Louisiana Science Education Act

Note: This is a ridiculously long post, sorry about that.

I know this is old news for many but I just read an article entitled “Louisiana Confounds the Science Thought Police” by John West and quite frankly I find Mr. West guilty of the same hypocritical nature and narrow mindedness that he seems to think everyone on the left is guilty of.

First off, if you’re not familiar with this subject it is a bill that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (an admitted creationist) has signed into law recently. Louisiana is the only state that has actually signed this into law, all other states had this bill struck down, though Michigan was still pending last I’d heard.

As this bill passed thru state legislature the name calling and propaganda around the bill seemed decidedly Christian to me, as a way to get religion in the classroom. Many of the officials repeatedly cited god in their personal statements. Nonetheless, the bill passed with ease.

West’s article seems to basically be a treatise on why conservatives are right and liberals are wrong and that we should all love this bill.

He states:
“Opponents (to the bill) allege that the Louisiana Science Education Act is “anti-science.” In reality, the opposition’s efforts to silence anyone who disagrees with them is the true affront to scientific inquiry.”

That is not what is happening, the bill allows teachers to provide supplemental material to students to provide alternative views on many scientific theories and hot button topics including stem-cell research, global warming, human cloning and evolution. That’s the way the right wing likes to word it anyway.

It’s that “alternative views” that has so many in the scientific community upset. Evolution is the key theory at this point. To my knowledge it has no competing scientific theories, there are competing philosophies yes, but not competing sciences. All the scientific community wants are for people to keep their ideology out of the science lab, ideology is for philosophy class.

West goes on to talk about how the left has prepackaged science and dares anyone to speak out against it, immediately decrying “war on science” if it happens. Does this happen? Yes. But I don’t understand why a conservative would be upset about this, isn’t copying someone supposed to be a form of flattery? (Do you love America?)

He then goes into explaining that science does not have as tight an answer as they would like for theories such as evolution. That many of the theories have problems, criticisms and questions. But he states that most conservatives already knew that, I’m still confused as to why he would need to explain what they already know though.

He talks about how “thoughtful” teachers want to acquaint students with dissenting views and conflicting evidence but couldn’t before this bill.

Look, I’m all for dissent, it’s the only way things change and get better, but again, there is no real conflicting evidence against evolution, problems yes, but not enough to abandon the theory.

I believe West mentioned global warming, stem-cell research, and human cloning just so he could put the “conflicting evidence” remarks into the story. The talk about global warming was mentioned only in short, stem-cell research was mentioned in passing, and human cloning was only mentioned by name with no other data or opinions concerning it. The bulk of the scientific discussion concerns evolution, which is really what most are talking about concerning this bill, I just don’t like that right wing Christians can’t just say this.

West goes on to state that the head of the Louisiana ACLU read the bill and due to its careful framing had to agree that it was constitutional. West seems to think that if its wording makes a thing constitutional then that makes it right.

West added that “three college professors, two biologists and one chemist, testified in favor of the bill, specifically challenging the claim that there are no legitimate scientific criticisms of Neo-Darwinism.”

Two things about that quote stick out like a sore thumb to me, he never mentions who these professors are or what college or university they teach at. For all I know they’re from the creation institute. Secondly, no one said there are no legitimate scientific criticisms, there are, but there are no competing theories and again those criticisms do not hold enough weight to disregard the theory of evolution.

The author begins to then talk about how every citizen has a right to question scientific findings, including the religious. Which I don’t really think any one disagrees with.

West goes on to talk about how science has continually been wrong about things it once heralded as absolute fact. Because, ya know, the right has never been wrong, we’re all so happy worshipping god on our flat earth while the sun revolves around us.

Eugenics becomes his main point here, stating that Roman Catholics are the only ones who stood up to Eugenics being pushed on the masses. Apparently the talk at the time was “we can breed better humans” and ended up sterilizing a bunch of people instead.

To be fair, I don’t remember any of this, it was before my time and I just don’t know enough to offer real commentary on it. But, I can say that the idea behind eugenics is sound, the fact that humans screwed up the implementation is no cause to praise Catholics for standing up to science.

But his main point becomes that scientist should not say that the religious have no voice in science. Scientists don’t say that, they say religion has no voice in science and that is true. Whether or not a person practices a faith has no bearing on it as long as they can separate that faith from a logical unbiased view of science.

West states:
“Whether the issue is sex education, embryonic stem-cell research, or evolution, groups claiming to speak for “science” assert that it violates the Constitution for religious citizens to speak out on science related issues.”

What group said that? What group said exactly those words? None of them did. Again, it’s religion that must be kept out of science, not the religious.

He goes on to unload a big shocker on us: “America is a deeply religious country…” what a journalist this guy is. Took him years to come to that conclusion. The quote follows:
“…and no doubt many citizens interested in certain hot-button science issues are motivated in part by their religious beliefs. So What?”

Seriously John West? Really? “So what?” I wonder if Mr. West would have that feeling if our borders were taken over by Muslims and a majority of Americans voted to instill sharia law. Would it still be “so what” if people were motivated by religion to kill your daughter if she were caught with an infidel?

Of course not, it’s only “so what” since you agree with what the majority says. Majority does not equal right and just though.

He goes on to point out opponents to slavery and supporters and leaders of the civil rights movement were motivated by religion. Yes they were, only problem is that we’re talking about science John, not social studies. Pay attention and quit passing notes in class.

He does get one part right:”So long as religious citizens offer arguments in the public square based on evidence, logic, and appeals to the moral common ground, they have every right to demand that their ideas be judged on the merits, regardless of their religious views.”

See, we can agree on that statement. But you show me a zealot who can separate his or her religious convictions from their views and I’ll show you a scientist who understands evolution and believes in ID.

He loses ground again when he tries to paint Barbara Forrest as a militant atheist, and who knows, maybe she is, I’ve never met the woman to be honest. But West doesn’t know either, his basis for this seems to be that she is a long time board member of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association. Further proof? She looked for support to stop this bill on Richard Dawkins website, because, you know, Dawkins is the leader of the Atheist Panthers. I ordered my uniform last week, should be here any day, I’ll look so good in a beret.

She went with Dawkins because he’s a leading authority in the world of science, and isn’t that what this bill is supposed to be about?

The fact of the matter is that creationists were involved in pushing this bill thru the house which alone should raise a red flag. Jindal himself pushed it and the bill does give the possibility of science teachers in this nation presenting intelligent design hypotheses as though they were true scientific theories.

That’s the real point here, the bill makes it easier for children to be lied to in the future, and on that point alone it is wrong.