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.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#205 May 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>A theory doesn't require facts, take climate change mitigation for example.
yes, a scientific theory does in fact need facts.

why do you talk about things you don't understand? do you like ot look like a fool?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#206 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".
That's because you don't understand science.

Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

- American Heritage Dictionary.

You may note the word "fact" used in the definition.
Brian_G wrote:
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.
The first sentence contradicts the second.

We can honestly claim that Jindal doens't mind creationism being taught along side real science so he can screw up science education for the sake of pushing his baseless religious beliefs onto other people's kids along with all his other fellow supporters who also hate freedom and hate America and so don't give a crud about shittting all over the First Amendment of the US Constitution. There is no other good reason as the application of critical thought directed at creationism could be construed by the fundies as violating their First Amendment rights risking an expensive lawsuit for the school board. Of course by teaching creationism in science class that is already violating the First Amendment anyway (as established in MULITIPLE previous court cases dating back DECADES) and risks an expensive lawsuit for the school board.

But since he's not in school anymore (and has apparently forgotten everything he learned assuming he ever did at all) Governor Jindal is quite happy to accept the risk. You know, the risk which he's not taking.

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#207 May 16, 2013
centereach ny wrote:
<quoted text>
where did you find this so called definition? thw wbsters pulled right out of my ass addition?
I think this may be it, lol: http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx...
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#208 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.
What 'general principles' are you hanging your hat on, son?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#209 May 16, 2013
I posted this on the other thread, but I think it deserves placement here as well:

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-reveals-scientif...

Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change
May 15th, 2013 in Space & Earth / Environment

A comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed articles on the topic of global warming and climate change has revealed an overwhelming consensus among scientists that recent warming is human-caused.

The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming Ė 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)

Led by John Cook at the University of Queensland, the study has been published today, Thursday 16 May, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters.

The study went one step further, asking the authors of these papers to rate their entire paper using the same criteria. Over 2000 papers were rated and among those that discussed the cause of recent global warming, 97 per cent endorsed the consensus that it is caused by humans.

The findings are in stark contrast to the public's position on global warming; a 2012 poll* revealed that more than half of Americans either disagree, or are unaware, that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is warming because of human activity.

John Cook said: "Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.

"There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception. It's staggering given the evidence for consensus that less than half of the general public think scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

"This is significant because when people understand that scientists agree on global warming, they're more likely to support policies that take action on it."

In March 2012, the researchers used the ISI Web of Science database to search for peer-reviewed academic articles published between 1991 and 2011 using two topic searches: "global warming" and "global climate change".

After limiting the selection to peer-reviewed climate science, the study considered 11 994 papers written by 29 083 authors in 1980 different scientific journals.

The abstracts from these papers were randomly distributed between a team of 24 volunteers recruited through the "myth-busting" website skepticalscience.com , who used set criteria to determine the level to which the abstracts endorsed that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Each abstract was analyzed by two independent, anonymous raters.

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Co-author of the study Mark Richardson, from the University of Reading, said: "We want our scientists to answer questions for us, and there are lots of exciting questions in climate science. One of them is: are we causing global warming? We found over 4000 studies written by 10 000 scientists that stated a position on this, and 97 per cent said that recent warming is mostly man made."

Visitors to the skepticalscience.com website also raised the funds required to allow the study to be accessible to the public.

Daniel Kammen, editor-in-chief of the journal Environmental Research Letters, said: ""This paper demonstrates the power of the Environmental Research Letters open access model of operation in that authors working to advance our knowledge of climate science and to engage in a public discourse can guarantee all interested parties have the opportunity to review the same data and findings."

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#210 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
I posted this on the other thread, but I think it deserves placement here as well:
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-reveals-scientif...
.
.
.
yadda yadda yadda
Yeah, so? Gore was a Democrat so global warming is false. Can't refute that now can ya? Huh huh? Can ya?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#211 May 16, 2013
llDayo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, so? Gore was a Democrat so global warming is false. Can't refute that now can ya? Huh huh? Can ya?
Yeah.

Gore is a sleaze bag, opportunist polititian (redundant, I know). He has not done the Climate Change movement any favors.

The "Carbon Tax" is also bullshit. More politically-incentive, money-making crap.

As I said in the other thread (again), I only hope that we're as clever getting ourselves OUT of this mess through green technology as we were in getting ourselves IN this mess by exploiting the environment.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#212 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.
If it is "real science" then why do creationist allegories need to be taught in conjunction with it? Whose creation stories? Which stories? Since creation stories are part of the major religions, how is this not mixing church and state? This morass you are proposing will eat up more of your precious tax payer dollars than many of the rational concerns you disdain.

How anyone can be so ignorant of the dichotomy of teaching cultural mythology in a science program is beyond reckoning.

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#213 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah.
Gore is a sleaze bag, opportunist polititian (redundant, I know). He has not done the Climate Change movement any favors.
I agree. I also like the new spelling of poliTITian. Most of them are just a bunch of boobs!
The "Carbon Tax" is also bullshit. More politically-incentive, money-making crap.
That pretty much describes half of what the government does. It's all about making money for someone.
As I said in the other thread (again), I only hope that we're as clever getting ourselves OUT of this mess through green technology as we were in getting ourselves IN this mess by exploiting the environment.
We are clever enough, it's the ignorance and blind faith of some that keep it from happening.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#214 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
I posted this on the other thread, but I think it deserves placement here as well
PLEASE!!! Think of the kittens!

:-(

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#215 May 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Why do you hate kittens?
What does the lack of any experimental test of climate change mitigation have to do with kittens?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#216 May 17, 2013
EVERYTHING!!!

>:-(

So take it here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TVP...
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#217 May 18, 2013
So people believe that by changing our fossil energy uses, this will stop hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc...?

How on earth do you think oil and coal was formed in the first place?

By dead animals and plants...in scolding water heated by the center of the earths core.

If that didn't ruin our ozone layer, our measley greenhouse gases wont, thats for sure.

Talk about indoctrinated....geez

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#218 May 18, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
So people believe that by changing our fossil energy uses, this will stop hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc...?
How on earth do you think oil and coal was formed in the first place?
By dead animals and plants...in scolding water heated by the center of the earths core.
If that didn't ruin our ozone layer, our measley greenhouse gases wont, thats for sure.
Talk about indoctrinated....geez
Oh my, you did take an overdose of stupid this morning didn't you?

No one has claimed that in the least. Please come up with a legitimate comment.

And no, Noah's Flood never happened. Anyone old enough to know that Santa is not real should be able to figure that out too.

So tell me, is your education level equal to that of Jethro Bodine's or did you stop sooner?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#219 May 18, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
So people believe that by changing our fossil energy uses, this will stop hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc...?
How on earth do you think oil and coal was formed in the first place?
By dead animals and plants...in scolding water heated by the center of the earths core.
If that didn't ruin our ozone layer, our measley greenhouse gases wont, thats for sure.
Talk about indoctrinated....geez
"Scientists have nailed down the cause of a planet-wide catastrophe that wiped out nearly all living species 200 million years ago and paved the way for the rise of the dinosaurs. The culprit was carbon dioxide, the same greenhouse gas thatís causing global warming today says a new report."

More at http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ancient-ma...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#220 May 19, 2013
There's never been an experimental test of man made CO2 on climate change. Catastrophic man made global warming is based on faith, the lack of experiments shows its a bad theory. Climate change mitigation is a hoax.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#221 May 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's never been an experimental test of man made CO2 on climate change. Catastrophic man made global warming is based on faith, the lack of experiments shows its a bad theory. Climate change mitigation is a hoax.
outside of closed system greenhouse effect tests with CO2 which clearly show it will act to warm up the system.

you meant outside of those tests, right?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#222 May 19, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
So people believe that by changing our fossil energy uses, this will stop hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc...?
How on earth do you think oil and coal was formed in the first place?
By dead animals and plants...in scolding water heated by the center of the earths core.
If that didn't ruin our ozone layer, our measley greenhouse gases wont, thats for sure.
Talk about indoctrinated....geez
Muggins, why do you hate kittens? Global warming is utterly irrelevant to evolution. This is an evolution forum, not a global warming forum. In fact there's ALREADY a global warming forum dedicated to the specific subject known as... global warming. And in fact, some stupid kitten-hater decided to create an ENTIRE thread INSIDE the evolution forum SPECIFICALLY dedicated to... yup, you guessed it - global warming. That place is here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TVP...

Too many kittens have suffered already. So PLEASE, think of the kittens before you post.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#223 May 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Scientists have nailed down the cause of a planet-wide catastrophe that wiped out nearly all living species 200 million years ago and paved the way for the rise of the dinosaurs. The culprit was carbon dioxide, the same greenhouse gas thatís causing global warming today says a new report."
More at http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ancient-ma...
Brian_G wrote:
There's never been an experimental test of man made CO2 on climate change. Catastrophic man made global warming is based on faith, the lack of experiments shows its a bad theory. Climate change mitigation is a hoax.
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>outside of closed system greenhouse effect tests with CO2 which clearly show it will act to warm up the system.
you meant outside of those tests, right?
HEY!!!

>:-(

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2010/10/2/4...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#224 May 20, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
outside of closed system greenhouse effect tests with CO2 which clearly show it will act to warm up the system.
you meant outside of those tests, right?
I mean tests on climate, there's never been an experiment that shows any man made climate change. I agree, there are experiments on the greenhouse effect in the lab but that doesn't show how much man made CO2 it takes to change the global temperature. In fact, if you just look at the lab experiments, climate CO2 sensitivity is far lower than the IPCC's most benign guesses. That's why they use 'climate feedback', which has never been experimentally tested either.

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
Curious dilemma about DNA 6 min replaytime 426
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min River Tam 221,282
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr replaytime 67,566
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 1 hr replaytime 417
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Eagle 12 28,712
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr Eagle 12 3,559
News Texas' battle over teaching evolution comes dow... 4 hr pshun2404 8
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Goof Hunter 160,998
More from around the web