Anti-evolution 'Academic Freedom' Bills: What is Academic Freedom Anyway?

You may have heard the news that Louisiana's governor recently signed an "Academic Freedom" bill, the first such bill to pass in a recent string of efforts to allow public school teachers to push non-scientific alternatives to evolution.

[Anyway]

Imagine Louisiana keeps her people below the water and poverty levels but pushes non-scientific alternatives to evolution. What a deal!

[formally abducted]

much ado about nothing: in all fairness,take a look at this states highschool graduation rate,now look at the rate for childcare, food stamps,housing subsidies federal and state for ages 18 to 25,now look at the rate for this age bracket currently residing in jail and prison,I do hope that one of the 'alternatives' will be an education.

[Matt from Akron]

The last sentence of the article says it all:

In just about every case, you'll find that the real reason for the calls for academic freedom is to permit these teachers to get around the state-mandated curriculum that they are being paid to teach.

The phrase "academic freedom", when it is used by ID proponents, is nothing more than code for "let's force a purely hypothetical religious concept into the curriculum as part of our effort to rid the world of the annoying fact of evolution, which offends us because it does not mesh with our Christian beliefs".

[hetrevillion]

Louisiana's school systems have consistently under-performed compared to the US average. I graduated HS in Louisiana in 1972. My only 'required' class for graduation was PE, since I already had 3 each of science, math, English, social studies, and I had the required classes in other categories. Can you see going to school for physical ed. only? I took a full load, less one period for study hall {the first for me). Evolution was taught as part of biology class at the time. There was no mention of 'intelligent design' or creationism. That crap was left to church, where it belongs.

[silentmajority]

Matt from Akron wrote:

The last sentence of the article says it all:
<quoted text>
The phrase "academic freedom", when it is used by ID proponents, is nothing more than code for "let's force a purely hypothetical religious concept into the curriculum as part of our effort to rid the world of the annoying fact of evolution, which offends us because it does not mesh with our Christian beliefs".

ID poses some very pointed questions that Darwinists and evolution fail to answer. Have you ever actually read Behe?

[Matt from Akron]

silentmajority wrote:

<quoted text>
ID poses some very pointed questions that Darwinists and evolution fail to answer. Have you ever actually read Behe?

Evolution is established scientific fact. There are gaps in the theory, as there are in all theory. Even evolutionary scientists (ESPECIALLY evolutionary scientists) point out the places where more discovery and understanding is needed. The theory of gravity also lacks 100% fleshing out, but gravity is a fact. I have read enough Behe, and enough ID in general, to know he is not only a dishonest excuse for a scientists, but shifts his position every time his crap is refuted. Even his employer, Lehigh University, publishes a disclaimer about him on their website in order to distance themselves from his unacademic and unscientific behavior. His admission on the stand at the Dover trial that astrology would have to be considered science, given his definition of science as pertains to ID, says it all to me.

I have nothing against the concept of some form of ID - provided it is science-based. After all, I'm a Christian who believes God created the universe - just not the way it says in Genesis.

However, there is no theory of intelligent design, there have been no experiments, no research, no theory. All they can do is point out supposed flaws in evolutionary theory, and point out the obvious - that we don't know everything about evolution yet.

I'll take the word of 150 years of scientific research in fields as diverse as genetics, molecular biology, geology, paleontology, zoology, nuclear physics, chemistry, biology and anatomy - all of which directly support the ToE - over the word of a bunch of politically-motivated people with a thinly disguised religious ageda masquerading as science, who were caught lying under oath at the Dover trial.

Evolutionary scientists are the first people to admit they don't know everything about the evolutionary process - the staggeringly complicated theory of the diversity of life. ID proponents not only have no theory, no evidence and no experimental data - just a "Well, it COULDA been 'Goddiddit'!!", they lie and pretend theirs is a "science" worthy of being taught in science classes.

You're barking up the wrong tree trying to argue ID with me. Come back when ID actually has some scientific credibility, because right now it is just Christian creationism with a new name and a smattering of "sciency-sounding" terminology to fool the ignorant who serve on way too many school boards in this country. The search-and-replace screwup in the creationist textbook "Of Pandas And People" is gut-busting, laugh-out-loud proof of that (google "cdesign proponentsists" if you don't know the reference).

"Truthiness" isn't truth, and ID isn't science. I realize the ID movement is just a blatantly deceitful attempt to place Christian theology in the public schools, but if they actually thought they had a valid scientific hypothesis, they would work towards elevating the hypothesis to scientific theory - instead of trying to poke little holes in actual science. I'm not holding my breath, because as I just mentioned, ID is a religious and political movement, not a scientific one.

C-ya.

[jerb]

silentmajority wrote:

<quoted text>
ID poses some very pointed questions that Darwinists and evolution fail to answer. Have you ever actually read Behe?

I'm trying to imagine, if intelligent design was our reality, would we expect to see a designer come here periodically to design a new set of ecologically-linked replacement species?

And what would their theory predict about the designer? What would be the mechanisms to observe?

What would be the interval? Would a designer fly in and out from 13.72 billion light years away? How would that be possible?, the time dilation would huge.

The theory must explain why flora and fauna designed for different epochs are never found mixed together. There's a gradual ordered sequence of change in the fossil record. When PE occurs it's associated with some spectacular survival advantage which floods the fossil bed and effectively hides any other evidence of less successful forms. Natural selection explains this very well.

ID has much to describe in scientific terms, and they don't even try..

[babooph]

The US education system is an important part of the propaganda system-nothing could be more distant from "freedom" than the trash I was taught.

[formally abducted]

babooph wrote:

The US education system is an important part of the propaganda system-nothing could be more distant from "freedom" than the trash I was taught.

sorry you feel that way,it could have been worse,you might have been taught impropaganda

[Dr Sausage]

What is Academic Freedom? Is like teaching the Holocaust was a hoax? Our children are screwed.

[Later for him]

I was captivated by "evolution" since the second grade. I read every book onit I could find. I went to the Mus. of Natural History in New York every chance I could get. I majored in geology and went on a dig in Wyoming. Eventually, I met nearly every major figure in the field.

Guess what? I had a religious upbringing that rejected evolution. It had no effect whatsoever on me. Nor does it on any child truly interested in science. Darwin studied for the ministry. Teilhard Chardin was a Jesuit priest and the paleontologist on the Peking Man digs at a time when the church rejected evolution.

ID is a face saver in a losing battle. Let them have it. It promotes discussion.

[Matt from Akron]

Later for him wrote:

I was captivated by "evolution" since the second grade. I read every book onit I could find. I went to the Mus. of Natural History in New York every chance I could get. I majored in geology and went on a dig in Wyoming. Eventually, I met nearly every major figure in the field.
Guess what? I had a religious upbringing that rejected evolution. It had no effect whatsoever on me. Nor does it on any child truly interested in science. Darwin studied for the ministry. Teilhard Chardin was a Jesuit priest and the paleontologist on the Peking Man digs at a time when the church rejected evolution.
ID is a face saver in a losing battle. Let them have it. It promotes discussion.

Evolution and faith can get along just fine. It's just the fundamentalists that think they're mutually exclusive concepts.

[left of Limbaugh]

silentmajority wrote:

<quoted text>
ID poses some very pointed questions that Darwinists and evolution fail to answer. Have you ever actually read Behe?

Yes. He has been very succesfully debunked.

Questions are fine but until ID can raise their game to the level of real science on any level it should not be allowed in Science class.

Behe and others have done nothing but attempt to cast doubt and they have not done even that well.