Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Louisiana Passes Intelligent Design Law

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the teaching-magic-in-science-class dept.

Education 1574

H0D_G writes "The US state of Louisiana has passed the 'Science Education Act,' a piece of legislation that could allow Intelligent design to be taught in schools. From the article: 'The act is designed to slip ID in "through the back door"'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I guess ID really isn't creationism then.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132495)

...we all know how Christianity feels about slipping things in through the back door.

You mean... (5, Funny)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132563)

priests should do it, but not talk about it?
intelligent design (ID) - the proposition that life is too complicated. Go go Ganesh!
Stop believing, start thinking.

Re:I guess ID really isn't creationism then.. (4, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132569)

You make fun of Christianity's aversion to homosexuality, but the fact of the matter is that the harsh restrictions on the lifestyles of Christians make the taboos such as homosexuality and miscegenation all the more attractive. Such extremes such as celibacy have forced even priests into the arms of pederasty.

Christianity and religion as a whole encourages the polarization of actions into "good" and "evil" and by forcing the pendulum to the "good" side makes the "evil" side more attractive than an a-moral philosophy can do.

Re:I guess ID really isn't creationism then.. (5, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132747)

Such extremes such as celibacy have forced even priests into the arms of pederasty.

That's an interesting perspective. I've always thought that the opposite was true: that the priesthood attracted homosexual pedophiles because of the lifestyle and ready access to children under the guise of a trusted authority. I wonder if this is something that can be reliably studied?

Re:I guess ID really isn't creationism then.. (3, Interesting)

Chas (5144) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132763)

"Christians"

Whoops, painting with too broad a brush here! You're assigning the blame of a small group of individuals in the Roman Catholic sect to Christians as a whole.

I know it's cool to hate Christianity right now, but at least get your facts right.

"Such extremes such as celibacy have forced even priests into the arms of pederasty."

Nobody "forced" them to do anything.

Re:I guess ID really isn't creationism then.. (4, Insightful)

crmarvin42 (652893) | more than 6 years ago | (#24133007)

I don't even believe that it's any particular sect of Christianity. I know members of various denominations, and the majority of any seems to believe that ID is simply a rebranding of creationism, and by definition isn't science. (Although, most of the people I know are either employed, or related to those employed in the life sciences).

The one group that seems to be more highly associated with ID in my personal experience (for what it's worth) is Born Again Christians. My grandmother is a firm believer in ID as something that should be taught in schools along side science, but then again she's also emails me religious spam half a dozen times a week

Re:I guess ID really isn't creationism then.. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132975)

Such extremes such as celibacy have forced even priests into the arms of pederasty.

What the hell? You think not being able to have sex with women makes people have sex with little boys? That's a whole new level of ridiculous.

Re:I guess ID really isn't creationism then.. (0, Offtopic)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132589)

Hans, is that you?

=Smidge=

Looks like it's... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132503)

about time to move to Europe :(

End up in court (1, Insightful)

nattt (568106) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132509)

Watch this be shot down in court like the last one in....

ID is such a piece of bullshit.

Re:End up in court (4, Insightful)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132555)

Gotta love how LA lawmakers wasted LA taxpayer money creating, discussing, and passing legislation that will be struck down entirely in a matter of months, having had no one actually follow the law during those brief months of effect.

"back door" eh? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132519)

in before priest buttsecks

Re:"back door" eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132627)

Was a good approach, but I would have taken a different angle:

"The back door, ey? That's how they're approaching our separation of church and state!"

It's easier to get a rise by poking fun at the government than at the catholic church right now.

Louisiana a land of believers? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132539)

Makes sense...after you've experienced the great flood (Katrina), why shouldn't you believe everything else in the Bible?

Re:Louisiana a land of believers? (1)

OverlordsShadow (1034748) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132685)

Damn, I used all of my mod points yesterday. Speaking of the flooding of Loissiana though, didn't some researchers or archeologists hypothesize that the first great flood happened because of a breach of natural dikes (hills or mountains) that ended up flooding a large low lying area?

Re:Louisiana a land of believers? (5, Informative)

CogDissident (951207) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132971)

Well, yes, they did. It was a small inland lake that people lived around, and a large storm caused the barrier between it and the sea to erode, and the sea came into the lake. It flooded everything for 20 miles from the shore of the lake. The survivors of this made the great flood origin story.

They found huts and such 20 miles out from shore, and the geological evidence backed this up, which is why they think its true.

Link for the interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)#Hypotheses_of_origin_of_Flood_myths/ [wikipedia.org]

This is good news... (5, Funny)

VMaN (164134) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132549)

.. as it also opens the door for the teachings of our noodly saviour

That's fucking intelligent. (4, Insightful)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132557)

So, when are they going to give equal time to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

As a member of the Church of FSM (5, Funny)

diskofish (1037768) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132559)

As a member of the Church of FSM, I am insulted. If they are allowed to teach ID in the classroom, then the story of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be allowed as well. Blessed be his noodly greatness!

Re:As a member of the Church of FSM (5, Insightful)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132713)

Well, given how badly misreported this law has been, I'm not surprised that you misunderstood it.

All this law does is provide legal protection for teachers to tech "alternate views" to the Theory of Evolution. It is NOT exclusively restricted to ID teaching. This could, logically, also include FSM theory. So don't worry, be Happy! Teachers in LA can now ALSO tell children about the Noodly beginnings of humanity in addition to other creationist teachings.

Seriously, this really is much ado about nothing. It's just an anti-stupid lawsuit law, to protect teachers who simply ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that not everyone believes ToE is correct. That's it, nothing more, no matter what the militant Atheist sites and D-Kos may say.

what's the big deal? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132567)

are we so afraid that science will lose the fight?

Sounds similar to our irrational fear of communism.

The truth will win out in the end.

And I don't mind letting kids know that maybe (just maybe) science doesn't have all the answers.

Dawkins doesn't have all the answers, you know.

Re:what's the big deal? (4, Insightful)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132645)

are we so afraid that science will lose the fight?

Is it "afraid" to not want my children taught an out-and-out lie, which is precisely what creationism and its bastard offspring, ID, are?

Re:what's the big deal? (2, Insightful)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132693)

are we so afraid that science will lose the fight?

No, but after fighting the same battles over and over with the same types of losers* for generations, maybe it's time to move on.

* the same "usual suspects" as always - the religious/superstitious who aren't able to convice people using logical arguments ("you gotta have faith" sure isn't a logical argument) want to have unfettered access to promote their agendas in schools. You can have equal access to schools when atheists have equal access to your pulpits and sunday schools.

Fucking losers. Their existence is proof that Intelligent Design doesn't exist.

Religious morons in power... (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132987)

That's the real problem. We need to teach critical thinking so that people can recognize the morons when they see them.

Re:what's the big deal? (1)

bignetbuy (1105123) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132849)

You obviously learned about "Dawkins" and his theory of evolution from an ID teacher.

Re:what's the big deal? (1)

H+FTW (1264808) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132915)

Its not science loosing the fight thats the problem.

science is the method with which you fight its how you (should) reach conclusions based on evidence.

The problem is ID doesn't rely on science - the entire premise whether it's aliens god or David lister on red dwarf is that at some point someone intervened.

There is no way to prove this so it isn't scientific.

There is nothing in science to say that the entire world didn't pop into existence 5 seconds ago as a quantum fluctuation and that the anti earth that also would have popped into existence wasn't just eaten by the sun (see hawking radiation), so long as over all energy/mass are conserved you can do pretty much what you want. I'm not suggesting that this is the case but as with ID it doesn't matter even if it was - we couldn't tell anyway.

Unless ID can create a solid proof as well as solid testable predictions it isn't science, its philosophy.

Re:what's the big deal? (4, Insightful)

Paranatural (661514) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132919)

No one has ever claimed that Dawkins DOES have all the answers.

Also, it's very common knowledge that Science doesn't currently have all the answers. That's more or less the point.

However, we ARE afraid that Science 'will lose the fight', and with good reason; It's happened before, with all the Islamic countries.

http://www.chowk.com/articles/9555 [chowk.com]

Basically, they had high points of Science and Technology, but their rabid spiritualists tried to force every little thing to be expressed in terms of religion (Just like this bill is doing) until they became what they are today. They were once top in the world, and now they are firmly at the bottom.

It can happen to us too, and will happen unless we fight back.

Remember me to leave Louisiana... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132577)

Wait... i don't live there!

When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (-1, Flamebait)

smallshot (1202439) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132579)

This woman is acting like the law is changing the facts... sounds to me like they are trying to allow teachers to present both sides of the argument... I thought we WANTED our children to learn how to think on their own, not to be spoon fed theories that are widely accepted (and taught) as fact but still not proven.

Re:When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (5, Insightful)

Davemania (580154) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132649)

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. (un)Intelligent design is pile of crap sugar coated to look like science. It is not a valid scientific hypothesis because it doesn't have an valid data or methodologies to back it up. I don't know what state or school you were taught in, but in most classes I have attended, the focus isn't on the theory but on how and why the conclusion was reached, it a sad day when politic have driven education to put the focus on the conclusion rather than how the conclusion was reached.

Re:When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (-1, Troll)

smallshot (1202439) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132781)

I'm sorry, but evolution is not fact yet, if it was, this would be a very different topic.

Evolution has just as much of a lack of evidence as Intelligent Design. I'll be the first to admit ID has virtually no scientific evidence (and I won't even get into the debate of whether or not it is a scientific theory), but on the other hand, neither is there any concrete scientific evidence of evolution, apart from the strong surviving over the week, which can hardly be used to back up macro-evolution.

I grew up in 3 different states, and in each state, while my teachers did teach evolution as theory, I knew far too many people that believed it was fact, NOT a theory, because of how their teachers presented it to them at such a young age without giving them an alternative. Just let poor gullible children think for themselves for once!

As an ID supporter, I have a proposal (0, Troll)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132945)

Teach the non-controversy.

Teach how evolution (the materialist atheistic type) is as "established as gravity."

Then go into detail about Origin of Life scenarios.

Explain in detail how evolutionary theory explains the Cambrian Explosion.

Describe in detail how evolution made complex biological structures such as the human eye.

Explain how evolutionary theory solves the problem that DNA cannot exist without protein and protein cannot exist without DNA.

And when you're done, after you teach about all the intricate biological structures, we'll be there waiting for the kids, thanking you for doing all our prep work.

Re:When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (5, Interesting)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 6 years ago | (#24133001)

I remember when I was in school (non-US), we had an "alternative creationist theories" lessons, but I remember our teacher saying: "The problem is, there is not much to tell about other theories, because they are ... well, not theories in scientific sense of the word." So we had like half of the single lesson (~ 20 min) dedicated to all other theories (I don't even remember them now :) )

Re:When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132665)

1. It isn't possible to prove a theory. 2. ID is not science.

Re:When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132671)

Get your head out of your ass and learn how science works before posting such idiotic statements.

Re:When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (4, Insightful)

Lord_Frederick (642312) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132709)

The problem isn't proving that evolution is true. The problem is that ID can't be proven false. It's like demanding Scientology be taught in schools because it can't be proven false even though most sane people know it's just bad science fiction.

Re:When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (4, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132727)

No, because the whole point of science is never knowing for sure. You can never stop investigating and experimenting, because there are always things you don't know that you don't know and you have to question everything.

Yes, you can have a significant body of evidence that supports a theory, which can reliably predict outcomes. Classical Newtonian Physics, for instance, works for most things you encounter in your daily life, but is hardly the last word on Physics. Hell, field theory and quantum mechanics pretty much undo it, at least at the microscopic level.

Similarly, Mendelin heredity more or less works, but is hardly the last word on genetics. Even since the discovery of DNA, we've learned all sorts of new things.

Evolution is an observable natural phenomena. Natural Selection seems to explain it, but there could be other things we don't know and so we have to search them out.

Hell, God *could* exist and *could* have intelligently designed the universe. It's highly unlikely, but not impossible. What *IS* certain however, is that the certainty with which ID/Creationist proponents cling to that crap belies any scientific credit that their approach has.

Certainty is the antithesis of science, at least in my view. I'm sure some PhD will come along and bitch slap me down now.

Re:When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (4, Insightful)

div_2n (525075) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132749)

As soon as the ID crowd can provide proof of any sort to move their take on things from fairy tale category to testable theory, then they can begin teaching it in classrooms.

Re:When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (-1, Troll)

smallshot (1202439) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132859)

I could say the same for evolutionists... they act as if natural selection is proof or something... OMG, my jellybeans just evolved, they're all black now! set another bag in front of me and see if it happens again, then we can label it as fact!

Re:When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132797)

While I agree with you, teaching philosophy in science class is not the way to achieve critical thinking.

ID is a philosophy, and not an alternative scientific theory. As such, I have no problem with it being taught - just with it being taught in science class.

Re:When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (1)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132843)

ID has no "side" in an argument, any more than "It's turtles all the way down" has a side in a discussion about the structure of the solar system.

Re:When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (1)

notorious ninja (1137913) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132947)

How can you support teaching ID in science classrooms? It's not science. Evolution is science. Science is not about arguments, it's about facts. If it's in a current events or critical thinking class then teaching ID might have merit, but there is no excuse for teaching non-scientific material in a science class. I doubt you think we should reconsider teaching other theories such as gravity, relativity, etc, so why reconsider evolution? Should we also teach a "intelligent falling" to students for those of us that don't believe in gravity?

Re:When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (1)

fredrated (639554) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132959)

Both sides of WHAT argument? ID is not an argument to anyone but an idiot. They present nothing testable, just "This is what is, so teach it!"

Re:When did we PROVE evolution to be true??? (3, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132981)

They are allowing it to be taught on equal footing (I think). That would be similar to allowing an alternate teaching of gravity. Nobody has proven the fundamental reason gravity works, though it has been demonstrated that the effect has certain parameters and is highly repeatable. Evolution has similar backing. Other theories, such as the various stories of creation by Christians, Pastafarians, et alias, do not have the base of scientific review. It is not "science." It should be taught in the appropriate class - i.e. Religion.

If some people want to call parts of science class a sham, that's fine. Science has been shown to be wrong in some cases over time, such as the model of the atom, but science is specifically about updating as new discoveries are found. Don't start teaching religion in science class, or literature in mathematics class for that matter.

FSM? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132581)

Will they pass a Flying Spaghetti Monster law, too?

It's at least equally as valid as ID.

Good News Everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132583)

Next time when the Hurricane strike, you know god is pissed about something.

And they wonder why. . . (5, Interesting)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132585)

they are almost always at the bottom of the list when it comes education in this country or are the butt of jokes about being backwoods hicks.

If they like being laughingstocks, that's no skin off my nose. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Re:And they wonder why. . . (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132633)

backwoods hicks

Backwards. The word is backwards.

What state are you from again?

Re:And they wonder why. . . (0, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132741)

If they like being laughingstocks, that's no skin off my nose.Dude, it's Louisiana.

Re:And they wonder why. . . (3, Insightful)

cowscows (103644) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132833)

True enough, but it's a shame that the ones who are going to lose out the most in all this are children, who've had nothing to do with the decision and don't really know any better.

Aren't we done with this *yet*??? (4, Interesting)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132597)

ID is not science. It's not even rational thinking. If we're going to teach ID, why not Astrology and Palm Reading while we're at it? They're every bit as valid as ID.

If I had a kid in the Louisiana school system, I'd start home-schooling (assuming I hadn't already).

Re:Aren't we done with this *yet*??? (4, Interesting)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132695)

Astrology is actually more valid than ID, since it's a scientific theory. About any variant of astrology is falsifiable -- it gives testable consistent predictions. Predictions which are largely false, but a disproved theory is still a theory.

A theory, something that ID is not.

Re:Aren't we done with this *yet*??? (1)

Patrik_AKA_RedX (624423) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132815)

If we're going to teach ID, why not Astrology and Palm Reading while we're at it?

What's wrong with Palm reading? I've been reading quite lot on my Palm TX. E-inkt-fanboy!

Re:Aren't we done with this *yet*??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132839)

Why is rationalism and empericism indoctrination so important? I get the whole scientific process thing, but it seems kind of a narrow world view to say everything must we be describable in a logic system and everything we know must have evidence. Our brains are incredibly ill suited to work as logic machines. I just wonder about the safety of indoctrinating everyone with a single philosophical tradition. Good thing we have religious folk to protect us from it for now.

Re:Aren't we done with this *yet*??? (0)

smallshot (1202439) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132935)

Please explain to me how teaching evolution as the ONLY theory, and often teaching it as fact, is any more rational than providing a single alternative, even if it is more philosophical than scientific?

Re:Aren't we done with this *yet*??? (1)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132969)

I don't see any problem (or benefit!) in teaching ID, but since it's not science it should not be taught as part of science.

If Louisiana really have more time in the school day than they need for more useful subjects (who'd have guessed their school system was so efficient?), then by all means offer ID, Astrology & Palm Reading as a filler. I went to school in the UK and we had religion offered as a filler class - it never harmed me, since I chose to take cooking with the girls instead!

How does louisiana prepare for the next hurricane? (1)

deadmongrel (621467) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132603)

eh...build a ark.

Disclaimer: So damn funny that stole this from someone else.

Renounce your blashemous faith! (5, Funny)

Narpak (961733) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132607)

All glory to the Hypnotoad!

teaching-magic-in-science-class (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132609)

Sciense as in... spontaneous generation of life from rocks? Riiight...

Dear Louisiana (4, Funny)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132613)

Dear Louisiana,

Please do not slip anything through my child's back door. Intelligent design or otherwise.

Yours,

A Parent.

PS: I look forward to a pirate-based global warming curriculum.

I like the name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132615)

"Science Education Act"... beautiful.

ID vs Evolution (0, Flamebait)

jimwelch (309748) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132623)

Choose:
A. Freedom: (Teach all versions)
B. Censorship: (Teach Evolution only)
C. Censorship: (Teach ID only)
D. Teach nothing.

First the Church did censorship (B), then the scientist did censorship (C), I think it is about time for Freedom (A).

Re:ID vs Evolution (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132721)

Sure, just as soon as you explain how ID is a scientific theory.

Re:ID vs Evolution (1)

Orleron (835910) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132777)

You forgot one thing. ID is not science. There's no problem with teaching it in a social studies course. Knock yourself out. But once you teach it in a science course, you've crossed the line into insanity.

Re:ID vs Evolution (4, Insightful)

skrolle2 (844387) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132793)

You're missing the point, ID is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class. It's perfect for a class on religion or christianity, but don't even try to present it as some sort of equally plausible alternative to evolution.

When I was a kid in school I had classes on all the major religions, and their creation myths, including christianity. I've read the old testament in literature classes. I've had physics classes that taught about the Big Bang. And I've had biology classes that taught evolution.

Noone is saying that we shouldn't teach everything, but each thing has a place, and biology classes is not the place for ID.

Re:ID vs Evolution (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132885)

I don't think you are being fair. Science is a philosophy with a very rigid set of rules. If you want to teach an alternate philosophy, that is fine, but don't try to lump it into "science" class. To do so is disingenuous. It would be akin to legislating a new God into Christianity.

ID is not a "version" of science. It is its own separate philosophy.

Re:ID vs Evolution (1)

grocer (718489) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132907)

How is differentiating science and philosophy censorship? ID fails being testable and then proceeds to use the Watchmaker argument that has been around since the 18th century. I wouldn't go as far to say ID is blatantly Platonic but the idea that there is a master blueprint carries uncomfortable parallels to Platonic forms. ID sounds like a mish-mash of Western philosophy masquerading as "science", no doubt helped by the origins of Western science being found in Western philosophy.

Re:ID vs Evolution (1)

bignetbuy (1105123) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132929)

E. Keep your religious horseshit out of my child's head.

Re:ID vs Evolution (1)

VMaN (164134) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132965)

The question isn't whether or not to teach more than one possibility, but that we only want them to teach scientifically supported facts.

Every aspect of evolution is subject to scrutiny, and incremental improvement as new facts come to light, where as ID is sold as an absolute and infallible truth.

ID is an interesting topic for a philosophy class, not science.

I don't come to your church and try to lobby the idea of atheism, so I respectfully ask that no one try to sell superstition in my kids' science classes.

ahh, the back door... (3, Funny)

gosand (234100) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132625)

... right where ID belongs.

Bobby Jindal is a phoney (0, Offtopic)

vivek7006 (585218) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132629)

Changed his name from Piyush because he was ashamed of his Indian heritage and could never become a politician in the bible belt with that name. Same reason for changing his religion and becoming Cristian from Hindu. Whenever he is asked about his India heritage, he refuses to discuss it (see his recent Q7A on CSPANN) almost as if it is a dirty little embarrassing secret. He never talks about his parents and refuses to be seen with them in public places. There is absolutely nothing wrong in changing your faith, but shunning your parents, historical root and then pretending to be a white guy just to fit in .... Well I guess thats why he is a politician

Typical politician (5, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132637)

Born in 1971 to parents recently arrived from India, Jindal is a convert to Roman Catholicism and a Rhodes scholar - hardly the profile of a typical Bible-belt politician

There's no need to be a "Bible-belt" politician - a simple politician will do.

It seems that in Louisiana the Bible thumpers have gained some pretty big influence, if the 94-3 and unanimous votes mean anything. A veto would have no chance to stand, so Jindal took the easy way out and signed the law.

However, he might have lost a lot in the process. By not challenging the majority, he just stands in the middle of the mainstream. If he had vetoed the law, he would have stood as a voice for reason. He might have lost the next election, but he's liable to lose it anyhow, since he seems to be indistinguishable from at least 94 other politicians.

 

Re:Typical politician (1)

Brian Stretch (5304) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132957)

After vetoing their pay raise [nola.com] , perhaps Jindal thought that fighting a 94-3 vote was a distraction he didn't need? Especially when it's unlikely that teachers are going to cooperate anyhow. Save your anger for the legislators and remember how decentralized government limits the damage any one group of nitwits can cause.

Pick your battles: rule #1 of politics.

Re:Typical politician (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132997)

Why would he lose it? It's almost impossible to throw out the incumbent, especially if the incumbent doesn't make any waves. By just going along with things and making noises to appeal people, you're effectively guaranteed a chushy job for life from which you can't be fired for gross misconduct.

Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132657)

Intelligent design in Louisiana...

The biggest caveat I have with it... (1)

ibanezist00 (1306467) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132667)

...is not even the fact that Intelligent Design is ironic in its title, but that people actually think it is *valid science* -- it's not even science! At MOST, this should be taught in a philosophy class, and nothing more. I don't care how many people are supposedly of the Christian faith, it is not valid science, therefore should not be taught in science class. End of story...

Re:The biggest caveat I have with it... (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132863)

Here's the problem - ID asked questions that evolution wouldn't - such ideas as Irreducible Complexity and concepts that are a bit "out of the box" for non-theists NEED to be asked.

what what? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132673)

'The act is designed to slip ID in "through the back door'

You wanna do what what, in my butt?

Relax, all will be well. (1)

skrolle2 (844387) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132675)

Whenever I see or read about religious fanatics of whatever creed do their things to try to stop science, I just watch this video from Discovery Channel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_f98qOGY0 [youtube.com]

It reminds me that the world is filled with people who love the world just like it is, and who are curious about how it all works, and who wants to do real science.

The creationists and other science-destroying idiots can't win against that, it's like trying to stop children from being curious.

So relax. The ID agenda is just religions resisting change in a world that is slowly but surely becoming more secular. Real science will win in the end, it always does.

Am I missing something (4, Insightful)

d4m4$74 (1321703) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132677)

Why is the act called the Science Education act while no science at all is involved?

Re:Am I missing something (4, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132801)

Its OK, no education is involved either.

Magic and Holy Prayer (1)

ad0n (1171681) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132689)

Here is the first comment from the linked article: "I support this move. I go further to say that we should stop teaching physics and chemistry in school. These so called 'science' are controversial... Imagine trying to explain a force that can not been seen, felt and is suppose to hold sun and earth together (gravity). This is all guess work. And this thing called the 'atom' is just plain silly. Do 'chemist' expect people to believe that every thing is made of something called the atom. And that by simply rearranging 'atoms' we get things with different characteristics. Different colors, melting temperature etc. This is just too much to believe. I have never seen an atom nor have I seen gravity. I suggest that we teach children magic, holy prayer and alchemy as an alternative to this dogma of science. It would teach children critical thinking and not limit their view of the world to dogma. Children should have an open mind."

I have to wonder how wide-spread such beliefs are in the United States. I fully support religious teachings in an appropriate setting, and even welcome religious classes in a public school setting. This, if done respectfully, can lead to greater understanding and unity. However, to give primacy to a view that discounts all modern science is absurd.

To be fair, I am responding to a comment on the article and it may not be representative. But I have to ask whether individuals that express views like this realize how ingrained modern scientific knowledges are within our society. It may be 'guess work', but guess work has brought us cures to many diseases, prolonged our life expectancy, etc., etc. . There is nothing dogmatic about the fight to cure cancer, or to stop climate change, etc.

Euphemism (1)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132691)

The act is designed to slip ID in "through the back door".

So, I guess we'll finally here the truth from the government on why aliens from Area 51 made so many homosexuals?

What happens to the development of SCIENCE then? (1)

Yarhajile (1150379) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132711)

If our youth is educated to think that for every unexplainable phenomenon in the universe, that intelligent design is the cause, then what chance do we have of actually expanding our knowledge of the universe through science? All that this would seem to accomplish is an overwhelming inclination to just throw in the towel for "spooky" phenomenon.

The way I see it, our scientific future is going to be divided amongst folks who want to get to the bottom of things, and those who think I.D. is the cause hence "Nothing more to see here, let's move along people". The world is setup that way already, this would only seem to make it worse.

FWIW, I grew up a Christian and blindly believed the world is as it is because God made it that way. I've since come to the realization, like many others, that although this may be true to a certain degree (if you believe), leave it out of the schools. Let schools teach "the world" and churches to teach "The other stuff". Just my $.02

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132715)

You know what.. I'm glad. Let them pass their laws that teach creationism in science class. I have a daughter and I want her to shine above her peers. I will teach her science and will make goddamn (haha) sure that she understands evolution. Let Louisiana turn out semester after semester of students who don't understand the scientific method. Let those kids be bypassed for good paying science and technical fields. It's a shame that the Louisiana kids will suffer, but you know what, better for my daughter.

We don't need no free speech in government schools (1)

stankulp (69949) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132717)

We cannot trust students to believe the correct things if we allow them to be exposed to ideas that we disapprove of.

So begins the fall of Western Civilization (3, Interesting)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132761)

Wonder if I'll be reading about this in 20 years from the prospective that this is what allowed religious fanatics to create generations of religiously indoctrinated Christianized children that jail and execute intellectuals.

What they really want (2, Interesting)

vilgefortz (1225810) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132769)

What they really want is creationism. Like in Teh Book. If they can't have that, they settle for the next best retardation, as long as it is not that evil Darwinian heresy. It is not really about them particularly hating evolution, its about them still being pissed off because they were proven wrong. They would do the same with Copernicus, if they could.

It's not like I said anything that wasn't known for centuries, either.

this is just stupid (0)

youngdev (1238812) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132783)

I am a creationist and I believe in the literal translation of the 7 day creation. But this is absurd. Creationism is part of a doctrine of *FAITH*. There is no way to prove it. It was never observed and it cannot be tested. It therefore has no basis in science at all. If Louisiana wants to teach creationism, they should have an elective world religion class and it should be covered as a minor footnote as part of Christianity (Maybe Judaism?). I am appalled when either side of this debate tries to pass their personal beliefs off as science. Look, if it can't be observed, tested and reproduced then the answer to the question "We just don't know".

For The Children (5, Insightful)

ThatDamnMurphyGuy (109869) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132795)

I hear this excuse for ID all the time. "We need to teach both, for the children to have a well rounded education".

I'll meet them half way. Go ahead teach your ID in schools, For The Children. And because we care so much that the children receive both sides of the story, you start teaching evolution in Sunday School. After all, it's for the sake of the children.

Why not teach SCIENCE... (4, Insightful)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132799)

Science education in this country is getting ridiculous. We go and try to teach scientific "facts" to kids before we actually teach critical thinking and scientific method. It's the NATURE of science that there are - or should be - no "sacred cows" - including evolution or ID or whatever. There is NO room for dogma in scientific thought, and we are seeing way too many people discount notions of the supernatural simply because it's supernatural. Science should be open to everything - including the unmeasurable and unexplainable.

Sad Day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24132805)

This is indeed a sad day for science and for the United States.

Where are the news channel science corespondents? Doesn't anyone in office have an idea of science vs pseudo-science religious fanaticism.

We are getting closer and closer to the societies we claim as terrorist societies every day. These societies have based their governments on what "god" has told them to do. We are just one step closer now.

Not as bad as you think (2, Informative)

stress_weenie (1002697) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132865)

The submitter could have at least linked to the text of the bill [state.la.us] that was actually passed instead of linking to a piece of alarmist journalism. I really don't think there is anything for us to be worried about here. The act allows teachers to "use supplementary textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner." Teachers cannot teach ID or creationism. In fact, the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion." Additionally, Joe Cook, director of the ACLU for Louisiana has said that the act is constitutional as written. This bill is probably totally unnecessary, but simply promotes objective thinking about all scientific topics. Now that is scientific right?

Backdoor to the dark ages... (1)

jkinney3 (535278) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132873)

When decisions made are based not on reason but on faith what actions follow are certainly unreasonable.

Once again the poor public school science curriculum is exposed. If the adults pushing this garbage had been taught what science is, they would not be so easily duped by the snake-oil salesmen posing as modern day prophets.

Is Darwinism so sacrosanct? (-1, Flamebait)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132897)

I am appalled at the acrimonious nature of so many posts when a subject like this comes up. Is Darwinism so sacrosanct that it can never be questioned?

There are questions that Darwinism cannot answer. Intelligent Design is about a search for the answers to those questions. Intelligent design theory does not say that the universe is too complex to be explained by evolution. Many things are very complex. A pile of sand is complex, for instance. And a pile of sand might evolve if more sand were dumped on the pile every day. What separates one type of complexity (such as a pile of sand) from another type of complexity (such as a living organism) is that one type seems to require some kind of intelligence. In that respect, the universe and a good book seem to have more in common than a sand pile has to either of them.

government schools (1)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132903)

Government has no business being involved in religion or in schools.

American schools: brought to you by the same great people who created the USPS and Guatanamo Bay.

Give parents vouchers, and let them decide how to educate their children. If we let the government decide what to teach, than we're no better than the system used in the USSR. We cheered when they dumped socialism, yet we've allowed that same system (government control of gritty details) to control our kid's education. Gritty details include evolution or intelligent design. How did we get into such a mess that governments are deciding this stuff?

Supreme Court makeup (2, Interesting)

BigGar' (411008) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132921)

Perhaps, they feel with the change in composition in the Supreme Court with Bush's last couple of appointments that this has a better chance of standing up that previous attempts.

Congratulations, LA (1)

Blob Pet (86206) | more than 6 years ago | (#24132931)

So instead of focusing on rebuilding your hurricaine-damaged homes, you decide to damage your education system and make it an even greater laughing stock than the Kansas Board of Education. I would normally applaud this because it opens the door for teachings about His Noodley Appendage, but of course, do you really think those right-wing nut jobs are going to let the FSM be taught along-side ID?

If you want to know more about the modern form of ID, read up on the main proponents and creators of this "theory": the Discovery Institute. You'll find that they aren't really a scientific body so much as a political group founded by Reagan-administration bureacrats that are propping up phony scientists.
You'll also find about their manifesto, known as the Wedge. Their agenda is really just to force the Christian God upon all of us. Also, read up on the Dover trial, where one of their main "scientists" had to admit under oath that for ID to be considered science, the definition of science would have to be changed to allow astrology to be considered science as well. Wikipedia's good for all of this.

Bacteria evolve in protest of new ID legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24133013)

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?