Lewis
Member
- Aug 5, 2005
- 15,483
- 621
Darwinists go ape over new education bill
e-mail to a friend | print this | link to this
Contributed by: Johnathan Osborn on 7/21/2008
The Louisiana Science Education Act, a new bill introduced to legally protect critical evaluation of evolutionary theory in classrooms, was recently passed by state legislators almost without opposition. Under the shelter of this new law, teachers can present scientific evidence against evolutionary theory to their students without fear of reprisal.
However, this new freedom has already come under verbal assaultfrommany leading Darwinists, such asBarbarra Forrest,professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, who criticizes the bill as," A creationist bill written in creationist language."
The local chapter of the ACLU has threatened lawsuits against school boards that take advantage of their new-found freedoms, and the New York Times decried it as "an assault on Darwin."
Interestingly enough though, the "Creationist language" contained in the bill seems to be nonexistent, especially in the sections guaranteeing the teacher's rights to, "create and foster an enviroment withing public elementary and secondary schools that promotes 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."
What part of this language so alarms Darwinists?Are they afraid of children learning "critical thinking and logical analysis"? Are they afraid of their oh-so-precious theory being subjected to "open and objective discussion"?
Although opponents of the bill are probably abjectly terrified of all the above, the only objection they can actually vocalize without looking absurd and bigoted is that this bill is an attempt toget the theory of Intelligent Design into schools.Intelligent Design examines much of the same evidence that the theory of evolution does,but reaches a vastly different conclusion: That an intelligent creator is responsible for the universe as we see it.
Darwinists object to allowing this theory into schools because they believe it is simply religion repackaged.
According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Religion is, "Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."
I have met Darwisnists who "believe in and follow devotedly" their theory, as a matter of fact, I am related to one such "true believer" in evolution, and I can attest that he defends his beliefs with more vigor than many religious people I know.
According to the definition of "religion", then, he, and millions of Darwinists/atheists like him, are as deeply religious as the most devote Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jew ever could be, and they are imposing their religion, in the garb of scientific credibility, upon the millions of children in our public schools.
There should be an open discussion about the origins and nature of the universe we inhabit. All perspectives should be heard, discussed, and evaluated in light of scientific and historical evidence. No one viewpoint or theory should be allowed to dominate any one area to the exclusion of all other viewpoints, and no theory or religion, however strongly entrenched, should be immune from critical evaluation.
Bills like the Loiusiana Science Education Act should be passed in every state, to ensure that true science is taught in our schools, and that students are taught in a tolerant enviroment that encourages dialogue and critical thinking. But in the meantime, let's all play nice.
For some good reading about the challenges facing evolutionary theory, try "Darwin's Black Box." by Michael Behe or "Icons of Evolution" By Jonathan Wells Story information derived from World magazine
http://denver.yourhub.com/CastleRock/St ... 93987.aspx
e-mail to a friend | print this | link to this
Contributed by: Johnathan Osborn on 7/21/2008
The Louisiana Science Education Act, a new bill introduced to legally protect critical evaluation of evolutionary theory in classrooms, was recently passed by state legislators almost without opposition. Under the shelter of this new law, teachers can present scientific evidence against evolutionary theory to their students without fear of reprisal.
However, this new freedom has already come under verbal assaultfrommany leading Darwinists, such asBarbarra Forrest,professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, who criticizes the bill as," A creationist bill written in creationist language."
The local chapter of the ACLU has threatened lawsuits against school boards that take advantage of their new-found freedoms, and the New York Times decried it as "an assault on Darwin."
Interestingly enough though, the "Creationist language" contained in the bill seems to be nonexistent, especially in the sections guaranteeing the teacher's rights to, "create and foster an enviroment withing public elementary and secondary schools that promotes 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."
What part of this language so alarms Darwinists?Are they afraid of children learning "critical thinking and logical analysis"? Are they afraid of their oh-so-precious theory being subjected to "open and objective discussion"?
Although opponents of the bill are probably abjectly terrified of all the above, the only objection they can actually vocalize without looking absurd and bigoted is that this bill is an attempt toget the theory of Intelligent Design into schools.Intelligent Design examines much of the same evidence that the theory of evolution does,but reaches a vastly different conclusion: That an intelligent creator is responsible for the universe as we see it.
Darwinists object to allowing this theory into schools because they believe it is simply religion repackaged.
According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Religion is, "Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."
I have met Darwisnists who "believe in and follow devotedly" their theory, as a matter of fact, I am related to one such "true believer" in evolution, and I can attest that he defends his beliefs with more vigor than many religious people I know.
According to the definition of "religion", then, he, and millions of Darwinists/atheists like him, are as deeply religious as the most devote Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jew ever could be, and they are imposing their religion, in the garb of scientific credibility, upon the millions of children in our public schools.
There should be an open discussion about the origins and nature of the universe we inhabit. All perspectives should be heard, discussed, and evaluated in light of scientific and historical evidence. No one viewpoint or theory should be allowed to dominate any one area to the exclusion of all other viewpoints, and no theory or religion, however strongly entrenched, should be immune from critical evaluation.
Bills like the Loiusiana Science Education Act should be passed in every state, to ensure that true science is taught in our schools, and that students are taught in a tolerant enviroment that encourages dialogue and critical thinking. But in the meantime, let's all play nice.
For some good reading about the challenges facing evolutionary theory, try "Darwin's Black Box." by Michael Behe or "Icons of Evolution" By Jonathan Wells Story information derived from World magazine
http://denver.yourhub.com/CastleRock/St ... 93987.aspx
