Creationism to be taught in La. public schools

By Abby Lunetta

Believing in a god illogical. and silly to me

“Evolution is not a science. It’s as much a science as Christianity is. The majority of America is Christian, and we should acknowledge that in school,” said Sam Huff, LSU geography freshman.

Apparently, lawmakers in Louisiana agree with Huff.

According to local reports, the state’s top school board approved a policy on Jan. 15 to aid in teacher compliance with a new state law concerning the teaching of evolution in Louisiana’s public schools. The Louisiana Science Education Act, which was overwhelmingly passed by the state legislature last June without serious debate, claims to promote “students’ critical thinking skills and open discussion of scientific theories.”

The Act expressly allows teachers to provide supplemental reading material for their students, outside of state-approved textbooks, for the purpose of critiquing established scientific theories.

The Student/School Performance and Support Committee – which is part of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, also known as BESE – voted to remove the following section of the new policy: “Materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind shall be prohibited for use in science class.”

With the removal of this particular section of the policy, in conjunction with the new law, science teachers in Louisiana public schools will now be given free reign to not only present religious views on human origins but to openly criticize well-established scientific theories, such as Charles Darwin’s theory on evolution.

In the event that a parent becomes concerned with the supplemental, unapproved materials or lectures offered in public school classrooms, his or her concerns will be addressed on an individual, case-by-case basis. If there is no parental concern, however, teachers will then be allowed to carry out their curricula unperturbed.

Intelligent design, a modern reformulation of creationism, is the belief that science has failed to fully explain the complexities of human life and its origins, citing this failure as evidence of a divine creator. Creationism takes its position from the Book of Genesis, which states that earth and all of life was created by God.

The theory of evolution states that life began billions of years ago and that natural selection acted upon our genes over a vast period of time, creating countless different plant and animal species. With the discovery of carbon dating, DNA, and the ever-growing fossil record, evolution has firmly taken root and flourished within the scientific community.

Dr. Bryan Carstens, assistant professor of biology at LSU, attempted to protest against the new law.

“From what I observed,” he said, “they [the legislature] weren’t very interested in hearing dissenting views. For example, I went to testify with one of my colleagues, and I was cut off halfway through my testimony, and my colleague wasn’t even allowed to speak – even though everyone who testified in favor of the law was given all the time they wanted.”

Despite the fact that intelligent design contains no scientific merit and cannot even be described as a hypothesis (because it is not testable), it aligns itself with popular public opinion. Although America aims to be an open, pluralistic society, the majority of Americans are, in fact, Christian, and the power of majority sometimes trumps basic Constitutional limitations, such as separation of church and state.

Though evolution remains a social and political controversy, it is not a scientific one.

“This is clearly an attempt to manufacture a controversy where none exists among professional scientists,” commented Carstens. “My interpretation is that people who are promoting this idea of academic freedom are interested in creating the appearance of controversy in the field of evolutionary biology when biologists – and by professional biologists, I mean people who actively do biological research and publish in peer-reviewed biology journals – have accepted the fact of evolution for over 100 years.”

Ultimately frustrating for scientists is the insistence that science is an enemy of religion. While religion has feared, silenced and punished scientific pursuits for thousands of years, scientists – many of whom have been devout adherents to religious beliefs – have persevered in attempting to unlock the mysteries of the universe. Unfortunately, some of the answers provided by science have challenged religion’s claim on knowledge.

“Religious opinions are, by definition, outside of science,” Carstens said, “but there are plenty of examples of … biologists who are very religious – even some who are evangelical. There are hundreds if not thousands of religious views in the world, yet you can talk to evolutionary biologists in China or India or the Middle East or other parts of the world, and we all have the same basic acceptance of the same core set of facts.”

Like Carstens, many university students – especially biology majors – are confused and angered by the passage of the Louisiana Science Education Act. According to Bryan Perkins, a biological sciences senior, creationism and intelligent design are not science and should never be taught in public school classrooms that are funded by taxpayers.

“In my mind, there is no need to propagate the idea of creationism,” stated Perkins. “If it must be taught, it should be kept in a history of religion class or philosophy class in which every creation theory – not just the Christian view of creation – is taught.”

For Perkins, like Carstens, creationism and intelligent design lack concrete evidence documented in peer-reviewed journals.

“The logic and methodologies applied in science can be used in all situations, including shaping one’s religious beliefs,” commented Perkins. “Problems only arise in the relationship between science and religion when religion tries to mold scientific evidence to fit its preformed beliefs.”

“If the scientific evidence supports religion, then it can be used to reinforce it,” he added. “Religion, however, cannot be used to reinforce science. It is up to the scientists to remain objective and not let their beliefs skew the actual evidence.”

Not all university students or biology majors side with the theory of evolution, however.

As the new law in Louisiana indicates, evolution remains suspect for many religious Americans, who believe that science fails to completely explain everything. For some of these devout citizens, the idea of evolving from knuckle-walking apes flies in the face of the belief that God created man in the shape of a perfectly formed, fig leaf-clad Adam and Eve.

Michael Womack, a biological sciences junior, believes that creationism should have a place in science classrooms and that science and religion can reinforce each other to help religion “gain a foundation” for its beliefs.

“There are always two sides to a coin, and I hate the idea of just children being fed one side of the story without hearing both sides,” commented Womack. “Science is not perfect by any means; there’s definitely uncertainty in it. My biggest problem is just how [science teachers] teach certain principles as if they are fact – when, in essence, a lot is still theory.”

Womack believes in the theory of evolution to an extent but is very careful in settling on a definition for evolution, agreeing that there is “an element of natural selection that goes on in nature” but rejecting the notion that humans evolved from such simplistic entities like “scum or slime.”

“My biggest thing is that if you are going to teach the theory of evolution, you should also teach the theory of God and how he could possibly have a role in all that,” said Womack. “You want kids to grow up to be able to make their own choices. Feeding them only one side of the story is kind of like stunting their ability to be able to think about issues and make their own educated choices.”

Although it is easy for some to reject evolution in favor of creationism because of religious beliefs, others are able to find a balance between science and religion.

Reese Proctor, an LSU sophomore in pre-nursing, believes in evolution and agrees that creationism is not fit for the science classroom – even though he considers himself to be a religious person.

“Creationism is a religious thing,” said Proctor. “As far as teaching it as an actual science in a science class, there is no real scientific data to support creationism. I don’t really think it should be taught with biology or the theory of evolution. If private schools want to teach it, that’s fine, but with separation of church and state, I really don’t think you should teach it in science classes.”

Although Proctor does not believe in creationism, he does believe that “God had a hand in evolution.”

“I think that evolution can stand alone, but if you are a religious person then you would have to believe that God played a part in it.”

Thus, as these ideas of science and religion continue to clash in the minds of so many, the issue of teaching creationism or intelligent design in public school classrooms will likely linger for years to come.

Originally Published: January 28, 2009

↑ Back to the top

Comments

It’s fine to teach Christianity, but not in science class and only as an elective!

Here are some quotations from the authors of our constitution, that shed light on their intentions concerning the role of organized religion in the affairs of state.

Authors of the US Constitution

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Thomas Paine
In no instance have... the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.
James Madison
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
There are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express commandment of God, that are shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice.
Thomas Paine
Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government.
James Madison
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
Thomas Jefferson
I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.
Thomas Jefferson
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.
James Madison
Is it not a species of blasphemy to call the New Testament revealed religion, when we see in it such contradictions and absurdities.
Thomas Paine
I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.
Thomas Jefferson
It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.
Thomas Paine
The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.
James Madison
The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.
James Madison
Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.
Thomas Paine
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.
Thomas Jefferson
One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.
Thomas Paine
It is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read.
Thomas Jefferson
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.
Thomas Paine
Power always thinks... that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all his laws.
John Adams
That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not.
Thomas Paine

Ned Cassles | 2009-01-28 - 03:31:31 PM (CDT)
I certainly respect the right of any citizen to flaunt his or her ignorance in the exercise of "freedom of speech". I do find it sad, however, that the legislators of Louisiana impose their collective ignorance on the youth of the State.

P. Lorenz Hilpman | 2009-01-28 - 05:45:53 PM (CDT)
I certainly hope Sam Huff’s understanding of geography is better than that of biology. If not, he should sign up for religious studies instead. His passion and ignorance should carry him through that at least.

Mike | 2009-01-28 - 06:22:15 PM (CDT)
This article is full of poor generalizations and statements that need fact to support them but do not. It does not properly represent the theory, evidence, or case of Intelligent Design/Creationism. Very poor journalism.

Jordan Jopling | 2009-01-28 - 07:48:16 PM (CDT)
This article is not arguing for or against creationism or intelligent design. It presents facts about what is going on right now with the issue in La. law and the La. public school system, and it cites opinions from people on LSU’s campus about what is happening--opinions from both sides.

This article is not simply a regurgitation of everything you can read about the pros/cons of either side on the Internet. It is more about how the topic is effecting people on LSU’s campus. If you want to know the pros/cons of the creationism/evolution argument, google it. If you want to see the discussion from the point of students and faculty members at our university, read here. Obviously, not everyone’s view is there, but it is a fair collection of opinions along with fact.

Just because you wanted the article to say creationism should be taught in classrooms because it totally rocks your socks off, does not make this a poor article because it focuses something less copy/paste.

Separation of church and state | 2009-01-28 - 07:57:52 PM (CDT)
I feel that the La. legislature owes an apology to the future children who will undoubtedly be set back many years in their personal development and education due to this move. Its pretty disgusting.
Too bad religion is so desperate for a hand hold in a world where their antiquated world views are simply not competitive or rational to survive.
Act’s of desperation on the part of religiosity in general do however shed hope on the possibility that we may coming closer to that day where when a dawn of reason will shed light upon the cold dark night of ignorance.

some atheist | 2009-01-28 - 08:29:20 PM (CDT)
Jordan Jopling,
The reason there is no evidence presented for ID has less to do with journalism and more to do with reality. There CAN BE no evidence for this religious belief. It is untestable, not falsifiable, unsupported by any scientific underpinnings except those already debunked, and patently patently NOT science.

Mike | 2009-01-28 - 08:29:46 PM (CDT)
I am so ashamed of my state! religion has no place in public schools. None! "Creationism" and "Intel Design" is a last ditch effort of an archaic institution and its mindless sheep followers to force their outdated beliefs on the masses, primarily our youth. This kind of nonsense should not be a problem, much less a controversy! It’s cut and dry, a theory that can can be tested through the scientific method. How can you put a make-believe deity through the SM? You can’t.

Rae | 2009-01-28 - 09:11:59 PM (CDT)
I am so ashamed of my state! religion has no place in public schools. None! "Creationism" and "Intel Design" is a last ditch effort of an archaic institution and its mindless sheep followers to force their outdated beliefs on the masses, primarily our youth. This kind of nonsense should not be a problem, much less a controversy! Its cut and dry, a theory that can can be tested through the scientific method. How can you put a make-believe deity through the SM? You cant.

Rae | 2009-01-28 - 09:12:33 PM (CDT)
Jordan, perhaps you could give us some of this so called evidence for intelligent design.

Bryan W/a ’y’ | 2009-01-28 - 09:19:55 PM (CDT)
sam huff is totally on point

jesus | 2009-01-28 - 10:01:40 PM (CDT)
http://www.youtube.com/paintmaster343

Jeff | 2009-01-28 - 11:37:50 PM (CDT)
jesus,
Exactly what point would that be? Louisiana wants to mandate religion in science class? Louisiana equates faith and science? Louisiana wants to make sure their kids will not be able to compete in the world as scientists? Inquiring minds want to know...Not.

Mike | 2009-01-28 - 11:41:40 PM (CDT)
Why stop at evolution and creationism? Now the voodoo myths can be taught as well. There are many, many more. Open your mythology textbooks, kids! You have much to learn.

Concerned | 2009-01-28 - 12:42:54 AM (CDT)
Stupid, stupid, stupid...

The Louisiana school board has their heads up their A**es!

The first quote had it right - neither creationism, nor ID, nor christianity are Science. And NONE of these should be taught in public science class with my tax money!!!!!

I hope they all get fired!

SWEJ | 2009-01-28 - 01:05:47 AM (CDT)
It’s a very sad time for science education in this state.

worried | 2009-01-28 - 01:28:03 AM (CDT)
Who, or what, designed the designer?

brett w/a b | 2009-01-29 - 03:41:55 AM (CDT)
Evolution is such a major part of modern biology, why don’t this country’s universities simply get together and say that any high school biology class that doesn’t cover evolution as a central part of the curriculum will only count as an elective?

That will make parents, at least some of them, see the bright dividing line between giving their children a sound scientific education and using public schools to teach matters that should be taught in the home or at church.

Alexis | 2009-01-29 - 04:58:54 AM (CDT)
At last, school board that has got it’s head out of the rear end of the evolutionists dinosaur and realised that burying ones head to avoid seeing any possible argument.
They do t have to accept that creationism is true. But that there are millions around the world who accept it has a valid place in world origins.

Pete Hodge | 2009-01-29 - 09:54:18 AM (CDT)
How exactly life first "got here" is presently still a mystery -- but what happened over the next several billion years (and continues to happen) is not! That next life diversified via biological evolution is attested to by a veritable mountain of diverse (physical, chemical, geological, biological) empirical evidence, and no understanding of biology and our natural history can be thorough without understanding biological evolution, rendering evolution education a vital component of public science education.

On the other hand, "God did it" (or any other equivalent statement) -- EVEN IF TRUE -- is not a scientific explanation for anything and cannot be made to provide a scientific explanation. "God did it" -- EVEN IF TRUE -- halts rather than advances scientific inquiry and contributes nothing -- zero, zip, zilch, nada, squat -- to scientific knowledge, and thus has no place in public science education.

Frank Lovell | 2009-01-29 - 09:56:02 AM (CDT)
Pete Hodge,
There IS no argument ... in science. You can argue all you like in church. In fact, if you want to teach religion in science class, I’ll offer to teach science, specifically the proven science of evolution, in your church. Fair deal?

The fact that millions accept creationism does not matter one whit. Millions worship Allah and I’ll just guess you don’t agree with that tenet. The scientific method is all that matters, not your opinion or anyone else’s fool.

Mike | 2009-01-29 - 10:27:05 AM (CDT)
I did it.

yahweh | 2009-01-29 - 12:06:11 PM (CDT)
Wow. I am genuinely impressed by the level of discourse being had here. I’m impressed to see this many outspoken opponents to creationism being taught in public schools.

mildly shocked | 2009-01-29 - 02:16:35 PM (CDT)
This part of the article "...evolution remains suspect for many religious Americans, who believe that science fails to completely explain everything," highlights the crux of the problem.

Science is a process. Through that process of observation, hypothesis, prediction and experimentation, we are able to build up theories that explain the facts of the world around us, with ever increasing precision. All theories and explanations, though, are provisional, subject to being modified, improved or discarded as new evidence is discovered. Because it is an empirical process, and we can never observe everything in the universe, it is inevitable that the knowledge we gain through the scientific process will be incomplete. But, at the end of the day thats okay, because that same process provides with us with the tools to continually make our understanding more certain.

For some religious people, who are comforted by the absolutes religion provides, this is disconcerting. They may demand that science explain absolutely everything, particularly as it relates to the process of how humanity got here, but that absolute certainty is not something science can ever provide, nor should it be expected to. For those religious people, the revealed "truth" of the biblical account gives that certainty. Unfortunately, that account is completely unsupported by the evidence.

What is certain is that religious ideas such as Intelligent Design have nothing to offer in a scientific sense that helps increase our understanding of the world. It merely tries to invoke a "designer" where it claims that evolutionary processes must fail. No hypotheses. No predictions made (or possible). No experimentation. No results.

The fact that Louisiana has implicitly (if not explicitly) opened the door to allow educators to project religion into the science classroom is indeed disappointing.

ScottN | 2009-01-29 - 02:26:25 PM (CDT)
Science needs to be respected by not equating it with religious concepts. Understand the distinction. My fate and many others rests in the hands of scientists, and fewer will exist once we make science as irrelevant to critical thinking as we do faith. I respect everyone’s right to believe what they want, but when I understand that a cure for many of us hangs just out of reach because we may raise a collectively, scientifically ignorant nation; I lose respect for those who think that nothing more than their intense concentration, chanting, or other such actions will help the afflicted. Doctors exist because prayer alone hasn’t worked. And the foundations of their knowledge and practice are based in science, not superstition, nice ideas, or wishful thinking.
"Evolution is a CORNERSTONE of biological science."-National Academy of Science

Science is different from religion. Why confuse the two? It has only gotten us into trouble in the past.

JC | 2009-01-29 - 02:45:46 PM (CDT)
Science is based on observations. Religion (Intelligent design) is based on faith. If there exists proof (observations) that God exists then religion isn’t religion anymore, its science.
Of course, God wants you to have faith in him soooo...why would there be proof?
Ie., Religion (Intelligent design) CANNOT be science.

Paleo | 2009-01-29 - 06:16:26 PM (CDT)
While this is disappointing, the article seems to indicate that the Bill merely *allows* science teachers to teach ID alongside evolution. How many of them actually will?

pg | 2009-01-29 - 07:25:54 PM (CDT)
pg,
If one teacher presents the lie that creationism/ID is reasonable or evolution is not valid, that is possibly 100 students per year given short shrift, put at a disadvantage in science. More than that it robs them of examples where critical thinking and understanding of how science works could and should be re-enforced. Instead they will spread the lie that science is trumped by faith.

Mike | 2009-01-29 - 08:25:50 PM (CDT)
right on mike!

duh | 2009-01-29 - 09:55:54 PM (CDT)
All of you who disagree with teaching creationism will be judged.

A Friend | 2009-01-29 - 11:30:21 PM (CDT)
A Friend,
Judged intelligent surely.

However if you wish to diminish and demean the gift of self awareness and directed, logical thought that your god gave you by supporting an unsupportable position, please do so quietly. Don’t prevent others from reaching the heights their potential allows by confusing religion and science in their biology classrooms.

Mike | 2009-01-30 - 08:43:00 AM (CDT)
Kudos to Louisiana for their bold step in allowing Christians and other faiths to teach science according to their conscience.

Its hypocritical to label intelligent design science as \"religion in disguise\" when evolutionism \"atheistic\" or \"theistic\" include creation stories of their own. Any time you talk about \"origins\", you start to make theological statements.

\"Origins\" will always include religious assumptions anyway.

Wayne Hollyoak | 2009-01-30 - 11:17:23 AM (CDT)
In science class,
let’s teach our children
Cutting-Edge Science,
such as:

- Matter from explosions does not condense to form
objects like galaxies.
. . .
- Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law
of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.

- The specific complexity of genetic information
in the genome does not increase spontaneously.
Therefore, there is no natural process whereby
reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into
whales, or chimpanzees into human beings.

See:
What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about
Origins?
www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm

JosephU | 2009-01-30 - 11:55:55 AM (CDT)
The industry of religion strikes again.

mark | 2009-01-30 - 12:27:52 PM (CDT)
Wayne Hollyoak
No such thing as evolutionism. Evolution however, is a proven science not a belief system. I can and often do talk of origins without any mention of a sky fairy. It is humorous that you must call it ’intelligent design science’ because just tagging it science doesn’t make it so. Not testable, not falsifiable, not supported by any un-debunked published work.

I suspect that if you are a science major, you will fail.

Mike | 2009-01-30 - 12:29:59 PM (CDT)
JosephU
I do hope you pull your mind out of the bunk you’ve read at that site you reference. Every point on that page is disproved and relegated to sunday school fairy land.

I realize you weren’t there to see it but most scientists believe that galaxies, solar systems and planets all formed from the debris left over after the big bang. That theory stands up well to many tests. If a better one comes along, science will use it but you can be sure it wont come from genesis.

As for your misreading of biogenesis:
Quoting from scienceblogs:
The "Law of Biogenesis", in creationist hands, is essentially the old 747/tornado argument. Basically, Pasteur and Redi found that a monkey won’t spontaneously pop out of the ether. To a creationist, this translates as, "Self-replicating molecules could never have spontaneously arranged in a protein soup, then be selected for fitness over billions of years to form complex life."
...and...
It appears that [surprise factor 0] creationists misunderstood this one as well. Redi and Pasteur were both saying that complex life, multi-cellular, etc., cannot come from non-living material, but that it was still possible for very primitive life to arise from non-living chemical compounds.

Another human destined to fail in science and life in general very likely.

Mike | 2009-01-30 - 12:52:06 PM (CDT)
Should we teach the weeknesses of all science?

i think we should teach the weeknesses of cell theory, disease theory, gravitional theory. If some fairy tale book written 2000 years ago talks about magic velcro that can not be proved by science but must be taked on faith alone, then physics teachers must teach this along with gravity. I think that every creation myth from Apachee to Zuni should be taught as science. Every fossil and every rock layer is a trick satan is playing on you. Every genetic similarity between groups of related organisms has been performed by atheist conspirators to turn our children against god. God put our apendix and whale pelvises there to test our faith in the bible. OF course science should not look for independent lines of research and experimentation, only things in the bible should be studied with the assumption that they are the exact truth about everything from the physics of elemental particles and the laws of gravity to the origin of the palatypus and hot they are only in new zealand and not anywhere between there and mount ararat. .

jim | 2009-01-30 - 04:42:38 PM (CDT)
jim,
You are right of course. Only evolution is picked on in this way. I am surprised we haven’t had any "only a theory(tm)" fools on here yet. Maybe in a university setting it would be too embarrassing to admit you don’t know the definition of the word ’theory’ in science. Certainly hasn’t stopped the creationist loons elsewhere.

Mike | 2009-01-30 - 05:22:43 PM (CDT)
Joe,

Perhaps people are put off not by the embarrassment, but by the petty derision with which you address others.

Voters and policy makers must first be educated about science informally, before we can ensure a quality, formal scientific education for future students. Accomplishing this requires some sense of community and decency--not unwarranted condescension.

Timothy | 2009-01-30 - 07:29:54 PM (CDT)
Excuse me, that comment was intended for Mike.

Timothy | 2009-01-30 - 07:30:22 PM (CDT)
Timothy,
My derision and condescension come from fighting this fight over and over like a whack-a-mole game. I cannot afford to get tired and give up but neither can I muster a lot of kindness for blind faith stupidity.

I wish you only the best luck with your approach. I tried, as you suggest, to explain in very plain terms why creationism is not scientific only to be met by discovery institute parrots and preachers telling me I was damned. My patience for this is gone. Hats off if you can succeed.

Mike | 2009-01-30 - 10:02:11 PM (CDT)
If "God did it" then creation teaching is not unscientific. When I was in public school I was taught that light always travels in a straight line. It was not called the "theory of light travel," it was taught as a law of physics. Now we know that is wrong. Im not talking about the dark ages, or the world-is-flat era; Im talking about teaching in the last half of the 20th century. Today we have people of science saying man-made global warming is a scientific fact. And there are scientist who disagree. And in the 1970s scientists said is was fact that there was man-made global cooling.

I dont think the theory of evolution is bullet proof. We talk about looking for the missing link between ape and man. But there should also be links between all other species, shouldnt there? If we all evolved from simple organisms, wouldnt that be true? There are hints of this in various fossil records, but it is mostly circumstantial.

But my real disagreement with some of this discussion is that is relies on "separation of church and state." That is a metaphor President Jefferson used in a letter, but it was never intended to explain the First Amendment totally. And, in fact, that is not how Jefferson typically characterized the Constitution. The University of Virginia has Jeffersons writing collected on their website. Many are organized by category. On the page of statements he made about the need for the Bill of Rights, you will find six references to "freedom of religion" but not even one to "separation of church and state."
(http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2008/11/thomas-jefferson-meaning-of-bill-of.html)

Our Founders who wrote the First Amendment did see the kind of separation in the words they drafted. John Adams, for example, said, "That [God] would smile on our colleges, academies, schools, and seminaries of learning, and make them nurseries of sound science, morals, and religion;"
(http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2008/12/build-schools-to-teach-religion.html)

Now consider the actions of Jefferson. He was the first president (small "p") of the Washington, D.C. public schools. He required that the main sources for reading practice and discussion would be the Holy Bible and the Watts Hymnal.

So make the arguments about proper curriculum, not about a Constitution prohibition. The Constitution was not intended to control the states in such matters.

History Matters | 2009-01-31 - 09:15:01 PM (CDT)
History Matters,
What Jefferson intended is of no consequence whatever. What we have now is a document that we live by called the constitution with the bill of rights and all those amendments. That law states, paraphrasing, that the government cannot favor any religion.

That said, the current discussion is whether creationism should be taught in science class. It should not because it is not science. I have no objection to teaching creation myths in an advanced English or a philosophy class but you then need to consider all creation myths - jewish, christian, hindu, muslim, ute, sioux, hopi, navajo, fsm - all deserve equal time. Not sure you really want that but I’ve got an open mind on it.

As for science changing, that is the point of testability, falsifiability, and the constant questioning going on all the time in real science. ID and creationism don’t fit as they don’t meet this simplest criteria of science.

The constant struggle for truth you mention with respect to light and gravitational lensing is a case in point. With creationism and ID there is nothing to question. ID says it’s too complex, no need to look further. No more questions, no worries. Doesn’t sound like the science that discovered light bends does it? Evolution is not bulletproof, not by a long shot. Lots of work still to do (unless, like IDiots, you want to give up) and lots of discoveries to make but the basic tenets are sound and have stood the test of time and science for 150 years. As a theory, evolution has withstood multiple efforts to prove it wrong. All have failed. Evolution has lead to great discoveries and allowed many successful predictions. ID and creationism offer nothing like that. NOT SCIENCE!

Mike | 2009-01-31 - 11:50:48 PM (CDT)
History Matters,
Your little physics lesson was completely pulled out of your hat and is WRONG. And if you understood something about taxonomy and paleontology you\d understand something about \"missing links\".
What do you think the chances are of us finding every single complex organism that has ever died so that we could trace the entire lineage back in time to the beginning of life? Come on seriously?! The fossils we have found represent significantly less than a 10th of a percent of all the species that have ever existed on earth.

Paleo | 2009-02-01 - 07:39:09 PM (CDT)
As stated above science is based on observation and testing of hypotheses. Note the direction of travel here; theory --> conclusion. ID starts with a conclusion and creates "theories" to arrive at the conclusion.
Creationism is a "science" that has only one textbook, and that one hasn’t been updated in 2000 years.

Bogan | 2009-02-02 - 08:12:03 AM (CDT)
"Intelligent Design", "Creationism". Sheesh you Americans are nutty.

...Simon from Europe and glad we don’t have the problem here

Simon Gardner | 2009-02-02 - 02:37:59 PM (CDT)
"Although America aims to be an open, pluralistic society, the majority of Americans are, in fact, Christian, and the power of majority sometimes trumps basic Constitutional limitations, such as separation of church and state."
It is amazing how ignorant this statement is. A Catholic is a very different type of Christian than a fundamentalist Christian. Catholic Church teaching is consistent with evolutionary theory. As a Catholic I would be offended if my children were in the public schools and had to be exposed to the fundamentalist Christian’s interpretation of creationism. I believe that God created through and with evolution as science describes it. I think it is ludicrous and ridiculous to think God created by poofing beings into existence. For one thing, those beings could not survive on this earth if they did not evolve out of it over long periods of time. In any case, I think it is high time to stop lumping all Christians together.

Holly Wilson | 2009-02-02 - 05:39:02 PM (CDT)
Good point Holly,
Anyone think that this problem is stemming from a small minority that just have a big voice? Ie., Do you think that this is this a situation where a fundamentalist group has a significant amount of control?

Paleo | 2009-02-02 - 07:23:47 PM (CDT)
...and people wonder why louisiana is on the bottom of the list when it comes to education...

spencer | 2009-02-02 - 07:55:47 PM (CDT)
Appalling - another shameful victory for the forces of ignorant religious zealotry.

I’m in the UK, but if I lived in Louisiana I would make arrangements for my children to be educated privately, or out of the state, to safeguard their intellectual development!

Future high school diplomas and college science degrees from that state have just been rendered worthless by this idiocy.

Wake up Louisiana! You are allowing your children to be lobotomised by religious fanatics!

Steve Denton | 2009-02-03 - 11:51:56 AM (CDT)
Creationism is not science. Intelligent Design is not science. Only Evolution is science. \Teach the controversy\? There Is no controversy! Read and learn:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472

Steve Denton | 2009-02-03 - 11:57:55 AM (CDT)
Holly,
Sorry to say, but Catholicism is a very small minority of American Christians. Louisiana is Catholic heavy, simply because of its French origins. The rest of the country is largely protestant. Even so, some of your Catholic friends very much support creationism.
History Matters,
Look up the Australopithecines. Homo erectus. Look up proconsul. The fossil record is exciting, don’t ignore it.

Science Matters | 2009-02-03 - 06:27:49 PM (CDT)
Science Matters,

Quoting from Religious Tolerance:

52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.
24.5% are Roman Catholic.

From 1972 to 1993, the General Social Survey of the National Opinion Research Center found that Protestants constituted about 63% of the population. This declined to 52% in 2002. Protestants are believed to have slipped to a minority position sometime between 2004 and 2006 for the first time since the year 1776.
Catholics, however, are on the rise.

Sorry Science Matters, statistics matter too!

Holly | 2009-02-03 - 11:46:23 PM (CDT)
How does that negate my comment, then? The majority are protestant, a minority of Christians are Catholic. Conservative Catholics tend to support creationism. Thank you for your detailed statistical affirmation?

Science Matters | 2009-02-04 - 01:19:00 AM (CDT)
Wow! After reading some of these comments it is very apparent how "religious" evolutionists can be. Sorry to burst the bubble, but ID, Creationism, and Evolution are not testable and ALL fall within the realm of forensic science. ALL of these theories are based upon observations and different interpretations of past events and can never be proven or falsified. Future scientists will never learn to be objective if they are spoonfed only one theory that when researched has a surprising lack of evidence.

antidogma | 2009-02-05 - 03:47:17 AM (CDT)
antidogma,
You learned science from Bert & Ernie I see. Read a little (besides blog comments) before you spout. Evolution is testable. It is tested all the time and PASSES all the time. Future scientists, alas will not come from LA with insight and understanding like yours.

Science finds there is no objective evidence for ID or creationism. Nothing that stands up to peer review, nothing that can be used to make a prediction. Science does not start with a conclusion and then work on the theory. That is sky fairy creationist nonsense. Objectivity is in the evidence.

Mike | 2009-02-05 - 07:41:38 AM (CDT)
KEEP LOUISIANA LAME!

Joshua Nee | 2009-02-05 - 08:27:52 PM (CDT)
Guess what Mike, there is no experimental evidence for evolution (as defined by molecules to man, not minute intraspecies change over time), just as there is none for ID and Creationism. They ALL do not belong in the realm of experimental science as stated before. All three require an equal amount of faith to believe, and you seem very evangelical about your religion. I do not take offense at your attacks on my understanding of science because it shows your ignorance and how passionate you are about your religion. I happen to be a professional scientist as well as having studied all three of these theories for several years. In fact, I am confident that I know more about your religion than you do! Your posts sound very ignorant and my advice to you would be to study all theories (be objective as you say) before promoting only what your are spoonfed.

antidogma | 2009-02-06 - 02:32:27 AM (CDT)
antidogma,
I seriously doubt your claim of professional scientist. Certainly not biology and I don’t care a whit whether you take offense at my attackes. They are deserved.

I hope you haven’t spent much time studying ID & creationism. What a waste of grey matter when you clearly have none to spare. I am passionate (not faithful) about science in it’s pure form - something IDiots cannot understand. ID is a theory made to fit a conclusion. Pay attention: THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.

While molecule to man is not proven, science, real science. is working on it. ID just spins the same old lies. First it was flagella are too complex then darn those scientists, flagella got explained. The same will happen again and again unless we let fools teach faith in science class. Creationism and ID remove all need to inquire further. If it’s too complex, just drop a little ID fairy dust in there and poof, explanations are done. No need for proof or scientific method.

Just like ID, you tag name is all backwords

Mike | 2009-02-06 - 09:09:27 AM (CDT)
Louisiana is a terrible place to live.

nhk | 2009-02-06 - 12:24:30 PM (CDT)
Mike, you might want to focus the use of your grey matter on learning how to spell before pretending to know how to distinguish forensic science from experimental science. I believe the correct spelling would be attacks not "attackes", backwards is not spelled "backwords", and what is "you tag name"? One day you will grow up (and hopefully learn how to spell) and realize that name calling just shows your ignorance. Maybe then I could teach you whatever you would like to know about any of these theories (including the one you promote).

antidogma | 2009-02-07 - 02:09:43 AM (CDT)
antidogma,
Sorry my hurried typing offended you. I had a few other irons in the fire while reading your drivel. If you think ID is reasonable science, you can teach me nothing. Hopefully you not get to teach to anyone, but if you live in LA, the stupid is now law.
Your tag name is anitdogma fool. Clearly an untruth.

Mike | 2009-02-07 - 09:27:51 AM (CDT)
Wow Mike, your post sounds so educated. Maybe we should take you seriously from now on.

Apparently your junior high English teacher thought ID was reasonable science because she obviously could not teach you how to spell.

"anitdogma" | 2009-02-09 - 03:08:49 AM (CDT)
anti,
Yes, fool, you’ve caught me again. Left out a word. Ah, well at least that’s better than leaving out a whole tenet of science. Let me help you:

"Hopefully you do not get to teach to anyone, but if you live in LA, the stupid is now law."

Got it now? But you had better get to teaching that stupid quickly because a little town in PA showed just what will happen when IDiots are challenged in court. Not sure how or if links work here but you should be able to find reference to Kitzmiller v Dover all on your own if the links don’t work.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Finally, to be as petty as you, your last sentence is what we like to call a non-sequitur. Look that up too moron.

Mike | 2009-02-09 - 08:26:39 AM (CDT)
Wow, that is sad :(

We are now feeding genuine BS to the minds of the youth. My major problem with this being taught at public schools is how come Christians never thought of teaching other religions’ theories of creation as well? It does seem to fit though with Christians being the narrow-minded ***holes that they are. Creationism is by no means a science period. Even if evolution isn’t 100% accurate, it’s the best explanation we have and even the Catholic faith is giving in to it. The only thing this accomplishes is leaving out the other faiths’ beliefs and confusing kids about what’s science or not. Jesus was nailed to a tree but that’s not science because no one can prove it actually happened, so do we teach that too now?

Josh | 2009-02-11 - 09:18:47 PM (CDT)
The Flying Spaghetti Monster will be happy to use his noodly appendages to help with any creation myths you’d care to learn Josh!
:-)

Mike | 2009-02-11 - 10:14:56 PM (CDT)
Oh boy! Sign me up.

Josh | 2009-02-12 - 06:16:07 PM (CDT)
Just want to add a few things....first it is a THEORY of evolution not the LAW of evolution, think about it! Second which theory should we go with micro or macro? There is a lot of talk about evolution and creationism; however in the world of evolution there is almost the same heated debate has to how life evolved. Many who have posted take evolution as a matter of fact as to how life began on this planet. Be careful with absolutes because they will absolutely bite you in the ass when you turn around. I feel we have far too many laws and do not need one to teach creationism in schools but I would like to a little less certainty when evolution is taught. Challenge young minds to unlock the answers. Sometimes we are so sure we are standing and then we realizes we are really sinking. An open mind means to be open to all possibilities even if they are ones you dont like. It is funny how people use that line: be open minded when they themselves have a one track mind. So to recap because I sometimes ramble: I dont like the law but I love the competition. We should constantly be challenging what is believed to be known and maybe one day when we unravel all the secrets we will find God.

A Scientist | 2009-02-22 - 01:58:04 AM (CDT)
I am an atheist and I believe it would be right to teach it in the classroom. Why should we be bound to one idea of how life began.

James | 2009-03-25 - 09:48:06 PM (CDT)
we all remember the chart in science class showing the monkey slowly evolving into various transitional stages, you know, knuckle draging neanderthal, finally ending up a fully upright modern human. ok. i guess mother nature decided, "we will keep the monkey and the upright human, but everything in the middle has to go." even if that were true, this world would be a large graveyard filled with the skeletal remains of all those transitional creatures. trouble is, there has never been one found. there should at least be millions. but none. the missing link is not missing. it never existed. evolution is not science. it is science fiction. at least try to find a more believable hoax. think about it. give enough mud and enough water enough time, and it wil turn into a cat or dog or person. you people certainly have christians beat in the blind faith department. put away your science book for half an hour, use a little common sense, and just think about that. please.

studrock | 2009-04-17 - 11:42:22 PM (CDT)
Believing in a god illogical. and silly to me

Benjmain | 2009-11-23 - 01:49:40 PM (CDT)

Your Thoughts,

Name: (required)

To protect everyone from terrible spam, please enter the following code: (required)

* Offensive comments will be deleted!

Tiger Weekly - Serving Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Sgt. Peppers Band Live at The Varsity

Tiger Weekly Print