings they didn't agree with themselves. The inescapable conclusion is that, despite what the anti-evolution propagandists insist, homonid fossils are not clearly either human or ape. Its a rare, if accidental, instance of anti-evolution education authors being honest, despite themselves.



Macro-evolution idiocy
by Harry Roy

[Comment posted 2008-07-14 11:03:39]
One anonymous poster insists that macroevolution of humans is not correct. He offers no evidence whatsoever for this assertion. A look at the fossil record shows that the pattern of human remains is typical of animals throughout time - just what is expected from a branching lineage where the probability of fossilization is normal and the probability of finding each fossil is normal. Most of these fossils lie outside the range of variation found in living Homo sapiens and yet they are well outside the range of variation in chimpanzees and gorillas too. They are what was originally sought as the "missing link" - a clear connection between the animals and humans. The existence of these fossils fits ill with the ID/creationism model, which postulates that every single one of these different species had to have been designed (and then allowed to become extinct). Now the fossil record is not the only evidence for this connection between the apes and humans. There is ample evidence from DNA of contemporary and even fossil humans and living apes, showing clear relationships that cannot be explained on a creationist model but make perfect sense on the model of evolution. Likewise there is evidence from comparative anatomy and embryology, none of which makes sense on a creationist/ID model, but which is perfectly consistent with evolution as a model and with all the other actual physical evidence. See LINK for a wonderful presentation of the evidence.

Contrary to the poster's view, macroevolution, while it may be subject to a different balance of evolutionary forces than the almost day-to-day events of natural selection, is largely an extrapolation of the series of transitions Darwin originally postulated - from varieties to species to genera and on up the levels of taxonomy. It is the result of the history of life, and there is no evidence whatsoever for the spontaneous creation of any contemporary species.



Anonther Jindal anti-science bill signed
by Nys Cof

[Comment posted 2008-07-14 09:25:41]
This isn't the only anti-science bill Jindal signed. Jindal created a law to require fluoride chemicals be added to almost every municipality in Louisiana, without notifying constituents that this was on the table.

Fluoride is added to water supplies, not to treat the water, but to treat people against tooth decay. However, fluoride is neither a nutrient nor required for healthy teeth.

The prestigious National Research Council reported in 2006, after extensively reviewing recent fluoride toxicological data that fluoride, even at low levels, added to drinking water can harm the thyroid, bones, teeth, kidney patients, high water drinkers and babies. Further they found that studies linking fluoride to lowered IQ and cancer are plausible.

Jindal was thoroughly educated about this. However, it is obvious he is deeply in the pockets of special interests groups. In this case, the Louisiana Dental Association teamed up with The American Dental Association to $chmooze legislators into compliance with their fluoridation mandate bill, initiated by the Louisiana Dental Association but paid for by the American Dental Association who then had the audacity to inform Jindal to ignore any emails from anyone outside of Louisiana.

Organized dentistry lobbies against any groups that dares infringe on their lucrative monopoly and for any laws that will put more money in their wallets. Do you really believe the ADA would waste money and political capital lobbying for fluoridation if there wasn't something in it for them?

Over 1,750 professionals urge that fluoridation be ended and Congressional hearings begun to learn why officials continue to force fluoridation, often without constituent knowledge, when science tells us fluoridation is unhealthy and ineffective.

for more info
LINK

Sign the petition to end fluoridation here
LINK



Foolish Article
by anonymous poster

[Comment posted 2008-07-13 21:54:19]
"Governor Jindal knows very well that the opposition to the Louisiana Science Education Act was not about political correctness or manufactured controversy around evolution."

What a load of malarky. Macro-evolution does not I repeat, DOES NOT scientifically explain how humans got here.

"He is also smart enough to know that intelligent design creationism is not science,"

I'm sorry that the neoDarwinists are hyperventilating over this but the bottom line, is Macro-evolution is not scientific.



"and not naive enough to believe that this bill is about academic freedom - or that it was even needed to repair Louisiana's school system."

It certainly is about academic freedom. The careers of good scientists are ruined when it is found out that they disagree with Macro-evolution. What do you think academic freedom means?



Postulational Rigor and Objectivity
by Gil Lawton

[Comment posted 2008-07-12 19:42:30]
The fundamental postulates of science cannot be both objective and empirical.

Why not?

Pure objectivity allows no unproved assumption, whatsoever.

The God hypothesis is empirically unprovable; but the no-God hypothesis is equally unprovable. The purely objective approach is to assume NEITHER.

The presumption that objects in motion "would" continue in a straight line unless acted upon by another force is untestable. Therefore, the only objective thing to do would be to bar the use of it.

The existence of dark matter is untestable. Therefore, the only objective thing to do would be to bar it from being mentioned in any textbook.

Light has been proved to propagate as waves. But it has been proved to propagate in particles. These two are mutually contradictory. So the only objective thing to do would be to bar any mention of the one or the other in textbooks.

Einstein suggested that the force of gravity warps space time. The bending of light rays around a large object of mass "supports" the idea, but it has not been established that gravity did it. Neither does any scientist know what gravity actually is, nor how it is propagated. Therefore, gravity should not be mentioned in any purely objective textbook.

Einstein's suggestion that space-time is warped by gravity corrupts each and every definition of a straight line. Therefore, the term "straight" should be barred from any textbook. Euclidian geometry is contradicted by all non=Euclidian geometries. Therefore, no kind of geometry should be allowed in text books until and unless the contradiction is resolved.

All physical phenomena are described post hoc. To claim understanding of things merely described post hoc, would seem to imply that physicists know enough to go some place where there is no mass or energy and initiate some of each. That would demonstrate a level of understanding not dependent upon merely describing and manipulating phenomena already there.

And here is a challenge:

We often see refreences in blogs to Einstein's definition of insanity as being a repeating of something which has failed.

Some evo-biologists, virtually in the same breath, go on to explain how some phenomenon such as a cascade of transductions of a bio-signal developed "because they provided selective advantage." The number of mutations required to have set up the full cascade, however, would have been several; and, based upon empirical evidence, would have taken many thousands of generations to have been completed. If there was no advantage at each step in the developing cascade until the final "domino" was in place... where was the selective advantage?
Or, to phrase it another way, why was natural selection so "insane" as to conserve each increment of development of the full set of essential transductions, when they did not work.

We read speculations suggesting that viruses "may" be descendants of bacteria which did not need to reproduce themselves, and therefore, in order to conserve energy (and not waste it) the progenitor bacteria "gave up" their self-replication character. (Of course that is not the only speculation; but it is put on the table for consideration in textbooks, along with others.

What does not seem to be mentioned along with such a speculation, however, is that natural selection would have held off during the full development of a complex chain of signal transductions, and conserved the "insane" (failing) increments along the way until the final increment was in place... not to mention that, meanwhile, a counter-acting process was simultaneously being developed (adrenaline, for example, would be counteracted, once the flight-fright scenario had expired.

The point is... there are many, many assumptions made in the sciences which are evoked in order to offer a post hoc explanation of one phenomenon, but which are not evoked when a countervailing process makes a completely contradictory rationalization more intuitive.

Without some unprovable assumptions, science would be paralyzed.

All formal logic... repeat ALL formal logic... is circular.

This puts ALL human reason in a single epistological boat in which there is a necessity to entertain paradoxes of many kinds.

Perhaps the pure objective solution is to toss out ALL textbooks, all unprovable postulates, and all
scientists and theologians who rely upon working hypotheses... until and unless they submit to using and saying ONLY what they know for a certainty.




Resorting to Strawmen
by Russell Drew

[Comment posted 2008-07-12 13:55:09]
The knee jerk reaction to comments critical of this article are a perfect example of what disturbed me when reading it. The supporters of the author raise every off-the-wall creation-oriented explanation of life here on earth as if that is what critics are supporting. The so-called supporters of science who worship at the altar of experimental verification need to produce life from inanimate chemicals (and I am not referring to just organic molecules) to make the point that they know how it all began. Until then, it is not evolution that is being questioned, which is the strawman that all raise, but something that is earlier in the process that needs better explanation. Until then, what are you afraid of?



Intelligent design is indeed Creationism
by Mike Brennan

[Comment posted 2008-07-12 02:18:01]
Look at the players at Discovery Institute who are pushing ?Intelligent Design?. They are, for the most part, the people who were pushing ?Scientific Creationism? until that got shot down, and just plain Creationism before that. Ask a supporter of ID where the Intelligence comes from, and they will say something like, ?Well we will just have to figure that out, won?t we?? while behind them their compatriots are sniggering and elbowing each other. I played on an ID board for five years, one that occasionally would get visited by some of the names in ID, and time and time again it was apparent that the only reason ID was around was Scientific Creationism had failed.

But be that as it may: EVEN IF ID was a real hypothesis rather than a sham, it STILL shouldn?t be taught in K-12. The reason? It isn?t accepted by the majority of scientists in the relevant field as the best explanation of the observed data. There are places where it is appropriate, indeed desired, that students get exposed to divergent theories and unorthodox ways of looking at things. I?d say that starts around the 300 level of college classes, but should really kick in in grad school. Why wait until then? So the student can master the language the discussion will be held in. They need a base understanding of what the most knowledgeable people in the field think before they can judge the validity of a different approach. ID proponents want it taught in public school because they want to get to make their pitch to the students before the students can properly evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the argument. That alone should make the movement suspect.

To me, however, the real kicker in demonstrating the emptiness of ID is the lack of research being carried out in the ?field?. There is plenty of money to support getting bills into legislatures that would slide ID into public schools, but there is no research being done to demonstrate ID?s superiority over evolution in explaining the observation. The reason given usually is, ?Well, we need to teach the children so they can become researchers who will prove ID is correct.? This is not the way science is supposed to work.



Fakes
by Anthony Kinney

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 22:48:31]
Creationism. Holocaust denial. Flat Earth. Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Anyone can invent a fake theory to oppose our well-established scientific or historical understanding. But teaching such absurdity in schools is useful only as an illustration of the need for evidence-based hypotheses to explain our world.



Intelligent Design is not Creationism
by Nils Jansma

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 22:37:47]
Unfortunately, this article shows a sad degree of ignorance regarding the subject of intelligent design and demonstrates an over active paranoia that is often associated with some sort of scam. If The Scientists is going to maintain any credibility at all, it should start getting its facts straight. The term "creationism" featured in association with intelligent design is a straw man used, either ignorantly or unscrupulously. It is hoped by the atheistic humanists, that if they can paint intelligent design with a young earth creationists brush, people may be fooled into thinking that the two have something in common. The fact is, many intelligent design advocates believe in evolution. They just object to the philosophical monopoly, in the name of science, that the atheistic humanists have managed to hijack. These hijacking humanists seem to have conveniently forgotten that the stalwart shoulders upon which they presently stand were all outspoken intelligent design advocates. When and how did that change? Atheistic humanism is a faith based dogma that says no matter how intelligently designed something might appear, it isn?t because, well because it just isn?t, end of story. It reminds me of another story I heard about Clinton Richard Dawkins the alleged ?high priest? of atheistic humanism. Apparently he was observing the output display of an electron microscope and noticed a small sign with writing on it. The sign said, in a mysterious written script that automatically translated itself into the language of any observer, ?Made by God.? Dawkins is said to have responded, ?Eureka, I have found it at last, proof positive that evolution can create something that clearly looks designed.? Based upon the sentiments expressed in this article, it is likely that The Scientists would probably publish and positively embellish Dawkins?s enlightening experience. nils@jansma.ws



Equal time everywhere
by anonymous poster

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 16:38:43]
Finally, a bill that will allow us to introduce into Louisiana's public schools the possibility that Allah, the one true God, created the universe. What a great platform to introduce Him and his messenger Muhammad to sadly misinformed & misled students. Finally an opportunity to save innocent souls from eternal damnation.

Also, since Christians like to throw out the argument "What are you so afraid of, evolutionists?" to get thinly veiled (Christian) religion into science classes, I'm sure they'll have no problem with equal time for alternate religious views to be taught in their churches. What are you afraid of, Christians?

Once Allah's teachings are given equal time in churches, I think it would be fair to give Creationism equal time in Science classes. Of course, the possibility that Creator is Allah and that only by following him will you achieve salvation, needs to be offered.




Wakeup call to the scientific community
by Michael Holloway

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 16:17:08]
Louisiana is not an isolated case. The anti-evolution movement led by the Discovery Institute counts 11 successes across the US at passing laws and policies establishing the presentation of "evidence against evolution" in public school biology classrooms:
LINK

The bulk of the scientific community has done its best for decades to ignore the anti-evolution movement, in whatever it's current guise, because most were convinced that it didn't effect them. Most are still in denial. At best there might be an ineffectual and naive response that would show that there hadn't been one minute sacrificed to study the situation. The result has been that most of the pushing back has been left to those with an ax to grind other than good science education for the masses: the atheists. Small wonder then that the anti-evolution movement has been so successful at convincing the general public, and most politicians, that evolution is all about religion vs science. The anti-evolution movement can tell the public that the goal of science is the discovery of absolute truth, the science establishment is controlled by conspiratorial atheists, and therefore, since absolute truth is the province of God, a new "science" must be created and taught. The culture currently equates tolerance with relativism in all things, so any "science" must be respected. A theory is just a best guess after all, right?

Look at the list at the URL above. It doesn't even include Kentucky's blatantly religious anti-evolution law (158.177) because it doesn't follow the main movement's current playbook, and this is only what the Discovery Institute has had a hand in and knows about. There are too many to hope that the courts will be able to correct them all. Who's going to prosecute them? The ACLU might be able to do one every couple years, till they decide they have other priorities. Does it even make any sense that the courts should be left to protect science instruction?

Science education matters more now than ever before. The public level of confusion directly effects research funding, what researchers are allowed to do, how research findings are allowed to be used, and more. This is going to get worse, and it's going to effect you. It can't be left for the courts, and it can't be fought as religion vs. science.



Be fair?
by anonymous poster

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 15:27:16]
Thank you Lisa, for pointing out the threat to our children's education. Clearly, the ID movement has already made inroads, eroding the quality of science education. Even our president hasn't a clue about evolution (saying as much about the electorate as Bush). If the ID movement only wants fairness, allowing theories that haven't been demonstrated in science journals to be taught, Scientology's thetans will soon join ID in the science curriculum.

If fairness is the goal, let science and evolution be presented in classes on religion, especially since the ID movement claims science is just another religion. Well then, our students should hear all sides, right? They'll gain a greater appreciation for the number of miracles (and errors) and the complexity (contradictions) found in their scriptures. I mean, it's only fair.



Creationist folly, exactly.
by Lisa Regula Meyer

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 14:34:29]
To those of you commenting who think that 'fair' discussion of ID or creationism in science class is perfectly OK, let me ask- how is ID or creationism considered science in your book? Neither of the ideas provide testable hypotheses, which is one of the bases of scientific thought. If schools want to teach ID/creationism, fine- but do it in a debate or philosophy class, not science. Would you have geology classes teach how the Earth is 6500 years old as well? Or maybe chemistry classes could include alchemy? This country has enough problems with basic science literacy to begin with, why perpetuate the idea that science is somehow politically malleable, democratic and fair? A couple more generations of education like this, and we'll even be trailing third world countries in test scores, innovation/technology, and on our way straight for the next dark ages.



Pasafarianism
by tad allen

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 14:28:27]
I think it's great to teach creationism along side evolution. I am highly upset, though, that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not being represented. It was His noodley appendage that set everything in motion.

If you feel the same or are completely perplexed click here: LINK



Objectivity please!
by Cecilia Po

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 14:19:00]
The title alone indicates that this paper was not written in an objective way.



Re: Why are scientists afraid of creationism? by anonymous poster
by Michael Holloway

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 14:06:55]
The "What are you so afraid of?" debating tactic is a scripted talking point of the anti-evolution political movement. It can be expected from committed anti-evolution education activists, and government and education officials who've decided that the "equal time/critical analysis" scheme is a convenient compromise.

"They have taught evolution for years and they were never called names or critized harshly because they did."

Now that's over-the-top funny. You may want to think about that some more, or is this a puton and I'm not getting it?

"Good grief, people, in this day and age, let all views be taught."

Obviously, all views can't be taught in any one class. But teaching all sides isn't the purpose of a science class, is it? I thought it was to convey an understanding of current scientific knowledge, and how it was arrived at.

So what is science? In watching the progress of the anti-evolution movement its become obvious to many that the general public does not have a basic understanding of what constitutes science, which helps the anti-evolution movement in their propaganda appealing to fairness. Misunderstanding of what "theory" is, for instance, received lots of attention in the Cobb county court case. But it goes much deeper than that, and the blame lays squarely on how science has been taught. We seem almost ashamed of the fact that science isn't fair, isn't democratic, and is, in fact, decided by an elite: the scientific community that makes up the "peer" in peer review. There is no science without peer review. Current science understanding is authoritative, and is decided by the concensus of the scientific community. It can not be decided by high school students, which is what the anti-evolution "critical analysis" tactic would have us believe. Neither is it dogma, but that's another topic.

So what are we afraid of? We're afraid of having a voting population that believes that scientific knowledge is politically biased (and therefore suspect) and not based so much on objective observation and analysis. We're afraid of government officials who can not make effective policy from science because they think that one side's "science" is as good as another. We're afraid that the US will be unable to take advantage of the growth in biotechnology because of the ignorance and distrust of the public. And, it may sound trivial, but we're afraid of our children being lied to. Anti-evolution propaganda, all of it from "evidence against evolution" to the religion vs. science framing, is a pack of lies. Certainly, most of the adherents honestly believe that the scientific community is made up of conspiratorial atheists dogmatically promoting natural selection, and that there are all kinds of reasons to not believe evolution, and that there is a real scientific alternative. But the leaders of the movement, most of whom make a living off of it, know that their lying. They may honestly believe that a belief in evolution inevitably leads to moral decay, but they know that their claims to scientific fact are made up. The scientific community isn't anymore atheistic than the rest of the populaton, and we know that the arguments of the anti-evolution movement are garbage. It stinks, and that's what we're afraid of.



Exorcism?
by Dan Morrow

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 14:01:25]
Let me make sure I have this correct: The Governor of Louisiana, with a BS in biology from Brown, believes that an omnipotent, omniscient, extraterrestrial being, unwittingly allowed a "demon" to "possess" a co-ed; that some form of cancer appeared as a "side-effect" of the "possession; and that a dauntless group of Brown undergrads helped drive said demon out, with the demon's departure bearing with it the added benefit of a one-off cure for cancer?

Just checking.




"Playing" God's advocate
by Chris Davis

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 13:50:37]
Shreveport, LA

Let me "play God's advocate" for a minute here and just assume that God really does exist. Is it therefore necessary for evolution to be false? Cannot "theories" of God and evolution be discussed openly? Cannot they be even compatible? I am for once, and I mean once, proud of my state's changing elementary and secondary public educational systems.

All playing aside, I, like 90% of Americans believe in God. That puts me in the same category as 40% of scientists who also believe in God. I am proud to have been raised in Catholic schools where creationism and evolution were both taught. My 10th grade biology teacher asked us to write an essay stating our beliefs on the issue and backing them up with evidence. This type of discussion is exactly what Governor Jindal is allowing. He is not promoting intelligent design or any form of creationism; he is merely alowing these and other ideas to be taught and discussed in schools.

Mr. Stebbins, the "educational pool" in Louisiana is clearer now than ever. If you are so right about evolution and religion, then why are you as aversive to challenge as I am to your analogies?

Governor Jindal, stay the course!



Who's really closed-minded here?
by Nathan E Unseth

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 13:18:05]
Would Mr. Stebbins be happier with a law that banned every doctrine of origins but evolution? If the tenets of evolution are unassailable, they will stand on their merits. If they are flawed, then truth will win out. So goes the sacrosanct principle of academic freedom.



lol
by Edward Di Marco

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 13:14:07]
For some reason I feel like he got duped into signing it since its futility is clear.



I agree Jeff
by Mark Ellis

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 13:12:43]
Scientists afraid of Creationism, afraid of "divergent thinking," afraid of a challenge? Challenging ideas are the lifeblood of science. All they require to gain consideration is statistically significantly evidence. But Intelligent Design and/or Creationism are not scientific ideas and they pose no challenge at all. You won't find any creationist or ID studies in any peer-reviewed scientific journals, but you could paper the earth with the number of studies that demonstrate biological evolution.

It is the misinformed about evolution that pose the challenge to good education, and it is our children who will suffer if they succeed. Some of the best evolutionary scientists are Christian. The leaders of the ID movement have studied evolution carefully enough to know they are intentionally misinforming their followers -- which is dishonest and thereby quite unchristian.



The Hypocrisy of it All
by John Torday

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 13:05:24]
What I always find reprehensible about the advocacy for ID or Creationism being taught in the schools is that education was intended to enlighten....if man were satisfied with the 'Just So Stories' of the bible we'd still be in caves telling stories by firelight rather than being able to respond by email to such regressive ludite actions.



poor form, Louisiana
by Jeff Chamberlain

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 12:54:35]
"This article says to me a Hitler-like, "follow me or else" because divergent thinking is dangerous."

In science, it is not "follow me or else," it is "here is the evidence, these are the conclusions that this evidence points to." The theory of evolution has withstood over 150 years of scientific investigation, with new evidence supporting it constantly arising. Intelligent Design has no scientific basis, and therefore should stay out of science classes. If you want it taught in philosophy or religion, fine. Science class is a place for science, not personal beliefs.

Further, comparing what this article says to a Hitler-like attitude is completely absurd and illuminates the ignorance and propaganda that allow bills like this to pass.



Whazzit?!
by Allan Helgeson

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 12:42:49]
Creationism, you know, the fundamentalist kind is just not something which makes any sense unless the only interest that a person has is proving that the Bible is the word of God, which we all see as ludicrous!.

To me Intelligent design is the design of the Universe and the laws governing Chemistry, Probability, Quantum Mechanics etc. It should be a no brainer for people of faith, to accept that the Universe was designed by God and that things such as the BIG BANG happened according to the designer's plan. The same can be said of evolution.

No scientist can actually dispute that evolution is pretty much a given. Everywhere we look, we find more evidence to support the notion! So, why the dispute? No matter what science discovers, if you have faith, God still planned all things, controls all things and is all things.

If, for some reason, faith is beyond you, Evolution is still occurring and the process is miraculous whether or not you believe that a supreme being is in charge. Science will be forever frustrated in trying to prove the existence of GOD, and therefore, science avoids the subject of higher power as beyond it's scope. That doesn't mean that all good scientists are agnostic or athiest. It only means that if there is a God, it is beyond the reach or analytical capabilities of Science and therefore Science cannot quantify it.

The origins of the Universe are what they are and Science does its best to quantify those. Evolutionary progressions are very apparent and science quantifies them, as well. Genomics and genetics and proteomics do an excellent job of showing how all life is related and how one life form can lead to another etc. Each plant and animal was designed according to its kind. Say, isn't that what Genesis says?

The interpretations of biblical passages have been written by men who claimed to understand the purpose of God and the Mechanics of the creative process but, each according to it's kind lends itself totally to what we know of the process of decent with modification which charles darwin proposed.

Manipulators and seekers of power over others have resulted in disputes over God's purpose.
The simplicity of many statements in the bible have been twisted into complex puzzles of interpretation by clerics and others whose desire has been to control humanity with no interest in truth at all.

Belief in a higher being and belief that evolution is fact are not mutually exclusive. As long as a class is supposed to be a Science Class, however and God continues to resist quantification, the teachings in the Bible have no place in a Science Classroom.

Jindal is obviously a panderer to the Christian Right Wing and a Fraud whose main desire is to be viewed as an acceptable candidate for VP. As a Biologist, at least in this case, he is not a good scientist!



poor form, Louisiana
by Jeff Chamberlain

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 12:40:31]
"This article says to me a Hitler-like, "follow me or else" because divergent thinking is dangerous."

In science, it is not "follow me or else," it is "here is the evidence, these are the conclusions that this evidence points to." The theory of evolution has withstood over 150 years of scientific investigation, with new evidence supporting it constantly arising. Intelligent Design has no scientific basis, and therefore should stay out of science classes. If you want it taught in philosophy or religion, fine. Science class is a place for science, not personal beliefs.

Further, comparing what this article says to a Hitler-like attitude is completely absurd and illuminates the ignorance and propaganda that allow bills like this to pass.



still more patience, please
by JOHN DUNNE

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 12:29:02]
The Stebbins post understandably rings with frustration. How long can this evolution/creation, religion in schools, church in state debate last? I hope it lasts the rest of our lives, and many many generations to come, and my solace is that science endures not through this kind of rant, but by being simply and continuously truer than alternatives. Faith-based positions are necessarily strident, and the thinner the conviction, the more intolerant the diatribe. Michael, thank you for all your work, but relax a little and give us the news without the attack.



Why are scientists afraid of creationism?
by anonymous poster

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 12:14:00]
I will never understand why the scientific community and some scientists are so afraid everytime a governor or legislature of a state gets a law passed that will allow intelligent design or creationism to be taught in schools along with evolution. They have taught evolution for years and they were never called names or critized harshly because they did. Good grief, people, in this day and age, let all views be taught. Jundal's law is not folly. And furthermore, he will not be chosen for VP by McKain.



again
by null null

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 12:11:17]
Like all people in his camp Dr. Stebbins likes his religion better then any other and calls it science to prove he is "objective".



Fear of Challenge?
by Russell Drew

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 11:59:30]
This article suggests a fear of any thinking that does not follow the party line. I'm with Gov Lindal on this. Are there flaws in the "main line" approach to this subject? If so, let's explore them. This article says to me a Hitler-like, "follow me or else" because divergent thinking is dangerous.



The weird from Louisiana!
by bjoern brembs

[Comment posted 2008-07-11 11:44:40]
Great post, Dr. Stebbins and always great radio shows!



The News


Front Cover

Register for FREE Online Access

  • »Current issue
  • »Best Places to Work and Salary surveys
  • »Daily news and monthly contents emails

Register »

Subscribe to the Magazine

  • »Monthly print issues
  • »Unlimited online access
  • »Special offers on books, apparel, and more

Subscribe »

Library Subscriptions
Recommend to a Librarian

Masthead | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy
© 1986-2012 The Scientist