rationalskepticism.org

CharlieM wrote:

Calilasseia:
Next time someone comes here peddling the "Expelled" bollocks, we should point them at that list, and show them that the real conspiracy is taking place amongst creationists trying to expel evolution from classrooms.

Can you point to any place in any of these bills where its acceptance would prevent the teaching of evolution?

Casey Luskin about the debate in Texas, from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/how_the_science_teachers_lobby044471.html :
The reality, of course, is that NO leading Darwin-critics in Texas sought try to censor evolution. Evolution is still a required part of the curriculum in Texas, and the new TEKS that continue to teach evolution were eagerly adopted by the Texas State Board of Education members who were skeptics of neo-Darwinian evolution.

and:

Casey Luskin:
Leading Darwin-critics aren't seeking to introduce creationism or ID into public schools, and they would vehemently oppose attempts to ban evolution. Rather, they seek to increase coverage of evolution by teaching both the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism.

The Darwin lobby wants only the pro-Darwin-only viewpoint taught. They want to censor any science that challenges neo-Darwinian evolution. As I explained in a recent article in Christian Science Monitor, they do this by labeling opposing viewpoints as religion:

Courts have uniformly found that creationism is a religious viewpoint and thus illegal to teach in public school science classes. By branding scientific views they dislike as "religion" or "creationism," the Darwin lobby scares educators from presenting contrary evidence or posing critical questions - a subtle but effective form of censorship.

The media fall prey to this tactic, resulting in articles that confuse those asking for scientific debate with those asking for the teaching of religion. And Darwin's defenders come off looking like heroes, not censors.

Those who love the First Amendment should be outraged. In essence, the Darwin lobby is taking the separation of church and state - a good thing - and abusing it to promote censorship.

From NCSE themselves http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389 :

Kentucky is apparently unique in having a statute (PDF; Kentucky Revised Statutes 158.177) that authorizes teachers to teach "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible" and to "read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation." But it is unclear whether teachers take advantage of the opportunity. The Louisville Courier-Journal (January 11, 2006) reported that in a November 2005 survey of the state's 176 school districts, none was teaching or discussing "intelligent design."

So schools in Kentucky have a statute in place which already allows them to teach creationism, but it seems they choose not too. Why then would this bill suddenly promote creationism?


And what do the bills themselves say about teaching religion in science class?

Kentucky:
This section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

Oklahoma:
This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and specifically does not protect the promotion of any religion, religious doctrine, or religious belief.

and:

Oklahoma:
The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act shall only protect the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

New Mexico:
"Scientific information" may include information that coincides or harmonizes with religious tenets, but does not include information derived from religious writings, beliefs or doctrines."

Tennessee:
This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

So why the insecurity? What are the neo-Darwinists afraid of? Too much close scrutiny, that's what! Virtually everyone agrees that random mutations and natural selection are observed facts. What is being more and more questioned is the capability of these mechanisms to accomplish what is being asked of them.

Let school kids have the facts and give them the credit of making their own minds up about what to believe or not to believe.

Regards,
CharlieM