Bobby Jindal Exorcizing Evolution

[molecanthro]

So just read the news that Jindal just OK'd the LA Science Education Act.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/27/9825/16650/288/542784

Sneaky. So will it be possible to get this ruled unconstitutional at some stage? Having lived in Europe for the past 4 years I haven't been keeping up with US threats to evolution as much.

What does this really mean for the classrooms? And will this spread to other states?
It's obviously right wing nonsense as they focus on: "That the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can
cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects. "
So now they can use whatever outside sources they wish?

As a PhD student in a related field I'm very worried about what this could mean. It's spreading in Europe but not as fast...maybe I'll stay here :)

[premjan]

It is just local control - it will make the fundies happy without causing too much damage.

[skepticalbip]

It looks like both sides are making much more of this bill than justified. Courts have already ruled that ID is religious doctrine so can't be taught in public schools. I don't see that this bill would change that even though I'm sure that the ID crowd believes it would.

Like most bills, this one seems to have both positives and negatives. On the positive side, a teacher that sees that the authorized text that had been approved by the school board is deficient will be allowed to use other sources that are much better. On the negative side, a teacher who is a religious nut may believe that it will allow for bringing in ID so will try. However, teaching ID has already been ruled against. So, at most, it would only lead to dismissal of the teacher or another court battle.

Here's a link to Louisiana SB 733, in case you are interested in reading the actual bill instead of what the opposing sides claim it says:
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=482728

[molecanthro]

In the link I provided there is a copy of the "actual bill" on that page...so even though it is the opposing side, they did include the original wording.

I understand that teaching ID has been ruled unconstitutional in the Dover case...though i thought that was just for that case/district even though it could be used as a precedent in other cases. But I have no legal training at all (just a lab monkey here).

So I do think they will try to use ID books. However, even if they cannot use ID books I think they come at it from the 'critical analysis of evolution' side and will get strong support.
I agree that there could be a positive use. But, in that sense, I think it is completely unnecessary as they already have libraries and websites to point kids to if a text is deficient. I see this as only benefiting the anti-evolution/anti-science side.

[skepticalbip]

I agree that there could be a positive use. But, in that sense, I think it is completely unnecessary as they already have libraries and websites to point kids to if a text is deficient. I see this as only benefiting the anti-evolution/anti-science side.
It varies from state to state but, in many states, teachers are severely restricted as far as deviating from the approved curriculum so referencing library texts or websites that are outside the official course guide would be a no-no. An existing problem that I think you are missing is that the school board selects the texts. As shown in the Dover case, school boards are not some omniscient, impartial, objective governing body. It is the school boards as much as specific teachers that would like to see ID taught and it is these school boards that are currently setting the curricula. As I read the bill, it would give a knowledgeable teacher some freedom from the dictates of a school board that is controlled by religious fundamentalists (like the Dover school board).

Though, obviously, the ID crowd believes that it would allow a fundamentalist teacher to slip in ID against the will of a knowledgeable school board - but in this case science has the constitution and court rulings on our side.

[doubtingt]

Though, obviously, the ID crowd believes that it would allow a fundamentalist teacher to slip in ID against the will of a knowledgeable school board - but in this case science has the constitution and court rulings on our side.

The pro-evo folks (I am one) need to stop wrongly assuming that the only people interested in teaching things that contradict evolution are "fundamentalists" and "religious nutcases"(prior post).
A majority of Americans do not believe in evolution, and a large majority (including those who believe evolution) think that "alternatives" should be taught. Given that most grade school teachers have little more education in sciences than the average American, it is likely that this anti-evo majority holds for teachers. Most of them are not fundamentalists.

The numbers predict that most of the teachers who bring in outside sources will bring in sources that undermine evolution. Also, only a minority % of these teachers will be caught and disciplined. At least the approved texts are public and highly visable, thus can be scrutinized. The only way a teacher will be disciplined is if a student tells their parents, and the parents care enough and have the time and resources to do something about it.

Finally, the Dover judge may have said many things to disparage the ID movement generally, but his actual ruling was in regard to the specific curriculum policies of the Dover school board. Any less formal inclusion of ID rhetoric by a teacher will have to be rechallenged. Also, one can undermine and attack evolution without teaching ID or any alternative. If the teacher simply presents psuedo-arguments that talk about "2nd law of blah, blah", "lack of transitional fossils", "problems with carbon dating", etc.., then little in the Dover case will apply.
Finally, since there is no formal policy to undermine evolution, the school board may be largely off the hook and the courts will have to go after each teacher individually.

"Local control" is a buzzword for violating Constitutional rights of individuals that are protected by National control of local authorities. When the majority in a community is in the wrong and seeks to oppress the minority, then "local control" is really authoritarian control.

I'd say there is plenty here to be concerned about.

[doubtingt]

Oh and Jindals's endorsement of this (consistent with his prior anti-evo statments) pretty much proves that as a potential VP, he poses a major threat to any issues related to secularism, CSS, and education (i.e. everything)

[Keith&Co.]

The numbers predict that most of the teachers who bring in outside sources will bring in sources that undermine evolution. Also, only a minority % of these teachers will be caught and disciplined. And each time one is caught, there will be a furor, probably at least a threat of a court case, which the school lawyers would know in advance, or should know, or should be expected to know, that they will lose, costing the taxpayers a wastage of dollars if it's taken to court.

Every time this happens, when $$'s are lost or threatened, school administrators will take actions to make sure they're protected against lawsuits.

In my wife's school they scrambled after the Dover decision to make sure they were IAW the decision.

Even if it's only a small % that makes the headlines, those will be headlined in interschool memos and district directives.

All ideology aside, it will just become too expensive to teach ID in the schools.

[molecanthro]

I read a few reports saying that the disco institute had no part in this and they don't want religion in schools...hmm...
However, I found this link on pharyngula...
http://lasciencecoalition.org/docs/Release_LFCS_NYT_Jindal_6.22.08.pdf

I don't think that it's simply a matter of what the ID crowd 'believes' this law could do. Rather, this was deliberately crafted...They were all over this like parasitic wasps on moth eggs ;)

[ImaAtheistNow]

Oh and Jindals's endorsement of this (consistent with his prior anti-evo statments) pretty much proves that as a potential VP, he poses a major threat to any issues related to secularism, CSS, and education (i.e. everything)

He's against Cascading Style Sheets?

[molecanthro]

Oh and Jindals's endorsement of this (consistent with his prior anti-evo statments) pretty much proves that as a potential VP, he poses a major threat to any issues related to secularism, CSS, and education (i.e. everything)

He's against Cascading Style Sheets?

Well any creationist should be...if you read the CSS entry in wikipedia you'll clearly see, in the history section, an evolution from it's original form in the 1970s. There are also variations that could be selected ;)

[doubtingt]

Every time this happens, when $$'s are lost or threatened, school administrators will take actions to make sure they're protected against lawsuits.


Except the law was clearly crafted to protect the schools and districts.
Individual teachers will be acting on their own, without any directive from the school to undermine evo. Also, it is not at all clear that any prior judgements would apply to a teacher who never mentions ID or religion and merely mentions in class that some scientists have pointed out flaws X, Y, Z.
BTW, such statments would actually be true, because there are scientists who say such things.

Even for the teacher themself to lose in court, it would have to be proven that their specific statment about evolution was so blatantly false and unscientific that they are either incompetent of knowingly misinforming the students. That's a pretty high bar. Basically, the court would have to rule that no teacher is ever allowed to mention dissenting views and criticisms of the scientific consensus.
And even if the court did make such a ruling, the school would not be culpable unless it could be shown that they were or should have been aware of every statement being made by all their teachers in their classrooms.

[vicjagger]

It looks like both sides are making much more of this bill than justified.

Agreed.

Also, I think this could back-fire on the fundies. If the schools would actually teach the kids critical thinking skills like:
-how to evaluate evidence,
-how to recognize logical fallacies,
-the difference between real science and psuedo-science, etc.

then, the kids will recognize the truth.

[espritch]

It looks like both sides are making much more of this bill than justified.

Agreed.

Also, I think this could back-fire on the fundies. If the schools would actually teach the kids critical thinking skills like:
-how to evaluate evidence,
-how to recognize logical fallacies,
-the difference between real science and psuedo-science, etc.

then, the kids will recognize the truth.

So you think there is a snowball's chance in Hell that Louisiana is going to start teaching kids critical thinking skills? They haven't done it in the last 200 years. Why would they start now?

The whole point of this bill is to give fundy teachers a free pass to ignore school standards with respect to teaching evolution and slip creationism into the class room (the buzz word for this effort in now "academic freedom"). If you think otherwise, you just haven't been paying attention.

[Mister Agenda]

A very similar bill has been proposed here in SC, by the usual suspects. Know your audience: if this bill passes, it will, on average, perform exactly as expected by its crafters, that is, it will undermine the teaching of mainstream biology.