tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post3689825305230910938..comments2024-03-17T08:07:12.695-05:00Comments on Between The Lines: Paranoia, selective arguments mark SB 561 opponentsJeff Sadowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972004592729833310noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-3595049816998909012009-02-16T07:57:00.000-06:002009-02-16T07:57:00.000-06:00""May" is not "Shall.""Indeed, but it is still an ...""May" is not "Shall.""<BR/><BR/>Indeed, but it is still an easy back door to teaching creationism, or its equally unscientific pseudo-science, Intelligent Design.<BR/><BR/>There are two problems with this bill that I can see (of course, now it's law, but the points still stand).<BR/><BR/>#1 is that grade school children don't have the critical thinking skills to determine the viability of one line of scientific questioning over another. Heck, many college level students still don't have the hang of that level of critical thinking. Putting controversy into the science classroom instead of accepted scientific fact will only further muddle the childrens' education.<BR/><BR/>#2 is that without guidelines for what can be used as "other materials", ANY book whether scientific or not can be used as a supplement. Obviously there would be problems with bringing in a religious book, but there's nothing stopping them from using the aforementioned Intelligent Design baloney as their supplement. Unless some guidance is given, limiting the supplements to books of scientific merit, then anything is open.<BR/><BR/>Further, you call Evolution a flawed theory, but it is not. I suggest you educate yourself on the facts of the matter - 99% of biologists accept evolution as fact, as does 95% of the scientific community as large. The only serious opposition to the Theory of Evolution comes from the uneducated or the ultra-religious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-59272731413582988712008-05-08T09:32:00.000-05:002008-05-08T09:32:00.000-05:00"May" is not "Shall." And school districts still m..."May" is not "Shall." And school districts still must approve of any supplemental books assigned. And even if some teacher wanted to sneak through copied materials or the like, if they contradict the unambiguous wording of the section mentioned in the posting, that would be illegal and they risk getting caught. No loopholes here. Avoid the paranoia.Jeff Sadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03972004592729833310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-69341599851242305232008-05-06T14:44:00.000-05:002008-05-06T14:44:00.000-05:00Then explain this:“'[Louisiana Family Forum] belie...Then explain this:<BR/>“'[Louisiana Family Forum] believe that <B>scientific data related to creationism should be discussed</B> when dealing with Darwin's theory. This would allow the discussion of scientific facts,' Nevers said."-Hammond Daily Star 4-6-08 <I>Bill allows teaching creationism as science</I><BR/><BR/>Either Nevers doesn't understand his own bill or he wrote it very poorly. And since creationism <I>is</I> promoting one religion over others his paragraph E contains a blatant falsehood, at least as far as his intent.<BR/><BR/>Although the new version (SB 733) isn't quite so blatant as the old, the language "teachers... thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories..." without any corresponding guidelines as to appropriate and inappropriate "other materials" is still a backdoor, maybe even larger than the one in SB 561.bullethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12649812197402491992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-76421232092732779892008-04-28T21:00:00.000-05:002008-04-28T21:00:00.000-05:00I don't know what else to write. It's there in bla...I don't know what else to write. It's there in black and white that the "chicken little" scenario foisted with seeming religious fervor by some simply is not there. If you will, also show me where the bill says "the science faculty are frauds."<BR/><BR/>Read the bill, tuning out what this interest group and that interest group wants you to believe about it. Use your own critical faculties; don't surrender them to these others. Incorporate its words using an objective template, and then perhaps you'll see it's about nothing dire.<BR/><BR/>(That, of course, is the old version of the bill. The new version took out anything that could offend the hypersensitive provocateurs complaining about it. But, as you point out, that still leaves the likes of HB 1168.)Jeff Sadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03972004592729833310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-11483028520178592272008-04-24T14:59:00.000-05:002008-04-24T14:59:00.000-05:00Dr. Sadow, I have read the bill and you are dead w...Dr. Sadow, I have read the bill and you are dead wrong about the wording. You are an educated man this comment is beneath you. You know what SB 561 , SB 733 & HB 1168 intentions are. The LFF has made it clear and they are behind these bills. Have you walked across the quad to inform the science faculty they are frauds based on these bills? Being conservative is a valid philosophy but this is bad for Louisiana and our education system. Standing with the party line for bad legislation degrades the valid insight you offer on your blogs. Stand for what is right for our education system, our reputation, our financial future, our children.chrisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752066874036863757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-675733418488253172008-04-13T09:10:00.000-05:002008-04-13T09:10:00.000-05:00Maybe so, but my advice in these situations always...Maybe so, but my advice in these situations always is, read the bill. That wording concerning the prohibition of promotion of religion seems pretty unambiguous.Jeff Sadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03972004592729833310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-30044459105713986672008-04-13T07:30:00.000-05:002008-04-13T07:30:00.000-05:00Many folks will be instinctively opposed to this b...Many folks will be instinctively opposed to this bill simply because it is being pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum. There is no mystery about the goals of that entity. It appears to be another attempt to carve a back door into our science classes and input the supernatural. The bill is embarrassing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com