Society of Vertebrate Paleontology urges repeal of Louisiana ‘Creation Law’
Print version
Email to a friend
Smithsonian Natural History Museum. Photo: Welsa Stone
Opponents closely watch how Louisiana implements new Science Education Law; promise legal action if laws governing separation of church and state are breached.
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), an international organization of 2,200 members, has urged Louisiana legislators to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act, sometimes referred to as the creation law, and to “prohibit the injection of religious content in America’s public school classrooms.”
The SVP is one of numerous scientific organizations to publicly oppose the law, including the National Association of Biology Teachers, American Institute of Biological Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The SVP states that the law was passed “under the guise of ‘academic freedom’” but that its real intention is to “garner support and legal protection for the introduction of religious, creationist concepts, including intelligent design, in public school science curricula. By permitting instructional materials that are not reviewed by the state’s science standards committees, the Louisiana Act and those like it encourage teachers and administrators to work outside these standards. This makes it possible for local school boards to define science and science education to suit their own agendas, thereby compromising the quality of science education for students, and allowing religious discrimination in America’s public school science classrooms.”
The group Americans United for Separation of Church and State has warned Louisiana officials that lawsuits will result if the law is used to introduce religion into public school classrooms. “Louisiana has a long and unfortunate history of trying to substitute dogma for science in public school classrooms," said AUSCS executive director Rev. Barry W. Lynn. “Let me state clearly and upfront that any attempts to use this law to sneak religion into public schools through the back door will not be tolerated.”
In 2005 a U.S. district judge ruled that a Dover, Penn., public school board had violated the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment (concerning the separation of church and state) when it voted to introduce intelligent design into science classes by requiring students to listen to a disclaimer critical of evolution. The lawsuit had been filed by AUSCS and the Pennsylvania ACLU on behalf of Dover parents.
Related:
del.icio.us |
Digg
Intelligent design/creationism is not only cherry-picked science, it is faulty theology as well. Startling as it may seem, by continually protesting that “blind” chance could only lead to “accidental evolution”, all denialist forms of creationism contradict the Bible's clear teachings that chance occurrence in the universe (randomness), is always under God's direct control!...Oops! Try this:
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=34289
It's called: "Intelligent Design Rules Out God's Sovereignty Over Chance"
Hello. My name is Herman Cummings. I am the leading expert on the book of Genesis. There is no "close second". I'm also the author of the book "Moses Didn't Write About Creation!".
Now that Louisiana has boldly broken the monopoly of teaching evolution, it is important to maintain some measure of control and consistency, in order to provide equal education to all students and prevent the distribution of false and foolish teachings.
With the freedom to entertain alternatives to evolution, it is a given that the text of Genesis will be discussed. That is where I come in. Present day creationism and theology have no understanding of the (early) Genesis text. Some teachers may try to render what they think Genesis says, and they will be in error. The seven days in Genesis are too scientific to be understood without proper training, and they are not about Creation Week. Genesis is actually an advanced book of mathematics and science, that conveys the prehistoric history of life on Earth. I call it "the Observations of Moses".
In 1598 BC, on Mt. Sinai, God showed six 12-hr visions to Moses, who later had them written down. Moses did not understand what he saw. God was revealing to mankind the concept of Geologic Time, and the history of life on Earth after Creation Week.
I teach a 6-hr class for science teachers which gives them an overview of the first three chapters of Genesis, as it pertains to the appearance, and extinction, of life forms during the geologic history of Earth. This is the correct opposing view of evolution as should be presented in biology classes. Creationism is not the opposing view to evolution. Creationism would oppose the theory of the "Big Bang".
After taking this course, the teachers can correctly answer the questions that students would have about the apparent differences between what science has discovered, and what was previously erroneously perceived to be written in the Bible. Thus, the students would be given a balanced education in science, without solely being taught the dogma of atheism.
Also, by providing my class to your teachers, I also give protection against lawsuits which the ACLU is certainly anxious to file. I contacted the Dover Area school district in Pennsylvania, but they ignored me, and they lost both their jobs and the court case. I contacted both the Cobb County Board members and their law firm in Georgia, in 2004, and they both ignored me, and they lost their district case. I know how to defeat the ACLU in open court in such cases, to the point that they would be discouraged from filing such lawsuits again. But I would have to be invited to work with the defense.
Please contact me as soon as possible, in order that we can schedule classes for this current school year.
Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA 31808
Ephraim7@aol.com
The academic freedom law strictly prohibits the teaching of religion, creationism, "creation science", "creation facts" and ID, so lies like this don't impress us agnostics who reside in the "wobbly middle", one bit, because these kind of lies, embellishments and distortions of the truth mean that YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN THEY ARE.
Except you are worse... because you losers claim to be on the side of science.
Which community do you belong to if not the global science community that has joined together to take a position against teaching creative design in public schools?
Let's pretend for a moment that faculty will adhere perfectly to the letter of the law and at no point introduce any sort of religious bias. Let's even go so far as to assume that this does not allow the teaching of intelligent design (as you claim it does, though it has no such disclaimer against an unbiased form of intelligent design if ever such a thing existed). For this hypothetical, the only allowance is a forced disclaimer telling students that some people consider there to be alternatives to evolution. Let's examine that in detail.
Now hypothetically, the alternative proposed could be something other than intelligent design. But I highly doubt that students will be directed in any direction other than intelligent design as that proposed alternative. The very concept of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution houses bias in and of itself. An unbiased form of intelligent design conflicts only with abiogenesis and does not preclude evolution. But even looking at the unbiased form of ID, there is a distinct lack of evidence. The world seems to complex is not evidence. That is perception. The same kind of perception that would have us believe that the Earth is the center of our galaxy instead of the sun.
Let's take the assumption a step further and assume that students are steered in the direction of something that even unbiased would be an alternative of evolution. Now you're teaching students to ignore mountains of evidence and study, as per the way science operates, in favor of something else for no reason other than some people said they think this is true. Now certainly I think children should be taught to question and seek the best possible explanation for something, even if that is not currently the accepted scientific theory. But this does not teach children to find a better explanation for the evidence, it teaches them to ignore it entirely.
So yes, these people are on the side of science.
Post your comment