Monday, June 23, 2008
A Darwinian Veto
Posted by David Winkler-Schmit on Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:26 PM
While a growing number of people and media outlets, Gambit Weekly included, want Gov. Jindal to veto the proposed legislative pay raise, that’s not the only bill that should be struck down. Jindal’s pen is getting rusty, and if he wants to warm it up for the squashing of the Legislature’s windfall, then SB 733, Louisiana Science Education Act (aka “Sneaking the Bible into Biology Class”) would be a great place to start
As previously noted, this legislation is a veiled attempt to bring Creationism’s latest incarnation, Intelligent Design, into Louisiana’s classrooms. Just as the Legislature left the pay raise question up to Jindal, they’re leaving the question of science up to the man who majored in biology at Brown University and graduated with honors. In case Gov. Jindal doesn’t know how other states have dealt with this issue, he could always consult with Pennsylvania’s U.S. District and find out why the Discovery Institute’s idea of science belongs in comic books and not text books. And if that’s not enough evidence for our governor, he could look at this, this and this, and, most of all, remember this.
Quick question: If Jindal doesn’t veto this bill, should he return his degree to Brown?
Comments (14)
Showing 1-14 of 14
Jindal has already spoken out in favor of anti-science legislation. He did it during the campaign.... before Gambit endorsed him. http://www.suspect-device.com/blog/?p=1668
like
dislike
As long as he doesn't do something truly kooky, like diverting public school funds into private religious institu -- Oh. Never mind.
There is a difference between requesting that Jindal veto the pay raise and requesting that Jindal veto the creationism/ID in schools bill. Jindal said he was against legislative pay raises that take effect in the current term during the campaign. Requesting that he veto that bill would be a logical request. However, Jindal had already made it clear that he supports teaching creationism/ID in the classroom. So asking him to veto something that you know he supports is just plain silly and shows that the writer is either ignorant to Jindal's stance or lacking the commen sence to realize that politicians tend to not vote against (or veto) legislation that they support (especially when supporting the legislation appeases his ultraright wing religious conservative base).
Obviously, Daniel, you are an enlightened reader. I was aware of Jindal's support of ID, so I guess, to use your words, I'm not ignorant, but silly. Kill the silly messenger, but I've previously written about the LA Science Education Act and I will continue to do so. I really don't think Jindal will veto something he supports; I wanted to remind people of what was occurring and the gathering opposition to it. Alluding to the pen was simply my "hook." As for lacking "commen sence" or common sense...you could be right.
I don't think the pen is rusty though. Perhaps, as I suggested on my blog, the state cannot afford both the legislative pay raise AND pens to sign documents with. And I absolutely agree that you should continue to educate people on the LA Fake science act, so on that note you should continue to write about it. I just worry that people might not take the article seriously because of the veto and lose the point being made that the bill is harmful to the educational system in Louisiana. We already have the problem that readers might not take the Gamit (and its affiliated websites) seriously because of its blind support for Jindal. And I caught my typo (a bit late, but before you responded) :)
Frankly, dears, Darwin and religious beliefs are not necessarily at odds. As religious as we are, we belive that Darwin was correct. Heaven only knows what science will prove in the future. It has proven a lot as of this time.
RW: I agree. I believe in an intelligent designer and that a designer who was intelligent would create things to evolve. Religion and science need not be at odds. However, there are certain things that are not science and ID is one of them. It has no business in the science classroom.
Well now that this is a theological discussion.. From what I've seen of the design, it tends to call the intelligence of the designer into question. It's almost as though the designer suffered from some sort of wholesale divestment in the public designer school system at some point. One can certainly imagine this designer may have had trouble on the science portion of designer LEAP.
Jeffrey: I am sure that this is your opinion and you are welcome to it. However, I believe otherwise. I also strongly believe that my beliefs have no place in the science classroom. And that should be the topic here. The problem is that many people who dont believe in God will not only argue against teaching ID in school, they also question the intelligence of people who believe in God as well and in doing so hurt their cause. If atheists/agnostics would just say "it is a matter of faith and matters of faith have nothing to do with science" and leave the argument at that, they would probably get more support from believers because the believers wont see it as an attempt to attack their religion but to protect the school system.
The problem is that many people who dont believe in God will not only argue against teaching ID in school, they also question the intelligence of people who believe in God as well and in doing so hurt their cause. Well let's just thank the Design that I haven't got a particular cause that's in danger of being hurt.
Lord, don't say creationism. However, "emergence" is ok. Its just as magical as creation but leaves out God. Academia can't deal with God. That's right, if you duplicate the environment that created life and shake it up, you get no life. There's a missing piece - emergence. Explain to me the difference between creation and "emergence."
