Governor Bobby Jindal has signed into law an education bill that has taken some criticism:
The law will allow schools if they choose to use "supplemental materials" when discussing evolution but does not specify what the materials would be.It states that authorities "shall allow ... open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning."
It also says that it "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."
Jindal's office declined on Friday to comment. The bill was backed by the Louisiana Family Forum, a conservative Christian group, and the Discovery Institute, which promotes the theory of "intelligent design" -- a theory that maintains that the complexity of life points to a grand designer.
"Intelligent design is currently not in the Louisiana state science standards and so could not be taught. But this allows scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory to be taught," said John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
Critics say intelligent design is biblical creation theory by another name and that the new legislation is an attempt to water down instruction about evolution.
Supposing that the McCain campaign really was considering Jindal for the vice presidency, would this help or hurt Jindal's chances?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Judging from this list of comments, the only thing one is not allowed to ask questions about, is evolutionary naturalism. You can debate everything else, sex, deconstruct everything you read,religon,heck, even physics can't get quantum mechanics to work with Relativity, string theory has a run, then can't be proved, now we have the multiuniverse theory, which can't ever be proved, but is still taken seriously, along with many other things we are allowed to debate, but not THIS subject. Evolution explains some things about life very well. But not many other things. And this is NOT going away. Sorry. And it does not matter what the courts do, or academia, or whatever. People and scientist are going to keep asking pointed questions about some of the unproven suppositions evolutionary naturalism claims. And it will finally have to be allowed into civil discussion. Sooner or later.
You can discuss anything.. here. And amongst yourselves. And it has always been talked about in 'civil discussion'. We're not talking about discussion in the public square. We're talking about being taught in a science class.
There's tons of things you don't talk about in science classes. Like... poetry, or art, or other sciences. You don't talk about biology in your astronomy class. You don't talk about chemistry in your mechanical engineering classes.
The other things you mentioned are scientific hypothesis. Regardless of degree of acceptance they have, or the amount of data supporting them, they all have in common that they can be falsified using the experimental method.
This also isn't about the 'unproven' parts of Evolution. That IS discussed, and is allowed to be discussed in every advanced science class about evolution. It is about alternative.. suggestions (can't quite call them even hypothesis, since most of them don't fit the definition) to that theory that often haven't even been clearly defined by scientific standards, much less gone through ANY part of the scientific process.
Heck, ID, as defined is A. Not at all in conflict with Evolutionary theory, though the 'ID movement', which is stealth creationism, is.. and B. By definition, isn't science at all, but philosophy. As every court that has addressed it has stated.
Its a level playing field. When Creationism, or ID, or whatever meets the exact same standards, gathers its data, and makes it case in the scientific realm using the basic, standard scientific method, they can call themselves 'competing'.
Jindal won't help or hurt McCain. McCain is in a political no-mans land, having alienated a sufficient number of conservatives and having fallen for the "bait and switch" seduction of the independents.
Only some complete meltdown by Obama will help McCain, such as the revelation that Obama has been part of some black supremacist group for 20 years.
Oh, wait...
brierrabbit3030 : "...even physics can't get quantum mechanics to work with Relativity, string theory has a run, then can't be proved, now we have the multiuniverse theory, which can't ever be proved"
One thing to consider is that new theories must match all predictions of the existing theory and make new predictions the old theory doesn't. Since the theory of evolution matches a great deal of evidence, it has home court advantage, and ID has a high hurdle to jump over. You would need to propose a way to falsify ID and have an experiment which ID would predict an outcome that evolution doesn't. Until someone can do that it is not science.
String theory's problem is that its new predictions require energy levels that are beyond the level we can reach currently. Still it seems within the realm of science, but in order to displace quantum mechanics it would need additional experimental evidence.
It's called the multi-universe hypothesis because it doesn't have enough evidence to be a theory. Frankly I think you are correct that it can't be falsified and is pretty close to metaphysics at the current time.
Gaps in science aren't really a problem; they're basically further avenues for exploration. Consider that only a few hundred years ago people had no idea how heat was transported. So the current gaps between quantum mechanics and relativity aren't crushing problems to either theory. It means they're incomplete and need to be amended at some point.
By definition, science is constantly questioning and challenging itself.
The problem is that those who want to question and challenge the theory of evolution are frustrated by the length of time required by the scientific method. They want their beliefs raised to the same level of respect as decades of development, tens of thousands of hours of field work, research, lab work and peer review.
A state law "requiring" the teaching of science make room for "alternatives" is nothing more than an attempt to bypass science.
Now, before anyone decides to jump on me, consider this: I absolutely agree that there are scientists who use their positions in political ways. They compete for grant money, for prestigious positions at universities and think tanks, and they are just as human as the ID proponents when it comes to ego-based pressures to have their voices heard above all others. Some of them do, in fact, use their personal influence to corrupt or abrogate the scientific method.
That said, bypassing actual science is not right, was never right, and we have disabled and dead people all around us to prove that it is not right -- referring to the pharmaceutical industry practices. Science works when its rules and strictures are followed. That it doesn't work fast enough to satisfy the crusade du jour or to bring home the profits doesn't negate the validity of those rules and strictures. If anything, it should prompt ethics-minded people to insist on them, not do away with them.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.