Louisiana's New Science Education Law Sparks New Debate Over Intelligent Design
by Kim Pearson

Last week, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed a bill (.pdf) that will alllow science teachers to introduce "supplemental materials" on contentious subjects such as evolution and global warming. While supporters cheer the new law as a victory fo academic freedom, critics see it as a pretext for allowing teachers to bring their religious beliefs into classrooms.

And, given the rumors that Jindal is under consideration as a running mate for presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, folks way beyond the Bayou are paying attention.

The Discovery Institute, a non-profit organization that advances broad claims about the flawed legacy of Charles Darwin and his intellectual heirs, argues that the new law " ensur[es] the state’s teachers their right to teach the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution." While the bill cleared the state's legislature with little opposition, calls for a veto came from advocates for science education including the Governor's former college genetics professor.

The law's wording, which stipulates that the law is not to be construed as supporting or rejecting any religious doctrine. Observers say the wording is intended to ensure that this new law will avoid the fate suffered by an earlier Louisiana statute requiring the teaching of the theory of intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution. The US Supreme Court declared that statute unconstitutional in 1987, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard. In 2005, a Federal judge declared that the teaching of intelligent design violated the constitutional separation between church and state.

The law's passage set off alarm bells across the blogosphere. A post on the law from Simon and Isabelle at Theory of Knowledge declared the law's passage was a new outbreak of anti-evolution "disease." American Nonsense argues that the new law is not only a dishonest attempt to enshrine creationism in the science curriculum it is an assault on academic excellence.

Meanwhile, Reasonable in Kansas contends that Jindal is really catering to his socially conservative political based, noting that he also endorsed legistlation authorizing chemical castration for child rapists.

Some poltical observers say that if Jindal really does have national political ambitions, the strong social conservatism reflected in this and other positions he has taken could make it difficult to expand his political base. Writing for Beliefnet's Crunchy Con blog, Erin wonders:

Supposing that the McCain campaign really was considering Jindal for the
vice presidency, would this help or hurt Jindal's chances?

What do you think?

Submitted by Kim Pearson (view blog) on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 00:08

Comments

 

Sigh

I'm no scientist, so I'll spare everyone some foolish attempt to defend the science.

What bothers me with these repeated attempts at an end around is the basic disregard for self-protection. Yeah, self-protection. Of their religious beliefs.

Beliefs evolve over time. How many actively support and belong to any given set of organised religion also will change and evolve. One decade's predominant religion is another decade's fading religion.

Raised Catholic, the local parish held at least 5 Sunday services; all were packed. Now they hold one, and I'd bet the place is only a third full.

And if one goes about subverting constitutional separations, it might be your religion that ends up on the short end of government favour.

Our nation loves to pretend it isn't multi-cultural. This from a nation that does not waste opportunity telling students about the good old US melting pot. Yet we love to kick that melting pot all too frequently.

One group allies with another one to support excluding group C. A & C team up on other issues to marginalise group B. What a game we play, and religion is right in there in the game.

If they wish to talk on faith, then offer an elective in religious studies. Yeah, I know... like they are going to teach Christianity alongside Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, etc. In such a setting, creationism has a voice.

On a different tangent... I'll give props to Catholicism on this particular issue - they embrace the science. Smart move (for once.)

 

nelle

Submitted by nelle2nelle on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 20:50
 

Oh Dear

Well I am in the UK but follow the news worldwide, I am also a born-again Christian (I was a pagan for 10 years previous to being saved) and I think this, well it is my personal opinion...

Evolution is rubbish and creationism is true but if they have to teach both then fair enough, I was raised C of E and so understood God created everything and never disbelieved until I got older, what I got taught at school had no bearing on it at all it was what I was taught in church and by my parents but it may to some, well if movies make people violent and such like then I am sure schooling is bound to have an effect.

Seriously though, I think politics is a very weird twisted world somehow, they all do things for their own good and nobody actually carried out anything they have promised and if they do there is always a catch or something.

Helen

One who follows and believes in the truth, knows science proves the existence of God yet still people have a right to have an informed choice as God gave free will.

Submitted by helengreen on Thu, 07/24/2008 - 12:18