http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.300

After defeat at the Dover trial, Intelligent Design is being cleverly snuck into Louisiana science classes under the banner of 'academic freedom'.
For a bit of backstory, academic freedom is the principle that University lecturers, professors, and students can discuss topics and express opinions that are not entirely related to the course but still encourages the flow of knowledge.

Anyone that's studied a Politics degree will very quickly become aware of the nuances and beliefs of certain lecturers, and the students will have the knowledge and experience to explore these ideas for themselves.

So, the Louisiana Science Education act aims to bring this University-level principle down to a high-schools as well. Sounds brilliant, fair and free rational enquiry for all? 'Discuss the controvesy!' and all that? Of course, evolution is not even a remotely controversial topic in the scientific community, so does this only allow for teachers to bring religion into science lessons?
It's undoubtedly very clever, as in the article:


Not only that, but the act is very vague so if someone like the ACLU tried to take the law to court, they would have to take it on a case-by-case basis of religion being brought into the science class (like Of Pandas and People and Explore Evolution), as the act itself makes no mention at all of 'Intelligent Design' or the ultimate oxymoron 'Creation Science'.

You can probably guess at my position on the topic, but what do you guys think? I'm particularly interested in how/whether Massassi's position on Evolution has, well, evolved since the fairly epic 'Creationism' debates of a few years ago.

[Also, I'm not sure whether the New Scientist article is subscription only or not. If it is, give me a shout and I'll find another]

There should be no room for ID in science classes. Do you see science taught in religion classes?

The act never mentions ID... so you just assume that's what it's for?

I must congratulate the Fundamentalists in once again attempting to take us back in to the dark ages. I'm curious to see what this "creationism evidence" is. Surely it's not the bull**** that Michael Behe & the like have been attempting to spew forth for so long? It makes me sick to my stomach to know that we still have so many idiots in this country.

BAH GAWD AND BAH JESIS I WILL SEE THEM MONKEY LOVERS HANG FOR SPEWING THEIR DEVIL-INFESTED GAWDLESS EE-VO-LUTION.

This may come as a shock to you, but as a former student in Louisiana, nobody gives a ****. Really, you're doing good if the class is even paying attention.

ID is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. Until people can actually bring evidence of ID into the debate besides debunked Thomas Aquinas philosophical anecdotes, it doesn't belong in science class.

This reminds me that I still want to see the Ben Stein documentary.

I don't see why it's so unreasonable to mention either ID or the places where evolution lacks some evidence.

This is Louisiana. I don't think anyone will notice one way or another.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Yeah, it does indeed sound reasonable, and that's the problem.

Teaching skills of critical analysis, rigorous questioning of ideas; that's precisely what science is. Children are already being taught these skills. Should you blindly accept evolution as presented? Of course not, you shouldn't blindly accept anything - that's what science teaches you.
You should indeed ask questions of evolution. But don't ask the questions assuming the answers don't exist. The very same questions will (probably) have been asked 150 years ago, and we've had 150 years to find the answers.

The really clever thing that the religious right has achieved is to make it look like there are 'two sides' to the issue. The reality is that there simply isn't an issue at all. Evolution is indeed a theory, but 'Intelligent Design' isn't even that. It simply isn't science, and teaching it alongside real science is not reasonable in the slightest.

Is it unreasonable to even mention that evolution lacks a few things like fossil evidence and then say that other people have a different idea of the origin of life?

The first part is science and the second part is common knowledge. Where's the issue? They're not exactly going to be handing out Bible tracks or anything like that.

Guys, MH isn't arguing that evolution is 100% flawless. What he (and A LARGE portion of people) are arguing is that ID is NOT science. ID is basically half-assed attempt to take Creationism and make it look scientific. Any reasonable person sees ID as just a poor-mans Creationism which definitely does not belong in any science class. Creationism/ID belongs in religious studies classes because they are religious based.

However, the idiots in LA don't know any better and thus were suckered into getting ID back into (science) classrooms. **** you very much Religious Right. I'm hating you more and more.

You know it's odd. A lot of religious figures have actually began incorporating both theories. The current theory, one that I share, is that the first and second sentences in the Bible are a much larger separation in time. With the first being something similar to the Big Bang event and the second picking up about 6,000 years ago, a time period that seems to sync with a post asteroid impact period.

Of course, to accept this theory/interpretation, you have to concede that the Bible is a non-literal text.

"Ideas" are not enough to be considered science. Science is a method of developing ideas. If you don't develop the ideas using science (definition), you can't call it science, hence you can't teach it in science class.

(Unless you're in America.)

Evolution does not lack fossil evidence. Quite the opposite.

But the bill doesn't even mention ID. You're all freaking out and blaming the 'religious right' with nothing to back it up.

What missing evidence?

It isn't reasonable because Creationism or Intelligent Design isn't another side of the issue. There isn't a shred of evidence to support this hypothesis. The Fundamentalists have taken advantage of the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't know the first thing about science & have convinced them that Creationism or ID is somehow a competing theory. The vast majority of Americans don't even know the scientific definition of the word (e.g. theory).


There are mountains of evidence in the form of fossils that support Evolution. The Fundamentalists simply state otherwise & their followers blindly believe it. It's similar to the way that people of faith believe what they're told regarding their religion, despite the lack of evidence.


The issue is that they're taking advantage of the ignorant by creating doubt based on pseudoscience.


Creationism or ID isn't a theory in the scientific sense of the word. While it's perfectly fine for you to interpret your religious text in any way that you wish, the fact of the matter is that your opinion isn't backed by an ounce of evidence & that it has no place in a science class. If the religious want to create a series of classes under the category of Pseudoscience & offer subjects such as Christianity, Islam & Ghost Hunting, then I'd be perfectly alright with it as long as they stated in their syllabus that there's no evidence for any of it.

The entire point of Evolution by means of Natural Selection is that it works without God.

That's not the point at all.

The point is to explain how we got here, and in that regard, it's exactly like religion.

Though you should say the /point of us thinking about it/.

The real point of evolution is survival, obviously.

I concede that my statement isn't the point but it's definitely a point. This is why the theory has been so controversial since Darwin's time. Evolution will never explain how we got here. This is maybe the realm of Physics. It does however explain much of what happened after.

The fact that the pretend debate of Creationism versus Evolution still exists is surely a sign of how much further our brains must evolve.

That's not science. That's a cop-out.

But clearly, though, the fact that so few Americans know anything at all about natural history, indicates that even fewer actually have a use for it. High school would be better off focusing on the actual observable mechanics of biology. If someone wants to go into one of the few careers where evolutionary biology is important, that's what college classes are for. Seriously, what do you expect to learn in high school? Even most 200 level A&S courses are a joke, unless you have a jerk for a professor.

High school really isn't a venue for teachers to be bandwagon their philosophical positions, weather you're talking about some Billy Graham evangelical or an atheist.

This.


Really, I think some of you just think it's all going to turn into a big bible study. It's not. The teachers at my school could barely be arsed to do anything other than tell us to "Shut up and do X" where X = misc work. My Biology Class was literally copying down a very lengthy amount of words on an overhead and doing the inane questions at the end of it. (I preferred to sleep in this class and thus had to retake it later under a different teacher, it was much better and we even discussed things.)

I had a great biology class. We delved rather deeply into the mechanics of genetics and evolution. Without ever mentioning ID or creationism. There was never a question of whether evolution was functioning or had functioned. It was just assumed to be true, and taught as such.

This was at a catholic high school. Just FYI.

I think if it is a person's point of view that religion is based on a false premise, then of course someone with that opinion is always going to reject any teachings that entertain the notion that is isn't. But, if like most people, you believe in religion, or at least some higher powers, then you're more likely to want expanded teachings. In the case of science, there is science that should definitely be taught as such, such as the scientific method, and then there are theories that should be taught in a different manner. Or discussed in a different manner, I should say.

Our teacher stood up at the first lesson on evolution and said words to the effect of "there are two theories on how we came to be sat in this room, one is that God created Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago, we're all inbred, and that's as much as time as we'll be spending on THAT theory. The other is the theory of evolution, and we'll be spending the next few weeks covering that."

Mr Morrison was a legend.

Why, because they contradict a certain group's religious beliefs? What if I belonged to a religion that held matter to be uniformly distributed and the notion of 'particles' contradicted my faith. Would it be legitimate to mention my beliefes in high school physics class, or alternately to present particle physics as 'just a theory' because there are others (me) who believe otherwise?

In my religious studies classes at school Christianity wasn't even mentioned until the end of the second year. The first year was Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism. The second year was Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

More importantly, what if you were Friend14?

Well, in the case of God being responsible for Creation, that really isn't just a "certain group's" religious belief. It is generally the belief probably held by the majority while, of course, I am certain that individual thoughts on the subject vary wildly. And I didn't say anything about mentioning other, or all beliefs.



Sounds like this is the kind of moron that gets religious folks all riled up.

What.

abiogenesis and evolution are two entirely different things.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but really? Who else is it going to be?

What? Do you even know what "scientific method" and "theory" mean? Wikipedia has good definitions of these. Please read them before contributing.

Just to ensure that my current understanding was exactly what wikipedia proclaims, I did as you requested.

So, how did my simply worded sentence confuse you? Should I have thrown in some five dollar words?

Let me elaborate.

The scientific method, I believe, is an important process to teach. The logical and systematic approach is a very important learning objective.

Scientific theories I believe, while well founded and tested through the scientific method, remain theories. That is not meant to discredit them but to highlight the fact that there can exist different theories. In the case of evolution, the theoy is certainly the prevalent one. The problem with theories that incorporate religious or supernatural components is that those don't fit with science as we currently understand it.

I think the driving force here is not really the "religious right" (which is really just "religious" because that term denegrates the religious liberals that hold the same opinion) but more, I believe, the "consensus" of scientists to simply dismiss religious or supernatural premisis. Much of what we think we know on a whole range of topics is based on such limited experience that I think to off handedly dismiss things you simply don't believe is silly.

With the phrase "there is science that should definitely be taught as such" you are setting the context for "science" to be colloquial, such as referring to biology, physics, or chemistry as science. You then say "such as the scientific method," which does not match the previous context. I have taken courses in "chemistry," "biology," and "physics," never one titled "scientific method."


Going against the originally established context, you are implying that "theories" are not "scientific." Given the context of the discussion, you are indirectly implying that evolution is not, or not fully, scientific and shouldn't be taught alongside other fields of "science".

Please see my edited comment above and then I will respond, if you wish.

Few Americans know much about Economics & Physics but I would argue that this country would be a far better place if they did.


There are a ton of careers where Evolutionary Biology is important. If we don't get children interested in important subjects early, they'll probably never become interested. The Fundamentalists recognize this fact, which is why they want Creationism & ID taught in school in the first place.



There isn't a shred of evidence to support the existence of a creator. The debate has very little to do with whether or not a creator exists. No one at this time can prove one way or the other, but the Theory of Evolution is backed by mountains of evidence & peer review while religion is backed by...an ancient book of questionable origin. There are many Atheists that would become religious if one could prove that their God existed & that they knew the mind of said God. It's not much different than when a Christian becomes an Atheist once he/she begins to research Evolution or various other facts.


Which is fine, in church.


The Theory of Evolution is a fact. The only debate is over the means in which Evolution occurs (e.g. Natural Selection) & that isn't even much of a debate. Do you also think that we should teach/discuss the Theory of Gravitation in a different manner?


It doesn't matter if only 3 people on the Earth believe in Evolution & everyone else thinks that the Earth hatched from an egg. Science is science & religion is religion. This is nothing more than an appeal to the masses.