amigo@iwlc6.UUCP (John Hobson) (04/24/84)
A. Ray Miller has done us all a favour by giving us the text of the Louisiana "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act". (I said some time ago that I would be withdrawing from this discussion, but I cannot let this act pass by without comment.) First, an aside on part of Ray's introductory comments: >> After all, you should know what 86% of the American population >> supports (despite decades of being told only one side of the >> story). All that this proves is that the vast majority of the American population is scientifically illiterate. So what else is new? >> *286.2. Purpose >> This Subpart is enacted for the purposes of protecting >> academic freedom. Note how the creationists hide their real purpose. The actual intent of this act is to get creationism into the public schools. "Protecting academic freedom" is like being for motherhood and against the man-eating shark (although if more people were against motherhood and for the man-eating shark, we wouldn't have these overpopulation problems [:-)]). >> *286.3. Definitions >> As used in this Subpart, unless otherwise clearly indicated, >> these terms have the following meanings: >> (1) "Balanced treatment" means providing whatever information >> and instruction in both creation and evolution models the >> classroom teacher determines is necessary and appropriate to >> provide insight into both theories in view of the textbooks and >> other instructional materials available for use in his classroom. Interesting that the teacher is assumed to be male. It says that the state will provide materials supporting for both the creationist and evolutionist viewpoints. Those of us who consider creationism to be religious in nature will now be supporting (through our tax dollars) religious instructional materials in the public schools. >> (2) "Creation-science" means the scientific evidences for >> creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. >> (3) "Evolution-science" means the scientific evidences for >> evolution and inferences from those scientific evidences. Note that the term "creation" is not defined. These are absolutely lousy definitions, since they really do not define anything. I suspect the reason for this may be that the Arkansas Law's definition of creation- science: Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about the development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds. [Section 4(a)] (see, Ray, some of us evolutionists have read it) was held by Judge Overton to have "as its unmentioned reference the first 11 chapters of the Book of Genesis." This avoids that problem by giving a definition devoid of content. >> *286.4. Authorization for balanced treatment; requirement for >> nondiscrimination >> A. Commencing with the 1982-1983 school year, public schools >> within this state shall give balanced treatment to creation- >> science and to evolution-science. Balanced treatment of these >> two models shall be given in classroom lectures taken as a whole >> for each course, in textbook materials taken as a whole for each >> course, in library materials taken as a whole for the sciences >> and taken as a whole for the humanities, and in other educational >> programs in public schools, to the extent that such lectures, >> textbooks, library materials, or educational programs deal in any >> way with the subject of the origin of man, life, the earth, or >> the universe. When creation or evolution is taught, each shall >> be taught as a theory, rather than as proven scientific fact. This last paragraph is taken almost word for word from the Alabama law. It says some interesting things. First of all, creationist teaching is not restricted to merely science. It encompasses all academic subjects. You may or may not be aware of the fact that there are not only creationist science textbooks, but also creationist *history* texts as well. I am referring, specifically, to STREAMS OF CIVILIZATION (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976). As an advertisement for it in the March 1980 issue of the Institute for Creation Research's magazine ACTS & FACTS put it, it offers "sound Christian teaching of history. The great men of the scriptures in their rightful places. Presents Noah and the flood as historical fact. Shows Jesus as more than just a man." This is another subject that the creationists would like to open up for their meddling. It says that all creationist materials cannot be rejected out of hand as improper for public schools. Also, it seems to imply that if one is taught, the other shall be taught as well (but see below). >> C. No teacher in public elementary or secondary school or >> instructor in any state-supported university in Louisiana, who >> chooses to be a creation-scientist or to teach scientific data >> which points to creationism shall, for that reason, be >> discriminated against in any way by any school board, college >> board, or administrator. >> *286.5. Clarifications >> This Subpart does not require or permit any instruction in the >> subject of origins but simply permits instruction in both >> scientific models (of evolution-science and creation-science) if >> public schools choose to teach either. This Subpart does not >> require each individual textbook or library book to give balanced >> treatment to the models of evolution-science and creation-science; >> it does not require any school books to be discarded. This >> Subpart does not require each individual classroom lecture in a >> course to give such balanced treatment but simply permits the >> lectures as a whole to give balanced treatment; it permits some >> lectures to present evolution-science and other lectures to >> present creation-science. These two paragraphs should be taken together. Recall the definition of balanced treatment given above ("providing whatever information and instruction in both creation and evolution models the classroom teacher determines is necessary and appropriate to provide insight into both theories"). These two paragraphs say that a child could be taught only creationism (the teacher might not feel that any instruction in evolution is necessary) and that this teacher *cannot* be touched by any school authority. >> *286.6. Funding of inservice training and materials acquisition >> Any public school that elects to present any model of origins >> shall use existing teacher inservice training funds to prepare >> teachers of public school courses presenting any model of origins >> to give balanced treatment to the creation-science model and the >> evolution-science model. Existing library acquisition funds shall >> be used to purchase nonreligious library books as are necessary to >> give balanced treatment to the creation-science model and the >> evolution-science model. So they can go out and buy Henry Morris' SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM (public school edition). >> *286.7. Curriculum Development >> A. Each city and parish school board shall develop and provide to >> each public school classroom teacher in the system a curriculum >> guide on presentation of creation-science. This one is a real beauty. Notice that every school board *must* provide creationist materials to *each* teacher, but there is no call to provide evolutionist materials. That's what I really call "balanced treatment". >> B. The governor shall designate seven creation-scientists who >> shall provide resource services in the development of curriculum >> guides to any city or parish school board upon request. Each >> such creation-scientist shall be designated from among the >> full-time faculty members teaching in any college and university >> in Louisiana. These creation-scientists shall serve at the >> pleasure of the governor and without compensation. At the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh (Oshkosh is where my parents live, nice town), one of the most staunch proponents of creationism is a professor in the math department. If this law were to be enacted in Wisconsin, I have no doubt that Dr. Gade would be one of these persons. The fact that his area of expertise does not cover anything even closely resembling the physical or biological sciences is beside the point, he fills the requirement as stated. >> Section 2. If any provision or item of this Act or the >> application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not >> affect other provisions, items, or applications of this Act which >> can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, or >> applications, and to this end the provisions of the Act are >> hereby declared severable. So the entire act must be held unconstitutional for it to be abolished. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL ihnp4!iwlc6!amigo
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (04/26/84)
Thanks to A. Ray Miller for the text of the Act - I had no idea it was so
bad. Thanks to John Hobson for detailed scrutiny of many points. A few
more brief ones:
The Act claims (286.2) to exist for the purposes of protecting academic
freedom, yet it attempts to legislate the teaching of (a particular area
of) science without any reference to scientific methods. It is, in fact, a
frontal attack on academic freedom.
Why does the Act attempt to give legitimacy to two particular models? What
if, next Tuesday morning, scientists discover a marvelous answer to all the
questions of origins/cosmology/etc., which is at odds with both evolution
and creationism? Bad magic; then you gotta fix the law.
In the name of "balanced treatment", the Act provides protection against
job discrimination for teachers who hold creationist points of view and/or
teach creationism, but NOT for evolutionists (see 286.4 C). Balanced, my
ass!
An entire section (286.7) is devoted to development of creationist
curriculum and such. In other words, what can't be achieved by scientific
methods will be achieved by legislative fiat.
The whole Act reeks of shameless, shabby politics.
---
...Cerebus for dictator! Dick Dunn
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
--
...Cerebus for dictator! Dick Dunn
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086