Monday, June 23, 2008

Is opposition to the Louisiana Science Education act thinly disguised attempt to impose atheism?

The "Louisiana Coalition for Science" is calling on Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to veto SB 733, the Louisiana Science Education Act, for being a "thinly disguised attempt" to bring creationism to the state's schools because, in addition to support for the bill from Intelligent Design advocates, some of its supporters are creationists. The bill calls for "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"

A terrible, terrible thing, I'm sure you will agree.

But if SB 733 is a "creationist" bill because some of its supporters are creationists, then wouldn't opposition to the bill have to be considered "atheist" if some of its supporters were atheists? Its the same argument, after all. So let's hear the Louisiana Coalition for Science explain why their logic doesn't extend to the fact that there are atheist organizations opposing the bill, and why the same conclusion about atheism doesn't follow from it.

Here are the Mississippi Atheists on why the bill should not be passed. Oh, and here's the Ethical Atheist declaiming on the evils of SB 733. In fact, aren't atheists quite well represented in the whole opposition to Intelligent Design? Let's see, there's Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris--all of whom are actively involved in opposition to it.

Looks like an atheist plot.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's not that SB 733 is an attempt to bring religion into science classrooms because the backers are creationists or ID'ers. And certainly only politicians might be against advancing ""critical thinking skills, logical analysis" etc. It's a question of judging the motives of the bill's backers and considering what discussions might be meant. As the local "pastor of Church of the Nations in Baton Rouge, Louisiana" writes at http://livethetrinity.net/
"I can handle that there might be some controversy about the details of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Maybe the mutations were not gradual. Maybe the pressures generating said mutations were not precisely as Darwin described. There is Newtonian physics and then there is post-Newtonian physics. Okay.

But here is my big question. What exactly would the “other view” in these controversial subjects be? Are teachers going to introduce evidence that suggests - so they say - evolutionary change could not have happened by chance or natural pressures? If not that then what?

“Hi kids. You know, I have some stuff here that suggests that the energy metabolism process that occurs within mitochondria is just so amazingly complex and improbable it could not have evolved by chance”.

“So Mr Richard - if it did not evolve by chance then where did it come from?”

“Oh uh - we’re not allowed to talk about that. But go home and think about it”. *cough* God *cough*

To my knowledge no supporter of this bill has yet to address this basic question that I asked in my letter to the editor. “What other explanations could there possibly be that are non-religious?”"

Why does anyone think "evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning" were singled (?) out for counter arguments?

jah

Wayne from Jeremiah Films said...

You nailed that on the head - I think they protest too much.

Action Institute "Science or Religion? A False Choice"

I'll find a good post to link back to the article.

Wayne from Jeremiah Films said...

You nailed that on the head.

If we are talking about true research that includes all the information
Action Institute "Science or Religion? A False Choice" any book burning is being done by those against the bill.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone looked at the list of "documentary films" offered on the Jeremiah Films website? I bet the one about Harry Potter and witchcraft is a real hoot. Poor Wayne doesn't realize Martin is only attempting to be funny in this post.