I wonder if these bills will *ahem* apply if a Hindu science teacher expresses his views based on the Hindu creation story, or a Native American, or a Wiccan. I have my doubts.
sas ..not anti-christian, just anti fundamental, they're not the same Jim Davis wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 12:44 PM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: Re: McCain's VP want's Creationism taught in Science Class >> >> I thnik when it comes to cosmology there is room for a student to say >> but what if it was god not a lightning bolt? I agree that the answer >> is that there is no telling, but you seem to be saying that the >> student shouldn't even get to ask the question. I submit that the >> question probably gets asked every year. >> > > This is the current strategy for the various "Academic Freedom" bills. They > make a very reasonable sounding case that no student should be punished for > free inquiry. Everybody can agree with that! > > Of course they've no examples of when a student ever WAS penalized for > asking for a question making the bills, at best, a solution for a > nonexistent problem. Of course students continually ask similar questions - > any good science teacher knows how to answer them (quite simply that science > as a discipline only examines the falsifiable) and life moves on. > > Why not legislate it? > > However the bills (which generally have direct input from the ID propaganda > organization, the Discovery Institute) contain more problematic items. Some > common clauses/ramifications are: > > +) That no teacher should even penalized for stating a personal belief in a > classroom and can't be punished for making personal ethical decisions based > on personal beliefs. For example a science teacher than refuses to teach > evolution or deviates from curriculum to teach perceived faults with > evolution cannot be censured. > > +) That students can't be penalized for making statements based on personal > beliefs. So, for example, if a student disrupts a classroom continually > with the same false challenges to evolution (essentially proselytizing) they > can't be censured. If a student answers a science test with faith-based > answers they can't be marked down. > > +) These bills always single out evolutionary criticism for protection > despite the fact that there are NO (none, nada, zip, zilch, zero) > scientifically valid alternatives to biologic evolution currently available. > So these bills are seeking to legislate an issue that they've created from > whole cloth: scientific controversy over evolution. > > The bills, by design, seek to present a reasonable face. Who could possible > argue AGAINST Academic Freedom! (Possibly the same anti-American traitors > that argued against the Patriot Act or the kid-hating folks that argued > against No Child Left Behind.) > > With a federal ruling against Intelligent Design in existence this strategy > attempts to open loopholes which allow teaching of the main points of ID > without expressly referencing it. > > Personally I would like to see science move to the offensive in this. The > bills are designed to allow the teaching the ID (despite protests to the > contrary) but to pass constitutional muster most contain some language > concerning the validity of statements covered by the bill... in short for > the bills to meet their purpose you MUST also consider ID a valid scientific > alternative. > > Of course it isn't - and we have federal legal precedence to that effect. > It's tedious and frustrating, but I would prefer to see the scientific > community begin to accumulate precedents concerning specific claims. When > the anti-evolutionists (through outright lies or ignorance) make false > statements like "Evolution is a random process", "Evolution says you're > descended from monkeys", "Evolution has made no predictions", "Evolution > can't account for the complexity of the eye", etc I would like to see legal > challenges. > > While I agree that these laws create a dangerously slippery slope, I also > think that they might also be made to backfire on their creators. > > Jim Davis > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:267417 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
