BATON ROUGE, La. (RNS) A national organization of scientists has informed Gov. Bobby Jindal that it will not hold its annual convention in Louisiana as long as the recently adopted science curriculum standards remain on the books.
The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology told Jindal that its executive committee chose Salt Lake City for its 2011 convention over New Orleans “in large part” because of the science standards. The letter from society president Richard Satterlie is posted on the group’s Web site under the headline: “No Thanks, New Orleans.”
“That’s too bad,” Jindal spokesman Kyle Plotkin said of the group’s decision. “New Orleans is a first-class city for a convention.” Plotkin said the governor did not respond to Satterlie’s letter.
Jindal signed the law last year, agreeing with its supporters that science teachers need wider latitude to use supplemental materials for lessons on topics such as evolution, global warming and cloning.
State teachers unions have said educators already are free to use materials other than textbooks, though a handful of students testified before lawmakers that teachers are sometimes unsure of how to handle questions that challenge established scientific theories, particularly evolution.
Many science groups, both in Louisiana and nationally, urged the governor to veto the bill. They cast the act as a back-door attempt to allow Judeo-Christian creation theology or “intelligent design” — the concept that biological life forms are the result of an intelligent being — to be taught as part of science class.
The act allows local school boards to approve supplemental materials as part of its curriculum. The state school board retains power under the law to bar specific materials, either on its own or after a public hearing on a citizen complaint about specific texts approved at the local level.
“It is the firm opinion of SICB’s leadership that this law undermines the integrity of science and science education in Louisiana,” Satterlie wrote to Jindal.
By Bill Barrow
Copyright 2009 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted February 17, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Yea for New Orleans they will not be Nazied by evolutionist, I totally agree.
posted February 17, 2009 at 8:55 pm
There are a lot of good cities for a convention. I don’t blame them for leaving; how could they have fun when they think about what’s being done to the teaching of their subject in N.O.
The Republicans want Jindal to be the new Obama but he’s too much of a know-nothing for that.
posted February 17, 2009 at 9:29 pm
To “Nazi”. I’m not familiar with that verb cknuck. Care to define it for us?
posted February 18, 2009 at 12:57 am
“Yea for New Orleans they will not be Nazied by evolutionist, I totally agree.”
Yeah, the next time the city floods, don’t look to evil science to solve the problem. Just blame it on the gays again; that always works.
posted February 18, 2009 at 6:21 am
Mordred08
Good call.
posted February 18, 2009 at 1:24 pm
It sounds as though N.O. has it all sewed up for what is taught and what is not taught in their schools, with their laws. Not a bad thing unless you want to keep all your students dumb, and happy as opposed to intelligent, informed and happy. Oh, how does an evolutionist or one who sees reason in a scientific theory, nazi anything, ck? Sounds very involved.
posted February 18, 2009 at 1:56 pm
I have a feeling they may have stepped from the kettle into the pot. Salt Lake City has a relgious affiliation that may be as Creation oriented as Louisianna’s. Was this the wisest choice they could have made. I appreciate their decision and applaud their action, but I am not sure they thought the next step through as thoroughly as they should. But maybe I am wrong and the Mormons are more scientifically oriented than i think.
ck,
I understand the enthusiasm you have for your position, but I also think your choice of “nazi” as a description of people who do not agree with you is over the top. I would not call you that, though we do not agree on many issues.
posted February 18, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Mordred that makes about as much sense as peeing in your gas tank and wondering why your car doesn’t run.
jest, I applaud your decision to not reference me as a Nazi, but I am talking about “some” scientist who try to penalize anyone who disagree.
posted February 18, 2009 at 8:24 pm
“Mordred that makes about as much sense as peeing in your gas tank and wondering why your car doesn’t run.”
cknuck, I’m still waiting for any evidence that would indicate that Darwin wanted anybody to kill anybody. I’m not saying it has to be accurate. I just think if you’re going to call someone a Nazi, you ought to be able to back it up with a quote or two.
“jest, I applaud your decision to not reference me as a Nazi, but I am talking about ‘some’ scientist who try to penalize anyone who disagree.”
Even if I believed creationists – sorry, intelligent designists were being unfairly treated, Nazi is still a pretty strong word. They’re not burning bibles or anything. They’re saying that science classes are for science, not religion.
posted February 18, 2009 at 9:59 pm
I too wonder if the group checked into Mormon land’s science curriculum. Babies waiting in heaven to be born etc.?
posted February 19, 2009 at 1:44 am
Mordred the science of origin is a religion; it is based more on faith than real evidence science or math. I leave it up to you to prove it other than he said she said.
posted February 19, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Pagansister, maybe a little ‘scientific inquiry’ would do you some good, rather than stereotypical generalizations and your ill-defined and thoroughly misled attempt to understand Mormon thinking.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11731609
One of Salt Lake’s selling points, besides its great snow, is Utah Board of Education policy, Satterlie said.
“Viewing present-day organisms as products of evolution provides the most productive framework for investigating and understanding their structure and function. As such, evolution is a unifying concept for science and provides the foundation for understanding nature,” says the board’s policy on teaching evolution.
Utah lawmakers have grappled with calls for creationist-inspired teachings in classrooms, but the 2006 Legislature settled the question in favor of science.
“It is great that it’s not being held against us. People outside the state see we have gotten past this question,” said University of Utah biologist Denise Dearing, a SICB member. “It’s wrong to confuse faith with science. It’s not a substitute.”
Remember “Mitt the Mormon?” When asked on the campaign trail if he believed in evolution, confirmed he did? Huckabee and some others confirmed they did not.
posted February 19, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Your Name (cknuck?) you’re up late.
Want “proof” of evolution? Here.
posted February 19, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Jprice: Have read LDS info. and have a brother-in-law and niece who are Mormons. (My sister, his wife and the other niece aren’t). If I remember correctly, the belief is that all human beings, male & female, are created in the image of God. (literally). Babies lived in a spirit world with heavenly mom and dad to teach them etc. then they are born. How was my statement above about babies waiting in heaven to be born incorrect?
As to scientific beliefs by the LDS folks? With the belief in pre-existance, to me that doesn’t indicate science/evolution, but I shall do a bit more “study” or ask my brother-in-law.
posted February 19, 2009 at 7:26 pm
J Price,
Thank you for providing that statement about Utah’s Bd or Ed policy. I did not know they had made as strong a statement. I realize this does not mean every Mormon subscribes to the statement. But as far as public schools go, they have made a determination and I expect they will honor it. So I guess the Evolutionist’s train CAN stop in NaCL Lake City.
posted February 19, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Yes, it is encouraging to know that the LDS church has been able to blend their beliefs with science.
posted February 20, 2009 at 1:01 am
I didn’t see any proof nnmns
posted February 20, 2009 at 11:19 am
I didn’t expect you would, cknuck. But plenty of plenty strong evidence is there. Where’s your proof or even strong evidence or even weak evidence for your Bible?