Bobby Jindal: I'm fine with teaching ...

Bobby Jindal: I'm fine with teaching creationism in public schools

There are 357 comments on the Salon story from Apr 16, 2013, titled Bobby Jindal: I'm fine with teaching creationism in public schools. In it, Salon reports that:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says that he wouldn't mind if public school students were taught creationism and intelligent design in addition to evolution, as long as it's "the best science." In an interview on NBC, Jindal, a Republican, said: "Bottom line, at the end of the day, we want our kids to be exposed to the best facts.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Salon.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#184 May 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, T.D. misquoted the article when he wrote:'Bobby Jindal says "I'm fine with teaching creationism in public schools"' The direct and complete quote from the article reads: " “Bottom line, at the end of the day, we want our kids to be exposed to the best facts. Let’s teach them about the big bang theory, let’s teach them about evolution – I’ve got no problem if a school board, a local school board, says we want to teach our kids about creationism, that people, some people, have these beliefs as well, let’s teach them about ‘intelligent design.’” If you listen to the interview you learn he was answering a direct question "Should creationism be taught in school?" Here's the URL of NBC's interview:
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/5152258...
And he said, yes, by all means teach intelligent design. Let's give them "the best science", he said, while EXPLICITLY advocating school boards "supplement" well established theories (such as BB and evolution) with IDCreationism apologetics.

This is despite the fact that IDC has NO PLACE whatsoever in public schools not only because it is a direct detriment to teaching science but also ILLEGAL, period.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If you misquote, you obscure truth.
Just like you did with Santorum too.(shrug)

And Bobby lays it out very clear in the first two minutes of the video. At NO POINT did he state the anti-scientific nature of ID/C.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's your story, you have your opinion and I have mine. The main issue isn't creationism, the issue is truth; this is where we differ.
You differ because you're a liar and propagandist for the nutcases on the right, rumour has it you're even on the payroll. Fact is you got caught with your pants down again with one of your OWN videos where your buddies are EXPLICITLY advocating illegal behaviour.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#185 May 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, there's a difference between finding no problem with something and advocating.
Yea, right. And it depends on what the definition of "is is.
Brian_G wrote:
If MikeF thinks there's noting wrong with teaching children about creationism and trusting them to use critical thinking skills (which Governor Jindal spoke for in the video), I'll apologize for the mistake.
I've already agreed that you have the absolute right to practice your religion. Did you miss that part?
Brian_G wrote:
I'm under the impression, Mike doesn't want children taught about creationism in school.
In public schools, no. Do you want the Muslims to have equal time? How about the Wiccans?
Brian_G wrote:
Also note, the Governor wasn't just talking about public school.
What they do it private schools is their business. That's why they are called 'private'.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#186 May 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, there's a difference between finding no problem with something and advocating.
Except here he is saying things while acting as a STATE GOVERNOR, in an official interview with a major TV news network on his position on public school science education. Can't get much more advocation than that.

"Oh hey man, I got no problem with Hitler gassing the Jews, but I'm like not specifically advocating it, man! Oh, uh... is this thing on?"

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#187 May 13, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Which creationist version are you referring to?
His version, of course, and nobody else's.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#188 May 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
You support Bobby Jindal and he is advocating state sponsored practice in religion.
Please cite. I don't believe teaching children about their community's beliefs is "advocating", informing or instructing would be more accurate.

.
DanFromSmithville wrote:
That is unconstitutional.
Our Armed Forces employees chaplains to minister our troops, I support this practice. When Congress begins, a chaplain blesses them, do you believe that's unconstitutional too?

.
DanFromSmithville wrote:
By logical inferrence you are against the constitution. If this is not so, then my inferrence is based on poor data and thus likely to be incorrect. Since you claim otherwise, I must consider it to be the latter until more evidence is found.
We disagree on the assumptions, thanks for acknowledging your mistake.

.
DanFromSmithville wrote:
I have never limited anyone's exercise of their constitutional rights. If you know different it would behoove you to produce that evidence or retract your statement.
I thought we were discussing informing children and teaching critical thinking. If you believe anyone can practice their religion in public, I retract any accusation of limiting constitutional rights.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#189 May 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I don't believe teaching children about their community's beliefs is "advocating", informing or instructing would be more accurate.
No, indoctrinating would be more accurate. If parents wanna do that to their own kids that's their perogative. It stops at the school door where it affects OTHER people's kids. But then that's why they want this BS in SCIENCE classes.
Brian_G wrote:
Our Armed Forces employees chaplains to minister our troops, I support this practice. When Congress begins, a chaplain blesses them, do you believe that's unconstitutional too?
Far as I'm aware they're more non-denominational - even Jack Chick complained about them.
Brian_G wrote:
We disagree on the assumptions, thanks for acknowledging your mistake.
You're very good at ignoring the inconvenient.
Brian_G wrote:
I thought we were discussing informing children and teaching critical thinking.
No, WE are. You're talking about allowing student indoctrination in public school science classes while we're talking about keeping that out. In the same breath Jundal talked about giving kids the "best science" along with IDCreationism. Talk about polar opposites. The reality is you're both liars for Jesus.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#190 May 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Please cite. I don't believe teaching children about their community's beliefs is "advocating", informing or instructing would be more accurate.
.
<quoted text>Our Armed Forces employees chaplains to minister our troops, I support this practice. When Congress begins, a chaplain blesses them, do you believe that's unconstitutional too?
.
<quoted text>We disagree on the assumptions, thanks for acknowledging your mistake.
.
<quoted text>I thought we were discussing informing children and teaching critical thinking. If you believe anyone can practice their religion in public, I retract any accusation of limiting constitutional rights.
how is teaching creationsim teaching critical thinking? it has absolutey not one fact to back it up? that would be teaching stupidity and cult mentality, the exact opposite of what education is.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#191 May 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Please cite. I don't believe teaching children about their community's beliefs is "advocating", informing or instructing would be more accurate.
.
<quoted text>Our Armed Forces employees chaplains to minister our troops, I support this practice. When Congress begins, a chaplain blesses them, do you believe that's unconstitutional too?
.
<quoted text>We disagree on the assumptions, thanks for acknowledging your mistake.
.
<quoted text>I thought we were discussing informing children and teaching critical thinking. If you believe anyone can practice their religion in public, I retract any accusation of limiting constitutional rights.
So... which creationist version are you advocating, son?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#192 May 15, 2013
Yeah wrote:
So... which creationist version are you advocating, son?
I'm not advocating creationism; the theory is bad because it fail's Occam's razor. The question above proves, some radical secularists and atheist extremists can't distinguish between advocating and teaching children critical thinking skills so they can learn why a theory fails instead of learning defamation and propaganda.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#193 May 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not advocating creationism; the theory is bad because it fail's Occam's razor. The question above proves, some radical secularists and atheist extremists can't distinguish between advocating and teaching children critical thinking skills so they can learn why a theory fails instead of learning defamation and propaganda.
creationism is not a theory. it does not have the facts to support even a scientific hypothesis.

it would seem you need some of those critical thinking skills you have read about...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#194 May 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not advocating creationism; the theory is bad because it fail's Occam's razor.
Understatment of the century; that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Brian_G wrote:
The question above proves, some radical secularists and atheist extremists can't distinguish between advocating and teaching children critical thinking skills so they can learn why a theory fails instead of learning defamation and propaganda.
Ah, I notice you're lying again, since we who have argued against you have argued for nothing short of the PROMOTION of critical thinking - that is simply a skill you lack. The PROBLEM however is that putting CreationismID anywhere near it is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE to that very goal. Now, I myself would have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER AT ALL with using IDCreationism as an example in critical thinking of how NOT to do science. The problem being however, is that to do so MAY be seen by fundie parents as defamation of their religious beliefs and therefore violates the First Amendment. And it might be one of the very few times where they might have a good point. But primarily the introduction of IDC BS will only empower fundie teachers who think they can get away with teaching anti-science religious apologetics - Bobby DID say he had NO PROBLEM with teaching IDCreationism and for teachers to "supplement" the science curriculum with "alternative views". But anyone who has actually seen any examples of those "education" supplements online are full of shite. And unfortunately it could potentially take a court case before it comes to light.

Apparently Jindal thinks school boards being landed with million dollar lawsuits is worth the risk.

Keep lying for Jesus, Bri. I'm sure he's proud.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#195 May 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Understatment of the century; that is only the tip of the iceberg.
<quoted text>
Ah, I notice you're lying again, since we who have argued against you have argued for nothing short of the PROMOTION of critical thinking - that is simply a skill you lack. The PROBLEM however is that putting CreationismID anywhere near it is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE to that very goal. Now, I myself would have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER AT ALL with using IDCreationism as an example in critical thinking of how NOT to do science. The problem being however, is that to do so MAY be seen by fundie parents as defamation of their religious beliefs and therefore violates the First Amendment. And it might be one of the very few times where they might have a good point. But primarily the introduction of IDC BS will only empower fundie teachers who think they can get away with teaching anti-science religious apologetics - Bobby DID say he had NO PROBLEM with teaching IDCreationism and for teachers to "supplement" the science curriculum with "alternative views". But anyone who has actually seen any examples of those "education" supplements online are full of shite. And unfortunately it could potentially take a court case before it comes to light.
Apparently Jindal thinks school boards being landed with million dollar lawsuits is worth the risk.
Keep lying for Jesus, Bri. I'm sure he's proud.
Oh...people have been lying for jesus since the Gospel writers decided to use him as a political soundbyte and poster boy.

the entire myth of jesus is a lie. this is what cults do...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#196 May 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
creationism is not a theory. it does not have the facts to support even a scientific hypothesis. it would seem you need some of those critical thinking skills you have read about...
A theory doesn't require facts, take climate change mitigation for example.

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#197 May 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>A theory doesn't require facts, take climate change mitigation for example.
A scientific theory is an explanation of the known facts. This is common knowledge. It is basically like an incomplete puzzle. The pieces are the facts and the overall picture that is forming is the theory.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#198 May 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>A theory doesn't require facts, take climate change mitigation for example.
So... which creationist theory are you ascribing to?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#199 May 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>A theory doesn't require facts, take climate change mitigation for example.
Sheesh!

Theories explain facts.

Mitigate means to lessen the effects of something. You have a problem with the word 'mitigate'?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#200 May 15, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Sheesh!
Theories explain facts.
Mitigate means to lessen the effects of something. You have a problem with the word 'mitigate'?
On the contrary.

I do believe he is enthralled with that particular word.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#201 May 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>A theory doesn't require facts, take climate change mitigation for example.
Why do you hate kittens?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#203 May 16, 2013
This definition doesn't mention facts:

the·o·ry
[]
Noun
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".

You can honestly claim Governor Jindal doesn't mind creationism being taught alongside real science, so students can learn the difference between fact and bad theory. He's not advocating creationism.

“hellshade”

Level 5

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#204 May 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
This definition doesn't mention facts:
the·o·ry
[]
Noun
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".
You can honestly claim Governor Jindal doesn't mind creationism being taught alongside real science, so students can learn the difference between fact and bad theory. He's not advocating creationism.
where did you find this so called definition? thw wbsters pulled right out of my ass addition?

here's some definitions from dictionary.com not the first 2 definitions.

the·o·ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA

noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
One species or three 7 min pshun2404 5
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 25 min One way or another 61,523
Curious dilemma about DNA 46 min Subduction Zone 11
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 58 min Subduction Zone 2,709
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr THE LONE WORKER 220,695
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Aura Mytha 28,325
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Subduction Zone 160,325
More from around the web