"Children's crusade" seeks repeal of Louisiana "academic freedom" law
Mascot Zack Kopplin, a mere high school senior, is being paraded as a co-leader, if not the main leader, of a campaign to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act, in order to give the false impression that this is a grassroots campaign and not something driven by evil godless college professors.{1]
Zack's blog says.{2] .
Zack lied-- the term "alternative(s)" appears nowhere in the LSEA, obviously because creationism is one of the most obvious alternatives to evolution.
Zack gives the usual "the-sky-is-falling" arguments about LSEA "killing jobs." Many tech companies are not into biology at all. Very few tech businesses use evolution at all, and those that do use microevolution, not macroevolution. Even creationists accept microevoultion.
How many oil-drilling companies are leaving Louisiana because creationists do not believe in modern geology?
When considering locating in Louisiana, companies would consider things like tax breaks and infrastructure, not the LSEA.
There are 64 parishes(equivalent to counties) in Louisiana -- so far only two have tried to introduce creationism in the public schools.
Where are Louisiana's tech-field professors? Why aren't they saying that they want tech companies and tech societies to come to the state, LSEA or no LSEA?
In 2008 LSEA was passed unanimously by the Louisiana state senate, was passed by the state House by a vote of 93-4, and was signed by the governor.[3] I think that the government would look very foolish if it repealed the law.
Zack's blog says.{2] .
The LSEA ”employs code language like ‘critical thinking’ and ‘teaching the alternatives’ in order to pretend to be promoting something noble,” wrote Zack Kopplin in the Huffington Post earlier this year.
Zack lied-- the term "alternative(s)" appears nowhere in the LSEA, obviously because creationism is one of the most obvious alternatives to evolution.
Zack gives the usual "the-sky-is-falling" arguments about LSEA "killing jobs." Many tech companies are not into biology at all. Very few tech businesses use evolution at all, and those that do use microevolution, not macroevolution. Even creationists accept microevoultion.
How many oil-drilling companies are leaving Louisiana because creationists do not believe in modern geology?
When considering locating in Louisiana, companies would consider things like tax breaks and infrastructure, not the LSEA.
There are 64 parishes(equivalent to counties) in Louisiana -- so far only two have tried to introduce creationism in the public schools.
Where are Louisiana's tech-field professors? Why aren't they saying that they want tech companies and tech societies to come to the state, LSEA or no LSEA?
In 2008 LSEA was passed unanimously by the Louisiana state senate, was passed by the state House by a vote of 93-4, and was signed by the governor.[3] I think that the government would look very foolish if it repealed the law.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 4/22/2011 10:22:00 AM
6 Comments:
The government looked foolish when it passed it. IT's not alone, many laws are foolish and done hastily for less than noble reasons.
Off topic, what do good college professors do?
Lazarus Lupin
http://strangespanner.blogspot.com/
art and review
>>>>The government looked foolish when it passed it. <<<<
LSEA is constitutionl -- otherwise it would have been challenged in court.
Public opinion polls show a majority for the law. Science might not be a democracy, but public education is.
So passing the law was the smart thing to do.
>>>>IT's not alone, many laws are foolish and done hastily for less than noble reasons.<<<<
So why "single out" the LSEA for criticism?
>>>Off topic, what do good college professors do?<<<<
Not off topic. They don't cut off their noses to spite their faces. Louisiana tech professors should have spoken up in defense of their state.
Right, first off not singled out, it was the only law you mentioned. Mention others and I'd be happy to comment on them as well. Next, that it is constitutional does not make it less foolish (you are confusing legal with wisdom) or that the public likes it make it any more reasonable. Finally, so one should support your state even if you don't agree with what the state does?
What fun!
>>>>> Next, that it is constitutional does not make it less foolish (you are confusing legal with wisdom) or that the public likes it make it any more reasonable <<<<
You missed the point, bozo. The smart thing for politicians to do is to please their constituents with constitutional laws.
>>>>Finally, so one should support your state even if you don't agree with what the state does?<<<<
In this case yes, you stupid fathead. It is in the professors' interests to have tech societies and tech companies come to the state, ,LSEA or no LSEA
>>>LSEA is constitutionl -- otherwise it would have been challenged in court.<<<
You have to have standing first. Since no school district has actually implemented any of the provisions of LSEA, no-one has standing.
If the law were unconstitutional as written --e.g., if it expressly authorized the teaching of biblical creationism in public school science classes --the effect would be immediate and there would therefore be immediate standing to sue.
Also, the federal courts allow limited taxpayer standing in establishment clause suits --see Hein case posts in the Caldwell v.Caldwell post label group in the left sidebar of the homepage
Post a Comment
<< Home