Student takes role of David to creationist's legislative Goliath - HS student vs Louisiana legislature

"If you reject evolution, you reject all of science."

That statement is very much untrue. If he's being opposed, maybe it's because he's making a whole bunch of other untrue statements.

That statement is very much untrue. If he's being opposed, maybe it's because he's making a whole bunch of other untrue statements.

Putting aside the ad hominem, ironically being used to attempt to justify other arguments which were made ad hominem...

The statement is very much true. There is plenty of scientific debate regarding the specifics of evolution, and plenty of disagreement. However, there simply is no scientific evidence for any theory which explains the existence of different species, except for speciation caused by natural selection.

It may be overstating the case a bit to say that creationists "reject all of science", but on the other hand, if you decide which scientific evidence to reject or accept based on whether it conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible, then that is a broadly non-scientific stance.

That statement is very much untrue. If he's being opposed, maybe it's because he's making a whole bunch of other untrue statements.

Levi,

Let me explain to you the why this young man's statement is very much true. The entire discipline of science is based on what is called methodological naturalism. When you try to introduce supernatural explanations into science you undermine the very foundation on which all of science is constructed. So, what is very legitimately implied in the young man's statement is that all of those that currently reject evolution, do so, by supplanting the ToE with some sort of supernatural explanation. This is an outright undermining of the foundations of science, period!

It is about time we hear from those that are being misinformed by the religious right. This student should be praised for his stance and the realization that not all that is being shoved down his throat by the religious community is benign. To allow creation to be taught as an alternative theory only lends credence to fairy tales and folk lore and has no place in science. To allow this to continue is like being diagnosed with cancer and deciding to let it co-exist inside your body. It will only fester, rot and destroy all the healthy cells around it, much like teaching creation in school will dilute and destroy real science and knowledge.

Ron in CT : Why is it always just the religious right... you do know that there are people on the left who are just as devote and harbor similar beliefs towards Creationism and Evolution. We've eventually going to need to work casting off stereotypes and start measuring people as individuals instead of solely by the group they are in.

___________________

Anyway, as I've said... Creationism is a philosophy... based on logic and arguing points where science as not yet filled in the blank. It has long since been the practice of human's to explain the unexplained by unexplained forces. Though this practice has been eroding away as we have continously found success in explaining things in the natural world... there will always be something science has not quite reached... and thus, there will always be room for something else to be in play.

Belfrey said it best, in pointing out that people choose what of science they accept and what they don't... It is their choice... and we may not agree with it, but that is our choice.

Were I the kid's science teacher... I'd be more concerned that what the kid's project is... isn't a science project at all. He would have to be very clear about his methods and approach in following appropriate steps. The development of his hypothesis, the control... and variables he'll be testing and just how exactly they correlate to his subject matter. In the end... I'd fear that it would be a political statement... an opinion piece, and not a demonstration of the qualities of science.

RP -

Why is it always just the religious right... you do know that there are people on the left who are just as devote and harbor similar beliefs towards Creationism and Evolution.

It is the religious right that is the most vocal on this topic. When you look at who is behind the organized efforts, it leads you directly to the religious right - Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research...

Creationism is a philosophy... based on logic...

Come again? First you start out with a mythical world, the supernatural, and go on from there. Based on logic? Seriously?

Belfrey said it best, in pointing out that people choose what of science they accept and what they don't...

Maybe so, but of what importance is it if someone disbelieves what science has shown? Who cares if I don't believe in photosynthesis? Why should a thinking person pay any attention to my beliefs when it comes to science. Science isn't about beliefs!

I'd be more concerned that what the kid's project is... isn't a science project at all.

You're not confusing science project with science experiment, are you? If Zach uses science to disprove creationist claims, how is that not science?

The development of his hypothesis, the control... and variables he'll be testing and just how exactly they correlate to his subject matter.

Ahh, you are confusing science project with science experiment!

In the end... I'd fear that it would be a political statement... an opinion piece, and not a demonstration of the qualities of science.

I would disagree. Much like Kitzmiller v. Dover, it would show how science triumphs over pseudo-science in the scientific realm.

Perhaps "the right" is more vocal about the topic... but I don't see you disagreeing with my statement. The purpose of my statement was to combat the stereotyping produced by the original statement.

logic : a particular method of reasoning or argumentation
Logic is not synonymous with fact. As long as the person has a reasoning behind their statements, then you can apply the word "logic" to it. Logic ... like any conclusion or opinion is subjective. Please don't misinterpret language for the benefit of your point.

A science project is loosely defined as display to demonstrate a concept learned (usually in school). In other words... it can be the display and execution of a science experiment or the use of fact/data to substantiate and argue a point. A science project will use the basic process of a science experiment to prove a point in that you will be developing your point to prove or show (hypothesis) and be collecting data to demonstrate support or lack thereof, etc etc. The portion of my response is based on what was expected of us from my time in grade school, and could have certainly changed. That is why I premised these statements with "if".

In your last statement, you've produced an assumption and taken my statement out of context from the rest of the paragraph. In it's proper context, what that statement is saying is that I doubt that the pursuit of the kid's goal... as a "science project" based on my perspective, will not be as much science as it is a political statement... and as a consequence derail or degrade the value in scientific method, etc, etc. I'm not sure how citing a court case is a proof of science triumphing over a philosophy either... for starters, the two are apples and oranges and second... that isn't science... it's interpretation of law... based on somebody's logic.

Anyway... since I don't think we're really disagreeing about much and are just arguing over symmantics, etc, etc... I'll just leave it at that. Maybe you thought I was coming out in support of Creationism being taught in schools... or not. Just to clear that point, I'm not... unless it is taught and presented like you'd expect material in a philosophy class.

Rat Poison;

I will dispute your contention that it is stereotyping to blame the religious right for the constant attacks on evolution in the U.S. You would need to show a concerted and organized effort, much like the one the religious right has, by liberals to impose creationism in public schools to support your assertion. Some mythical liberal who might dispute evolution does not an equivalence make.

RP -

...but I don't see you disagreeing with my statement.

OK, I disagree with your statement. Anyone else but the religious right may not agree with evolution, but they are hardly a force of action against evolution. The religious right are more vocal and ACTIVE. Take, for example, this article. The Louisiana Science Education Act was written by the Louisiana Family Forum with assistance from the Discovery Institute. From the LFF's website -

Louisiana Family Forum is a non-profit statewide research and education organization affiliated with Focus on the Family that is dedicated to being a "voice for traditional families in Louisiana." It is our mission to persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking.

I'm not concerned about the others who are not aggresively pursuing the introduction of pseudo-science into science classrooms. It is the religious right that makes up the main army and spearhead.

As long as the person has a reasoning behind their statements,...

All predicated on a mythical place. Yep, all the Pokemon characters have logical connections, but it doesn't mean the belief in their existence is logical.

A science project is loosely defined as display to demonstrate a concept learned (usually in school).

Yes, I believe you are proving my point!

...or the use of fact/data to substantiate and argue a point.

Ditto.

A science project will use the basic process of a science experiment to prove a point...

Only in your strict interpretation of what a science project is.

In your last statement, you've produced an assumption and taken my statement out of context from the rest of the paragraph.

I believe my response was correctly stated.

based on my perspective,

However, you are not the teacher.

and as a consequence derail or degrade the value in scientific method, etc, etc.

Utter nonsense. It would be wonderous for science if Zachary could play any part in overturning the Louisiana Science Education Act.

I'm not sure...logic.

Sorry, blather.

Anyway... since I don't think we're really disagreeing about much and are just arguing over symmantics, etc, etc... I'll just leave it at that.

Well, what I'm saying is science is much more than running an experiment. His project is admirable and is science. I believe we are in disagreement and not just disagreeing about semantics.

Maybe you thought I was coming out in support of Creationism being taught in schools.

Actually, no. You would have known if that were the case.

Just to clear that point, I'm not... unless it is taught and presented like you'd expect material in a philosophy class.

Sounds fine.

Jack;

I didn't mean to step on your toes or to speak for you. I just feel that it is appropriate to place the blame squarely on those who are responsible.

Mn Man -

No worries. Hey, anybody can jump in. I did. :)

I liked your response.

BTW - good to see you, again. I haven't seen you for awhile.

Mn Man : Stereotyping is stereotyping... not all religious "right" regard creationism and evolution as advertised. Read the original statement, and know that you are contending something I haven't said. I think you'll find that I'm saying that there are people on the left who are just as religious as those on the right who dismiss portions of science for creationism too. That's all I said, and the point for stating that was to detour the stereotype and blanketing that it is solely a "right" thing.

Jack-1666973 : That's a rather bland mission statement from the group you've quoted. But I think you... like Mn Man are reading in somethings I haven't said.

Logic is again... subjective. That's why we argue points of view... and why at the end of the day... there may still be a difference in opinion. Some people like to call it ignorance, or blind rejection, ... or whatever. I'm not a religious person... but I find that I'm often defending their ability to believe in things I do not. They see something and have faith in something that I don't... I accept that. I think that dismissing something that you cannot see or understand as being illogical is a pretty jaded stance to take because these people do have a reasoning behind and for their faith. That by definition is logic... you may disagree with it and opt to believe in your path of thinking. It is America afterall...

Moving on... you may have made a response based on an inaccurate perception of mine... you don't think so... I do because I don't see the relevance of pointing out a court case (not science and not in the scientific realm) for a point that is about science and conduct in the scientific realm - as explained in the previous response.

Actually... I have been a teacher. Though I am currently not.

And rather than just say that my perspective on what a science project is... is wrong, how about countering with what yours is? Otherwise, you're just going, "nu uh", and aren't facilitating discussion or the altering/adaptation of another person's perspective.

Sure, it would be wonderful if Zachary could show that Creationism is a philosophy and not a science.. but because I don't see how Zachary is going to us "science" to do this. Scientists who undergo an investigation to challenge a hypothesis don't or at least shouldn't cater their tests with a bias to swing their results and conclusions in the direction they'd like. More or less... what I see Zachary doing is making a political statement under the guise of "science". I could be wrong... but I think the odds are against him, and if I were the teacher responsible for accepting proposals... I'd be looking for the principles of science in how he'd test whatever his theory or concept is.

I enjoy science... and nothing is more fun to be able to see natural occurrences in the world and understand why it happened. But I don't like mixing science and politics... it's a lot why I don't like mixing Evolution with Creationism... they aren't same and are incomparable. My concern is that Zachary.. in his zeal to show a "wrong" will compromise what is great about scientific method and the principles that make science great.

Jack;

Good to see you too. I like Kopplin's reasoning:

There really are zero creationist jobs. The biotech industry is an important part of our economy and Louisiana students can’t afford to be shut out of it. Even if we’re not going into the biotech industry, the law still hurts us. Any science company is going to have trouble trusting a Louisiana student’s education because our state has an anti science reputation based on this law.

I would love it if a company came right out and said..."We were going to open in Louisiana, but we want employees who are, you know, educated."

RP -

Since we are going around in circles, this will be my last post on this with you.

That's a rather bland mission statement...

Not the point. It is the interjection of religion (biblical principles) that is the point. It is always a religious backed group trying to sneak in Creationism or its progeny ID into science class.

...but I find that I'm often defending their ability to believe in things I do not.

One can believe whatever one wants. However, it doesn't make it logical to believe in something there is no evidence for. I can believe in the invisible pink unicorn living in my garage, but my belief regarding an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage doesn't make it logical. Nor does it make any stories regarding its life in my garage logical.

I don't see the relevance of pointing out a court case (not science and not in the scientific realm) for a point that is about science and conduct in the scientific realm..

Kitzmiller v. Dover showed that science of evolution and the scientific method are valid in a science class whereas religious creationism fails the scientific method, and thus not valid in a science class. This is similar to what Zachary is championing in his science project.

but because I don't see how Zachary is going to us "science" to do this.

...but that is a limitation on your part. He can take the concepts he learned in science class, the scientific method and the Theory of Evolution to show it is valid science where creationism is not.

Actually... I have been a teacher.

Not relevant to what I said.

...how about countering with what yours is?

I did, you simply are not listening!

If Zach uses science to disprove creationist claims, how is that not science?

Continuing -

Sure, it would be wonderful if Zachary could show that Creationism is a philosophy and not a science..

All he needs to do is show that Creationism is not science.

but because I don't see how Zachary is going to us "science" to do this.

One concerns the natural world and the other concerns the supernatural world.

what I see Zachary doing is making a political statement under the guise of "science".

Not hopping on this merry-go-round again.

what I see Zachary doing is making a political statement under the guise of "science".

I see him using science to show how evolution disproves creationism (unless the Flying Spaghetti Monster is playing a cruel joke on us) thus rendering the LFSA nonsense. Your interpretation of a science project is extremely narrow. I personally like his creativity!!!

...I don't like mixing Evolution with Creationism... they aren't same and are incomparable.

The desired result of Zachary's science project.

My concern is that Zachary.. in his zeal to show a "wrong" will compromise what is great about scientific method and the principles that make science great.

I have no such concerns.

Again, unless you have something new to discuss, I'm bowing out. This is simply a rehash of, "I think a science project should be a science experiment," and we've been there and done that.

The mission statement says it wants to put Biblical principles in centers of influence as it relates to family... there is nothing about Creationism... the relation of Creationism to family... hence it's a bland statement/quote for the point you were trying to make. You would have been better to have shown a press release on them targeting the science classroom as a place to invoke Creationism if you were aiming to make that point. Don't misunderstand, I do know that there are groups advocating this... and I don't agree with them for reasons I've already explained.

Logic... for the final time, is subjective. If you think there is a pink unicorn in your garage and you have some twisted amount of reasoning that supports your belief... then that is your logic. Many will call you crazy for it... but... that's because they aren't seeing what you are. Have you never spoken to a person who protests that an event in their life has had a divine intervention? You think that logic only revolves around what can be explained by science... and that isn't the case. It is your opinion... just as that is my opinion. We won't see eye to eye on this apparently, and that's fine. It's not my logic... it's yours and I can reason out mine easily enough because I recognize that each person's perspective on the world is different.

In a court room... you argue a point using a logic path that you think others will relate to and understand... and agree with your conclusion on. This is not science. It is this very point that I point out that you are comparing apples and oranges. It is also why the odds that what Zachary will do as a science project will not be a science project... and instead will be a political statement. If you think that a science project can be a political debate... then I suppose that my point would be mute by your logic - and that's fine... but you have yet to define what you think a science project is.

The only reason we are in circles is because you are picking out statements, quoting them out of context, and then making quick replies to the part. Your discussion has revolved around tangents because my statements are taken out of context, and straight up denial of what I've said without a retort of why you think otherwise, or what exactly you think. In other words, I have tried to explain my perspective several times in different ways to address the out of context responses... and have been waiting for you to explain yours. For example... you said you have defined what a science project is... where? You said: "Well, what I'm saying is science is much more than running an experiment. His project is admirable and is science. I believe we are in disagreement and not just disagreeing about semantics." But this has no definition of a science project... just that you think what he's doing is science... and why do you think that? I've explained why I don't.

You say that all Zachary has to do is show that Creationism is not science. I agree... but how does he do that in a scientific way?... Indeed how. The only way I see this happening... to show that one is an apple and one is an orange... is to argue it, to impose a logic and a pathway of reasoning others would identify with and understand. That isn't science... it isn't scientific method.

You say that you see him showing how Evolution disproves creationism?, how?... and what part... there are at least 10 to 20 different written philosophies for creationism and where people have vibrated to in where science ends and belief starts. What about the argument for intelligent design?, that there is a force that has driven all of the puzzle piece like fits and the unison in the natural world. How do you argue Evolution disproves this... it doesn't even approach this topic because Intelligent Design isn't a testable theory... it is a philosophy, a path of reasoning taken by people who see a limit to science today, and the limit that science will have tomorrow.

Zachary could indeed make a science project out of this political topic... but the odds of designing out a pure and away "science" project using grade school taught "scientific method" will be no easy undertaking and more than likely.. if done without bias will show nothing towards his goal that isn't easily disproved. Afterall.. he's attempting to make a science out of a subjective perspective.

Rat Poison;

I believe it was Ron in CT's statement that started this whole thing:

It is about time we hear from those that are being misinformed by the religious right

Since it is the religious right who are the ones pushing to put creationism into schools, as evidenced by Jacks posts, it is not stereotyping to blame them. In the context of this article, it is clearly the religious right who are the instigators of the Louisiana Science Education Act .

RatPoison -

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

In the context of this article, it is clearly the religious right who are the instigators of the Louisiana Science Education Act .

Indeed! Written by the LFF with help from their friends - the Discovery Institute.

I don't disagree with your statement Mn Man, in that context. Though the discussion has sprouted into many other topics since... and I don't see what has been evidenced either. That aside, I do know about the groups and that there is more aligned with the Republicans about this topic than Democrats... quite simply because this is another base that the Republicans have tapped into. However, there are plenty of Democrats who are religious and believe in a level of creationism... of which I know several myself. I'd have preferred if Ron in CT would have picked a different term because of these reasons... though I was over-zealous and far from being exact in that matter.

Maybe I should have stated the religious right and the anti-science Christians, is that more inclusive for you?

MarkD;

This quote from a Livingston Parish school board member says it all:

Meanwhile, board member David Tate, who broached the possibility of teaching creationism at the previous board meeting, commented, "We don't want litigation, but why not take a stand for Jesus and risk litigation."

It's not about science, it's about religion and indoctrination.

Apologies MarkD.. darned.. I didn't see that message (3) until after I posted the 2.6). Feel free to delete my response accordingly.

The article humorously discusses Ptolemaic astronomy or the 4 humors in anatomy class, but in reality, this or something similar to it, is going on today. Many home-schooled kids are home-schooled due to religious reasons and they are being taught creationist science as true. They are also taught main stream science, i.e. real science, only to ensure good scores on state exams.

They may not need science for their future careers, but they will pass on their creationist pseudo-scientific beliefs to their children thereby propagating the problem ad infinitum.

Another good article can be found at the Louisiana Coalition for Science. It also has a link to a radio interview.

http://lasciencecoalition.org/2011/02/17/repeal-louisiana-science-education-act/

Of course, Zach has been involved with this for awhile -

http://ncse.com/news/2010/11/progress-louisiana-006299

http://ncse.com/news/2010/12/biology-textbooks-approved-louisiana-006357