Louisiana approves pro-evolution textbooks, snubs "embarrassing" Creationists
By Brian FairbanksNovember 16th, 2010, 8:49 amComments (61)
After months of legal wrangling, petitions and protests, advisors to Louisiana's Department of Education finally approved school textbooks that describe evolution in a favorable light. The vote was always going to be close and even this doesn't ensure a defeat of Creationist meddling in Louisiana's science textbooks.
Next month, the actual heads of the curriculum will vote on which century they'd like the state to join. Of course, the movement is with those who have figured out that science is, in fact, real:
Backers of the books said Darwin’s ideas are widely accepted in the scientific community and that continuing debate in Louisiana is an embarrassment.
“We have been here before,” said Tammy Wood, a veteran educator... “I don’t know why we are here again,” Wood said.
Ian Bins, who teaches science education at LSU, said debate over evolution in Louisiana sparks negative comments nationally. “It is a very embarrassing issue,” Bins said. [WBRZ]
As usual, the twerps in the Creationist movement (i.e. right-wing Christian movement that seems unaware of the separation of church and state) are out with their usual ridiculous arguments: "The books are really weak on the side of examining scientific evidence." Right, so let's have more books that are full of rational scientific arguments not contradicted at every turn... like the Bible.
Commentarium (61 Comments)
Your graphic very capably points out male-oriented evolution, but exactly where were females during all of this?
probably laughing their asses off. :)
" . . . but exactly where were females during all of this?" In the kitchen.
" . . . but exactly where were females during all of this?" In the kitchen.
Maybe if Atheists weren't such incredible douchebags, more people would side with them.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are nothing short of attempts to get the government to endorse one religious belief over others, in direct violation of one of the core principles of the First Amendment.
Mavent, its people like you that give religionists a bad name. Science isn't an effing popularity contest. Just because you don't like the people pitching facts doesn't mean those facts should be ignored.
Atheists are douchebags because they won't let me lie about things.
Why can't both sides be taught. 'Here is what the bible states. Here is what we are finding through science.' There are still so many unexplained "Scientific Facts" that science is unwilling to take an unbiased look at. Example: The turkey found during a dinner in Pompeii during the eruption. It was carbon dated to millions of years old, though it wasn't. Science is constantly being proven wrong and your asking the world to toss everything aside. I know where my faith will stay.
Well, rizfizzle, if your faith involves believing that a turkey (a bird native to America) was found in the ruins of Pompeii, which is in Italy and was buried in volcanic ash in 79 A.D, fifteen centuries before the voyages of Columbus --- then you are entitled to your faith, but I think we'd better keep it out of schools, eh?
rizfizzle: The two can't be taught side by side because one is a scientific theory, and the other is religious nonsense. If the school wants to teach creationism in a philosophy or religion class, that's fine. But only science should be allowed in a science class.
if only douchebags could come up with a new word to call someone..... you're about 10 years late on the "douchbag" train, quit that shit and come up with something clever...as we atheist's are way ahead of your thoughts. At least we can think beyond an 1800 year old book with no actual first hand account of any event depicted within the books front to back pages, as the scriptures were never written within the lifetime of anybody who lived in Jesus' times...this is a fact..no disputing it. So, douchey douche...think for yourself but please think with the facts and not sensationalism.
Rizfizzle: Because it is science class, not a religion and philosophy class. All the fairy-tale BS can be taught there, NOT in science
Religion should not be taught in science class, and science should not be taught in Sunday school. Personally, I consider both evolution and existence of a higher power likely possibilities.
Rizfizzle: If you want to teach the Bible, you also have to teach the Koran, Talmud, Bhagavad Gita , Upanishads, Confucius, ... Just stick with the science, you'll be better off. And right.
Personally, I believe a theory cannot be taught, just examined (that goes for either side). I don't really think that either should be taught in schools unless selected personally by the student. Theology lessons or Evolutionary lessons. Take one- or the other- or both.
@Geo: Maybe we shouldn't teach gravity then either. After all, it is just a theory...
Except, Geo... that in schools our teachers are expected to "educate" our children about things like "history" and "math" and "language" oh and... "science" and other things that will lead to them being a person with equal footing with the rest of the planet, filled with countries that aren't debating this stupid topic and are going straight to educating their children in a far superior manner than we are teaching ours.
This should not be a topic up for debate. If the Religious Right wants to discuss if something should be taught in school, they should stick to the easier BOOGA BOOGA! of Sex Education. ... which of course, should also be taught.
Though only here through a stumble, as a professor of philosophy, I feel obligated to make the point that; outside of the slim purview of "The philosophy of religion", most religious and/or spiritual thought cannot withstand the rigours required by most philosophic disciplines.
You can only educate on what has been proven. So far- people haven't come to an agreement on what is factual and correct to pass on. For example would you rather have your child taught by a thief or the victim? Both are going to have their own views on the situation. I guess what I'm saying is that families from either side of the issue have a right to decide what their children are "educated" about.
@Really - gravity has been proven- please don't be silly.
What I'm noticing is that everyone is in such a hurry to discredit either side- no one is willing to meet in the middle.
Geo, there is no "middle" between "correct" and "incorrect".
Geo, go edumicate yourself about what "scientific theory" means. You're clearly using words that you don't even understand. You're out of your league here. Google for theory on that magical computer of yours, read about it on wikipedia, or maybe look it up in a dictionary. You do trust dictionaries, don't you?
Geo, ID/Creationism posits not a scientific critique of prevailing evolutionary theory, but an untestable supernatural entity - a "designer" - who designed (intelligently or otherwise) the universe. Whatever one thinks of it, it is nevertheless a religious argument, and to teach this woo as science is to spend tax dollars to promulgate a religious viewpoint, something absolutely prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
American Creationists are morons. That being said, intelligent design and evolution can co-exist happily, but the intelligent design aspect of it is best kept to philosophy classes for its discussion.
But y'all should be aware that calling it "religious nonsense" doesn't make it go away. Nobody's interested in discussion,
@Geo - We don't teach "both sides" of the Holocaust, or "both sides" of the flat earth debate, or "both sides" of slavery. We don't teach "both sides" of the Theory of Relativity or any other prevailing scientific theory. The very fact that you suggest that science is about "sides" shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what science is and how we are supposed to use it.
A theory is a useful tool, or a model, that explains a phenomona. That theory can be useful and repeatable through numerous experiments, or it will be disproven by numerous contrary experiments and eventually tossed aside for a better theory. "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" aren't even theories. They are nothing more than mythology.
Religionists who want both sides taught should then agree to teach Astrology alongside Astronomy. Or alchemy alongside Chemistry; Or voodoo alongside medicine.
Believe in whatever imaginary friend you want to, if it makes you happy. But try to remember that your imaginary friend is, well, imaginary.
@Geo - Gravity exists, which we all know, just like we know that plants and animals exist. There exist many "Theories of Gravity" that try to explain how gravity works and what equations it follows throughout space for all objects of all sizes and velocities. One main theory is Newtonian and now disregarded and another is Relativistic (Einstein), which seems to provide very useful and consistent results. Eventually we may find something that explains and predicts gravity even better and more fully than relativistic approaches. In any case, the Theory of Relativity will never be proven, nor will the Theory of Gravity. You show a fundamental error and misunderstanding when you even suggest that theories can be "proven". Scientific theories are not the same as mathematical conjectures that are awaiting some proof. We can never "prove" anything in the physical world.
Shannon, what exactly do you want to discuss? In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), SCOTUS ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creationism be taught in public schools along with evolution was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religious viewpoint. In the Pennsylvania Federal District Court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), the court ruled that Intelligent design was just a cover for creationism, and the school district's requirement that it be taught as an alternate to evolution violated the Establishment Clause. Any attempt to teach either of these synonymous religious arguments as science will have to overcome both of these precedents.
Lets put to rest the discussion of creationism and intelligent design, rather easy to do. If I am not mistaken the earth was supposedly, under this idea created approix 10k years ago. If that is true, then explain to me how we are seeing light from stars that are over 3million years old and older?
Lets see if we can't put this creationism/intelligent design, loosely called theory to bed. So, if I am not mistaken according to this idea, the earth was created approx 10k years ago give or take a few 1k years. If this is true, then how do you explain that we see light from stars and such that are older than 3 million years? Just that one fact brings the whole idea of poof here we are into question. Or are you going to suggest that astro physicists are wrong too?
RizFizzle, you're not supposed to use carbon dating for things near volcanoes (i.e. Pompei). You're supposed to use something besides carbon 13, because the volcanic ash gives incorrect readings. Evolution deniers knew that, yet went ahead and used carbon dating knowing that it would give a false answer. Carbon dating works perfectly fine, unless (intentionally) misused. Sorry, but this is not an argument where both sides are being honest.
It appears, Geo, that the consensus believes you suck.
I'm surprised that no one pointed out that the story told by RizFizzle is just made up because Romans in ancient Pompei couldn't have been eating turkey -- turkeys are native to NORTH AMERICA and North America wouldn't be discovered for another 400 years. Is it any wonder that mainstream science doesn't take creationism seriously?
The fact that this "debate" is even happening, in schools and in this comment section, is so embarrassing to me as an American that I'm ashamed to be connected to this country. How are we expected to maintain any sort of global dominance when half of the country considers the bible to be a reasonable source of scientific explanations.
If the subject is science which is chemistry, physics, biology, psychology and all of the subdivisions then obviously evolution should be taught (as part of biology and probably psychology). Religion should be taught in a religious education class, with all of the religious subdivisions (christianity, islam, buddhism). Christianity should be taught in a christianity class.
I LIKE TURTLES!
"Maybe if Atheists weren't such incredible douchebags, more people would side with them."
Yeah, those ornery Buddhists!
Hint: atheism isn't a religion; it's a characteristic of some religions.
I forget sometimes that there are people in the world who believe these things. Come on now, you want schools to teach that there was a magical wizard who created everything using his magic? What is wrong with you people?
I (being british (hello Americans!)) beleive KillaKop has hit the nail on the head with this one. Many of the points raised here are intersting and valid but at the end of the day have a quick look around you America. Separation of church and state is the right way to go.
@Twolane they are either doing the same thing or in the kitchen making a sandwich for the poor guy.
I guess I just believe that both sides are entitled to fair discussion. I don't think we have to insult each other to prove our points- that is not they way to have a mature debate.
Please identify what part of the Constitution of the United States 'the separation of church and state' appears.
@AELFHELD The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." thus the FAMOUS line, "wall of separation between church and state" ~ Thomas Jefferson.
Also AUSTIN said in a previous comment "In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), SCOTUS ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creationism be taught in public schools along with evolution was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religious viewpoint." Which is aslo essentially the point.
Oh, good grief, the "the Constitution doesn't actually say 'separation of church and state' in so many words" argument. The Establishment Clause, contrary to the opinion of the hyper-religious, works in both directions. The people at the time of ratification knew that, and were also well aware of the specific intentions of Madison and Jefferson regarding that passage, as have generations of justices who have used Jefferson's writings in particular (hello Danbury Letter) as an additional guide to all aspects of the Constitution. No matter how much the pious would wish it to be otherwise, the First Amendment is interpreted by the judiciary to prohibit the preference of one religion over another AND the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. Boo hoo.
Would then- since both sides feel very strongly that they are the correct ones, that both in a way could be considered beliefs or religions? Numerologist beliefs are considered a religion. Wiccan beliefs are a religion. Could that conclude that the evolutionary theory is also a religion/belief- and therefore meet the same criteria of being kept separate from state?
Geo, what is there to discuss exactly? The notion that somehow criticism of evolution isn't permitted is, to be blunt, an incredibly stupid lie - easily disproved and logically absurd. Criticism of the theory occurs ALL THE TIME. It's tested every time science finds a new fossil or sequences another genome or even finds a new species. The theory is always being tested, examined and criticized. But that's not what ID/Creationists want. They want their own unproved, unspecific, unfalsifiable conjecture taught as a valid scientific alternative. And they want t do this WITHOUT HAVING DONE ANY ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC WORK.
Geo, your arguments are ranging further and further from reality. That modern evolutionary theory is factually correct (to the extent that any scientific theory is correct) is based on mountains of empirical data supporting it. Biblical accounts are mythological poetry and allegory and have no empirical evidence whatsoever backing them up, and in fact, they make verifiable claims that science has tested and found to be wrong (such as a global flood).
My final authority is the mass of physical evidence throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior and paleontology, among others. I go neither to the Old Testament, which is a good book about the proper spiritual life of bronze-age nomads, nor to Darwin, who had the first spark about evolution but dies 120 years before the most convincing evidence - genetics - would be found.
It sounds to me like both sides want what they believe to be in the forefront. Both have the same strength in their beliefs and yes, both can and have been criticized. What I am suggesting is the option for both to be available to the person who wants to learn- or neither. This is an all or nothing situation and nobody wants to concede and so no one will be happy with the outcome.
What is there to argue? ID/Creationism has nothing whatever to do with science or reality. It is nothing but rehashed Paleyism. In practice it is all about anti-science and negative claims, resisting and replacing science. It's one thing to claim that our current understanding is flawed, but quite another to support that claim with evidence via scientific rigor, and ID/Creationism has produced NO actual research. EVER. And of course, there's that little First Amendment problem - I suggest you do a little actual research and review Edwards v. Aguillard and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
But what you fail to understand Geo, is the very simple matter that one of the options(evolution), has been criticized by the very people who use it- scientists-, and is still around being used, because the data those scientists found, that they used to look and evolution and disprove it, well, it turns out they couldn't. Because, unlike the religious side(intelligent design), science is a constantly changing set of proofs and theories based on actual evidence used in the real world.
Intelligent Design, on the other hand, wants to say that all of the evidence that scientists have found is due to some invisible deity having a Grand, unknowable plan for us, and that we should look at the completeness of the science as proof that this deity is super smart, and super concerned with making it look that the planet has been here for longer than it has been, simply to 'dumb it down', in a way that our smaller, imperfect human minds, could understand it.
My problem with this debate, and the main idea you seem to not understand here, Geo, is that
A) The First Amendment prevents this from even being an issue, and
B) If you had actually read some of the other comments, the alternative you keep asking for, has already been proposed. Teach Evolution, a scientific theory that is continually tested for accuracy by the entire scientific community on a daily basis, in science classes. Teach Intelligent Design, a religious idea for explaining some of the science, but, being religious, has no way of being tested, in a class on religions and philosophies. There should be no debate here. Period.
Well Austin, since you have it all figured out- there shouldn't be a problem. People should just adapt to your way of thinking and then all problems will be resolved. The point I'm trying to make here- is that people will have to find a way to agree to disagree- without stepping on each other toes. To the creationists- you weren't there to personally witness what you believe in, but you have faith in the ideals and what you've read/studied. To the evolutionists - you didn't do the research yourselves to prove what you believe in- but you have faith in the ideals and what you've read/studied. I'm not against or for either side- I just don't know why as advanced as we claim we- are- that we can't find a way to please both sides at least to some degree.
Geo, you're dancing so closely around the point you're stepping on its toes. Trying to "please" creationists just puts everyone involved back years and years of scientific education. Creationism cannot be acknowledged in any way that lends it factual credence, because it lacks all semblance of fact. The two are not equal, and to advance as a culture, we must accept that.
"I just don't know why as advanced as we claim we- are- that we can't find a way to please both sides at least to some degree."
Because one is a scientific theory (NOT 'just a theory') and the other is the idiotic ramblings of 4000 year old goat herders.
Do you have anything that you would like to inject to the debate? Any evidence that evolution by natural selection isnt absolutely true? Then why would we treat the untestable fiction of creationism to the testable SCIENCE of evolution by natural selection?
Accommodationism has no place in ANY academic field. Some people still adhere to the notion that the Sun revolves around the Earth - should we then teach geocentrism on an equal basis with heliocentrism and let students decide which one is correct? What an absurd notion. Among scientists, there is no debate that evolution happens. That debate is over; the evidence is conclusive; the only folks who reject evolution are religious idiots. What scientists debate is the mechanism.
And BTW, the majority of Christians worldwide don't have a problem with evolution. They believe God created evolution, a simple process with remarkable results. ID/Creationism is simply nuts and woo cemented together by fundamentalists into an unsolvable lump.
evolution is a theory, gravity is a fact. big difference.
That's gross misrepresentation of the concept of the scientific Theory and you know it, so don't try that here.
Back to your cave and your Bible, ogo.
Turkeys are native to North America. There were none in Pompeii. Who believes this stuff?
Roman turkeys are minor compared to some of the ridiculous crap fundamentalists will swallow.
Go, LA! Nice to see you guys joining us in the 2000s.
Now you say something