In short, if I was a creationist (I'm not) I would extremely disappointed with this bill. It did NOTHING.
quote:I find it interesting that while attempting to argue scientific basis, many here are unable to stay on point, respond on point, or in this case reflect on issues within the realm of reality.quote:there are hypothesis on those subjects but not an consensus of facts pointing to narrative that has reached Theory status.
Regarding origin of life, global warming, human cloning, are you suggesting that AGW is not taught in Public HS Science Classes?
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities
I'm not uncomfortable in the least addressing Creationists on the topic --- warts and all. You shouldn't be either.
it was honed over many many court losses to what you see here.
You say honed, I say neutered. Seeing as how there hasn't been a massive dam-burst of creationism being taught, I think I'm right.
quote:Have you read the LSEA?
my point was to argue the way the LSEA was worded with 'competing theories' made it vague and wrong.
quote:Could you point out your areas of concern?
To enact R.S. 17:285.1, relative to curriculum and instruction; to provide relative to the teaching of scientific subjects in public elementary and secondary schools; to promote students' critical thinking skills and open discussion of scientific theories; to provide relative to support and guidance for teachers; to provide relative to textbooks and instructional materials; to provide for rules and regulations; to provide for effectiveness; and to provide for related matters.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:
Section 1. R.S. 17:285.1 is hereby enacted to read as follows:
Â§285.1. Science education; development of critical thinking skills
A. This Section shall be known and may be cited as the "Louisiana Science Education Act."
B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.
(2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection.
C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
D. This Section 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.
E. The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other local public school board shall adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Section prior to the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year.
Section 2. This Act shall become effective upon signature by the governor or, if not signed by the governor, upon expiration of the time for bills to become law without signature by the governor, as provided by Article III, Section 18 of the Constitution of Louisiana. If vetoed by the governor and subsequently approved by the legislature, this Act shall become effective on the day following such approval.
quote:Lay those out please.
There are also "several holes" in the theory of gravity.
I find it interesting that while attempting to argue scientific basis, many here are unable to stay on point, respond on point, or in this case reflect on issues within the realm of reality.
I'm not certain, based on exchanges here for example, that "bpfergu" even knows what Anthropogenic Global Warming refers to, much less the validity or invalidity of science behind it.
quote:I'd be willing to wager you're wrong. Very wrong.
who actually has substantially more experience in the scientific . . . field than you.
keep making (incorrect) assumptions about someone you know nothing about
We were discussing teaching creationism in science class instead of evolution and you go on some random tangent about global warming, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we were talking about.
Why neutered? The same groups that have been swatted down time and time again come back each time with a slightly more slippery definition which they think can pass constitutional muster and yet allow what they want back into the classroom. Not one of the groups I've cited here would call this anything other than an outright win for their side...not a compromise.
As for whether or not things have thus far been done that would trigger a legal fight, I have no idea of knowing that. After all, in order to get any legal issues started, there would first have to be a student (or parent) willing to come forward and risk the ostracizing that would go along with making an issue out of it. When it inevitably does occur in front of the right person, it will get tossed out just as the prior iterations were. I'd venture to say that it won't be the last time, and we'll be treated with a newer version of this next go 'round
I would argue that I have yet to see a teacher disciplined for bringing in extra material (before or after the law) so I don't think it has any meaning.
I differ in that I think that the courts have so hemmed in what creationists can push, that this law does nothing. It essentially says teachers can bring in supplemental material (but they still have to teach the primary material). Big whoop. I would argue that I have yet to see a teacher disciplined for bringing in extra material (before or after the law) so I don't think it has any meaning. It is totally symbolic.
So you'd side with the New Orleans board to oppose the LSEA, and to forbid teachers from using ""revisionist"" textbooks which:
(1) stress superiority of American capitalism,
(2) stress “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices”,
(3) replace the word “capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system,”
(4) encourage students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others”
(5) require that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government,”
(6) ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
As a few other asides