An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Intelligent Design in Louisiana

Outside the Beltway’s Robert Prather notes a shift:

The creationists deserve a few props here. Since the Dover loss they’ve switched strategies away from claiming that ID is science and are instead focusing on “academic freedom”. That the concept of academic freedom doesn’t generally apply at the elementary and secondary levels seems to be of no consequence. The Louisiana legislature has passed, by a veto-proof majority, a bill that protects the “academic freedom” of teachers to teach creationism as science. [...]

As a soon-to-be-resident of Louisiana, it has me wondering what I’ll be walking into. This will do nothing to help the image of the state, or of the state’s high school graduates. Indeed, I can see it making the more prestigious schools avoid Louisiana graduates and it will probably discourage the best professors from working at Louisiana’s finer schools, such as Tulane and Loyola.

Furthermore, if Governor Jindal signs the bill, as opposed to just letting it become law without his signature, it will reduce his chances of being McCain’s VP pick.

Barbara Forrest of the the Louisiana Coalition for Science has put out an urgent call for action. Her full email is after the jump.

Think Progress quotes from Jindal’s appearance on Face the Nation Sunday:

I don’t think students learn by us withholding information from them. … I want them to see the best data. I personally think human life and the world we live in wasn’t created accidentally. I do think that there’s a creator. … Now the way that he did it, I’d certainly want my kids to be exposed to the very best science. I don’t want any facts or theories or explanations to be withheld from them because of political correctness.

TP goes on to note that last year McCain gave a keynote address to the Discovery Institute, a religious right-wing think tank that aggressively promotes creationism.

Newt Gingrich was on that Face the Nation program singing Jindal’s praises; Steve Benen parses Gingrich’s arguments and hopes McCain goes ahead and picks him as VP.

Michael Weiss has a good piece in Slate on the problem with using scientists’ words to support your religious beliefs. Read it!

We in the LA Coalition for Science have reached the point at which the only possible measure we have left is to raise an outcry from around the country that Gov. Jindal has to hear. What is happening in Louisiana has national implications, much to the delight of the Discovery Institute, which is blogging the daylights out of the Louisiana situation.SB 733, the LA Science Education Act, has passed both houses of the legislature, and the governor has indicated that he intends to sign it. But we don’t have to be quiet about this. There is something that you and everyone else you know who wants to help can do:

The LA Coalition for Science has posted a press release and an open letter to Jindal asking him to veto the bill. The contact information is at the LCFS website.

It is time for a groundswell of contacts to Jindal, and this must be done immediately since we don’t know when he will sign the bill. The vote in the legislature is veto-proof, so any request for Jindal to veto the bill must stress that the governor can make this veto stick if he wants it to stick. Please contact everyone you know and ask them to contact the governor’s office and ask him to veto the bill. Please blog this. If you have friendly contacts in your address book, please ask them to also contact the governor’s office.

We want people all over the country to do this, as many as possible, since Louisiana will be only the beginning. Their states could be next. Here are the talking points:

Point 1: The Louisiana law, SB 733, the LA Science Education Act, has national implications. So far, this legislation has failed in every other state where it was proposed, except in Michigan, where it remains in committee. By passing SB 733, Louisiana has set a dangerous precedent that will benefit the Discovery Institute by helping them to advance their strategy to get intelligent design creationism into public schools. Louisiana is only the beginning. Other states will now be encouraged to pass such legislation, and the Discovery Institute has already said that they will continue their push to get such legislation passed.

Point 2: Since Gov. Jindal’s support for teaching ID clearly helped to get this bill passed in the first place, his decision to veto it will stick if he lets the legislature know that he wants it to stick.

Point 3: Simply allowing the bill to become law without his signature, which is one of the governor’s options, does not absolve him of the responsibility for protecting the public school science classes of Louisiana. He must veto the bill to show that he is serious about improving Louisiana by improving education. Anything less than a veto means that the governor is giving a green light to creationists to undermine the education of Louisiana children.

You can pull additional talking points from the LCFS press release and our online letter if you want them.

Now we have to get the message out to people. People can contact the governor and and also contact their friends, asking them to do the same. We need to create a huge network of e-mails asking people to do this. Where they live does not matter at this point. What is happening in Louisiana has implications for everyone in the nation. The Discovery Institute does not intend to stop with the Pelican State.

Via PZ Myers who comments:

You can read the open letter to Jindal; you can call him at 225-342-7015 or 866-366-1121 (Toll Free); fax him at 225-342-7099. Anyone anywhere in the country should hammer the message home. If Jindal has any national political aspirations, this willful destruction of science education in his home state is going to follow him around like stink on a skunk.

  • JSpencer
    Looks like the dumbing down of America is still on course. It's one thing for adults to choose superstition over science (and bad enough), but quite another to betray the trust of children who have no choice but to depend on adults for their education.
  • joegandelman
    I find that the more I read news stories about intelligent design, the more some of the people advocating intelligent design are living arguments against the idea of intelligent design.
  • christoofar
    Why is it every time I am reading a statement from the McCain camp, I suddenly get all sleepy & stuff...?
  • christoofar
    oops, sorry, seems I clicked on the wrong comment button...sigh...more coffee..
  • My viewpoint of religion and science is echoed by futurist, mathematician, and physicist Freeman Dyson:

    Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.

    Amen and Eureka!
  • Not smart. At a time when their economy is not doing so well, Louisiana decides to do something that will deter businesses from locating there, and top talent from moving there. Idiots.
  • runasim
    T-Steel.
    I disagree with your 'everyone is wrong' position, particularly when it comes to selecting school materials. Without clear standards, witchcraft could also become part of the curriculum should enough people in a dsitrict subsvribe to it.

    This kind of false equilibrium, btw, leads to the he-said, he-said type of news reporting we have, where truth is put on a par with wild claims and outright lies. While it is true, that science can include dogmatic practioners, science, by its very definition and methology, can not be dogmatic. Scientific precepts are constantly re-adjusted and challenged as new data come in.

    The argument for teaching I.D. in the interest of not withholding information is hypocritical on its face. If such a subject is taught, \then, information debunking it should also be taught, or inforamtion of another kind would be withheld.

    Science is a limited field. It covers what we know about the material world, It cannot ask or answer questions about religious beliefs or the supernatural, because that, by definition, is not within its scope, .
    I.D. is not science and it can't be an alternative to science. It' is simply in another field and another plane. .
    Popularity is not the proper criterion for elevating its status in academics.
    Crocheting is also popular in some circles. Perhaps both can be included in a general cultural survey course, but neither should be elevated to the same level as courses needed by children to succeed in the world: math, reading, science, and etc.

    This is horrifying. While evryone laments that our children can not compete in a modern world, some are actively working to make them less competitive.and less able to do critical analysis.
  • pacatrue
    As someone who grew up in Louisiana, this is utterly unsurprising. We literally -- in public school -- were lead in both the Pledge and the Lord's Prayer over the school intercom each morning. I assume they were going to continue until someone took the time to sue them, which no one had yet. Moreover, it's not an accident that Louisiana's educational system consistently ranks either 49th or 50th.

    More usefully, the concept of evolution has become something of a bogeyman and is misunderstood by people. The theory is naturally composed of several different ideas, not all of which are equally questionable or equally objectionable to the religious. I think one only wins a majority of votes even in Louisiana because people view evolution as necessarily saying that God had no role in creation. However, the purposes and ultimate origins of evolution are far much more debatable than smaller, fundamental components such as whether or not species change over time, whether genetics is the "program" for life, etc. If one could break those ideas away from "all of life is an accident", you'd see a much smaller proportion of people supporting these "academic freedom" ideas.
  • runasim
    "people view evolution as necessarily saying that God had no role in creation. "
    --------
    This is a failing on the part of scientists and science teachers.
    Scientsits have traditionally taken the 'above politics' position, but that has resulted in a failure to expalin tthe scope and limits of what issues science can address.

    That should really be the subject of lesson #1. in iintroductory science courses.
    Scientists are guilty of living in their ivory towers, complaining about the erosion of support and respect for science, without coming down to earth to educate the public.

    Teacher competence is another issue.
  • superdestroyer
    The real question is whether people actually understand probability. If someone wants to argue that there is a creator that controls everything, then that person bascially has to deny that there is probability and randomness. However, since so many things can be accurately described by using probability and randomnesssuch as radioactive decay or spinning tops, it is hard for people to deny that a creator is controlling everything.

    Instead of arguing over one application of probability, why not find a way to discuss how religion can reconcile itself with probability. This also makes it doctrine neutral since all religions want to deny that randomness and probability distributions exist.
  • AustinRoth
    runi -

    I think you mis-read t-steel. He didn't seem to be saying everyone is wrong, but rather that those at the polar ends make over-arching statements that hurt their causes.

    On the religion side, there are many examples, and plenty of people here to make them. However, it is easy to forget the hubris of science.

    Physics (my field of interest) constantly finds itself having to throw out what was accepted 'truth' as experiments invalidate long-held beliefs.

    The best example may be gravity. While no sane person would deny gravity exists, no truthful physicist can say why it exists, or even what it really is. Newton's 'Law' was proven wrong, and even then he didn't have a good why, just mechanical formulas that ultimately have been shown to be good approximations, but nothing more.

    Even Einstein's gravitational theories cannot be reconciled, and there is very real doubt to his underlying model of the cause of gravity (it is in fact pretty much disproven).

    My point is not that the religious who claim the 'Dominion of God that Man cannot understand' are correct, or that the crap that is ID has ANY basis in truth, but rather that we only know what we think we know at any given moment in time, and we rarely know the truth. Even when we do, we don' t always acknowledge it as the truth, preferring instead competing theories that fit preconceived biases.

    History continually shows our current understanding to be wrong, and in need of modification.
  • AustinRoth
    "all religions want to deny that randomness and probability distributions exist"

    Not true. Only deity-based, deterministic religions fit that model. Go study some Eastern Philosophy and Religion. They certainly don't believe that.
  • runasim
    SD-

    Whatever the method for developing a scientific theory, it is constrained by the definition and rules of science to produce evidence from the NATURAL world to support it and to make it acceptable as applied to the PHYSICAL world.
    The minute you propose a force that is NOT NATURALin nature, you have left the realm of science.

    Regardless of whether somehitng tries to sneak it into science through the front door or a side door, science, limited to the NATURAL world, can neither prove nor disprove Intelligent desigers or controlling forces.
    That's for another field off inquiry with which science can not be mixed.

    Scientists, in their free time, can believe whatever they want, but they can't deal with the subject in the field of science.

    NATURAL WORLD.
  • runasim
    AR-
    'History continually shows our current understanding to be wrong, and in need of modification."
    ----------

    But that proves my point. Science has within it's methodology the means to challenge, alter, adjust or throw out current theories. It has rules for doing so.

    Belief in supernatural forces has no such mechanisms.
    The only means to challenge or alter would be philosopical arguments.

    The technique developed by ID'ers (like lawyers) to challenge scientific theories is to cast doubt. If you can point to a yet unproved or iffy area, then the whole theory is put into doubt/, and the onus of proof is put on science. Not so oddly, the same standard is not applied to theories about the supernatural..

    In brief, the iIDers are trying to shift the challenge to: prove there is no God.
    The only proper appraoch for science is: prove there is a god.

    I recently read a 45 comment argument on another site on II.D., and I don't want to repeat it. So I'm just sticking to the most basic basics.
  • pacatrue
    I'm not sure that science is restricted by the material. Indeed, physics has always been involved with things that are hard to describe as material in any particular way -- electro-magnetism, gravity, potential energy, light that is both a wave and a particle, etc. and that's ignoring the weird world of quantum physics with action at a distance and particles not being any particular place in space at one moment.. Mathematics, the hard science of hard sciences supposedly, is indeed obsessed with non-material things: infinity, zero, pi and e with their infinite random sequence of numbers, and on and on. Euclidean geometry, the system for measuring things as simple as a triangle, has an axiom about infinite parallel lines that can't be proven and can't be material in any way.

    Now, there might be a distinction between the natural and the super-natural. The natural is how the world normally behaves; divinity would operate in the supernatural, intervening as it wishes on the natural world. (Whether this is possible is a-whole-nother question.)

    In the end, "science" is a methodology of observation, experimentation, and unprovable inferential logic. It's a manner of researching the world that is remarkably effective. The question becomes: can we observe and experiment our way into learning about the supernatural?

    As for probability, there's still no agreed upon interpretation of what probability is or what it means. The two most popular ideas are called frequentist and subjectivist. All we know is that if you start with the right probabilistic axioms, it seems to work.
  • DLS
    I thought "intelligent design in Louisiana" meant Better Levees, and other forms of flood and hurricane storm-surge protection.
  • runasim
    Pacatrue,
    Thanks. I meant to say NATURAL(not material) and have edited.
    i have senior moments, and I've had them since I was 5.
  • tfagan
    Intelligent Design Is not Science.
    I get very tired of the mantra, Intelligent design is not science. I have searched the internet for many months looking for the proof of evolution and the best I can find is an assortment of fraud, misstatements and outright lies being told by the supporters of evolution, in particular about what is referred to as Macroevolution.
    One of the many weak efforts put forth by Darwinists to prove evolution, is to explain that we see evolution every day when we breed for certain qualities in dogs ,cats, cattle etc. Of course any thinking person knows that what they are describing is variation within a species. This variation within a species is really called breeding (Microevolution) and has been practiced by humans for all of human history. Note in all that time we have never seen breeding (Microevolution) result in evolving a new species. We do not see breeding a pig into a fish or breeding a mouse into a whale. So the discussion that breeding (variation within a species) is proof of evolution is misleading and has nothing to do with evolving a new species.
    That is why Darwinists attack the ID proponents instead of debating the real issues of science. When challenged the Darwinists usually start by saying Intelligent Design is not science and that it is Creationism in disguise. What is really interesting is that there is no science in the theory of Evolution. Their science consists in just so stories about how it might have happened. The kind of stories that you might make up for children at bed time. There is no scientific evidence to support those stories. All of the so called proof over the last 100 years has been shown to be wrong and sometimes shown to be fraudulent as in the case of the dark and light colored moths or in the case of the finch bird beaks of the Galapagus island. Again using variation within a species (Microevolution) to pretend that it explains evolving into a new species.
    The staunch backers of evolution (Darwinists) are really Members of a secular religion called Atheism. They are very fearful of any evidence supporting a God or an Intelligent Designer. I suppose that they are in general acting in a very sinful way and fear any suggestion they might be held responsible. Thus the bazaar unreasonable fear and resistance to allowing a public discussion of Intelligent Design. They seem to be most fearful of exposing young school children to the empirical evidence of Intelligent Design even though there is more scientific evidence for ID then for Evolution at this time in history. The theory of Intelligent Design finds support using such scientific tools as mathematics (Informational theory and Probability) and biology.
    In Biology we now know about DNA, RNA, codons and the very complex machines and processes to be found in the living cell virtually rule out any possibility of an accidental combination of simple chemicals forming living cells. You know the one about the dust, air and lightning forming the first living cell. That story was ok 100 years ago but only the most mentally diminished would accept that story today.
    So to all you Darwinists out there, I see no harm coming to you for believing in fairy tales. I see nothing in Intelligent Design that would suggest believers in ID would wish or want to do harm to believers in any religion including Atheists secular beliefs. The only time I even think about an Atheist is when they exhibit such irrational fear and hatred of believers in Intelligent Design and find it necessary to attack rather then debate their differences.
    tfagan
    For a more detailed discription of Intelligent Design vs Evolution read “The Design of Life” by William Dembski and Jonathon Wells and the “Edge of Evolution” by Micheal Behe.
  • Jim_Satterfield
    Tough, Hagan. ID is not science and never will be. As was shown in the Dover case, one of the most popular books supporting ID was in fact simply an adaptation of a book defending basic Christian Creationism. Those who find no proof for evolution are simply incapable of comprehending it or insist that the proof is a set of lies because it flies in the face of what they need to believe for their religion.
  • tm61
    ID basically says, "Things happen in ways you cannot understand." But science is about understanding things. That alone is enough to disqualify ID/Creationism from the science classroom. Whether there's proof for evolution is actually irrelevant.
  • I've added your site under the article The Video - Louisiana Coalition for Science - is afraid of! You have a great discussion going on ...
  • hannodb
    Intelligent Design is science.

    I conclude this judgement not only on the strength of the arguements from ID, but also on the weaknessof the Darwinian counter arguements.

    Darwinists makes Ex Cathedra statements like : "It is not science, it is based on religion and it's non falsifyable." Thereby killing the discussion before they were even confronted with the facts. The irony is that the above statement is true of Darwinism, not ID. Darwinism is based on philosofical atheism, which would require it to be true, as it is the only available explaination of our origins, beyond design. So, the Darwinist would propose all kinds of unprovable theories, sometimes even going against scientific knowledge. The basis of their theories is the assumption that darwinism "has to be true". The question whether these supposed "theories" are actually possible, is never asked, bacause of this assumption. To question this assumption, is concidered "unscientific", even when you base your critisim on empirical evidence.

    ID, on the other hand, makes empirical observations of Irreducible complexity and on the fossil record (Cambrium explosion). It makes comparisons with other known IC objects, and makes conclusions based on known facts. It even makes predictions, for instance that there is no such thing as "junk dna". Junk DNA is just another darwinian prediction made out of ignorance, that did not survive.

    Here is the final irony of this discussion : Darwinism ASSUMES a materialist origin, and then look at the evidence, while ID first looked at the evidence, and came to the CONCLUSION of design. Yet, its the darwinists who delude themselves that their "theory" is more scientific than ID, while ID is based on "religion".

    There is non so blind, than those who refuse to see. If ID was not a science, it would not have been necesary for Darwinists to tell lies about it in order to discredit it. In the three years I've followed this debate, I haven't found a single convincing Darwinian arguement against the issues raised by ID. Some of the arguements are honnest, but inadiquate, but the vast majority are based on dishonnest lies and misrepresentation of ID. I don't know who to pity more: those who are to lazy to read up for themselves, and simply echo the rethoric, or those who actually do read up, and then lie to others and themselves about what they've just read.

    tfagan and Jim Satterfield's posts are a perfect example. Sadly, this example is the rule, not the exception. Jim simply refuse to look at the evidence for design, because he doesn't like his assumptions to be threatend.

    PS. This might be a total shocker to all Darwinists, but American judges DO NOT have jurisdiction over the nature of reality. Another Judge, Phillip Johnson, found in favour of ID. So what's your point?
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC