Are scientists and scientific societies "protestng too much" against "critical analysis"laws ?
The NCSE website says,
Certainly many laypeople must think that the real reason for scientists' opposition to these "critical analysis" laws is a belief that many scientific arguments against evolution are good, not a fear of the introduction of religious ideas into science classrooms. Those fears are adequately addressed by disclaimers in the laws. This opposition to these laws is creating a backlash of heightened public distrust of scientists.
Support for the effort to repeal Louisiana's antievolution law is mounting. The American Institute for Biological Sciences, the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, the American Society for Cell Biology, the Louisiana Association of Biology Educators, the Louisiana Science Teachers Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the Society for the Study of Evolution together with the Society of Systematic Biologists and the American Society of Naturalists have all endorsed Louisiana's Senate Bill 70, which if enacted would repeal Louisiana Revised Statutes 17.285.1, which implemented the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008
Additionally, the Repeal Creationism website — run by Zack Kopplin, the Baton Rouge high school student who is spearheading the repeal effort — now lists the endorsement of a number of prominent scientists and educators: Francisco Ayala, Niles Eldredge, Susan Epperson (the plaintiff in the 1968 Supreme Court case Epperson v. Arkansas, which established the unconstitutionality of bans on teaching evolution), Paul R. Gross, Lawrence S. Lerner, Kenneth R. Miller, Neil Shubin, John Sulston (the forty-third Nobel laureate to support the repeal effort), and Tim White.
Certainly many laypeople must think that the real reason for scientists' opposition to these "critical analysis" laws is a belief that many scientific arguments against evolution are good, not a fear of the introduction of religious ideas into science classrooms. Those fears are adequately addressed by disclaimers in the laws. This opposition to these laws is creating a backlash of heightened public distrust of scientists.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/06/2011 06:39:00 PM
4 Comments:
'holocaust debate'
not a great way to start a blog...
For starters, your comment is way off topic. You are a sore loser because you are unable to rebut my post.
As for the Holocaust, please note my blog header's statement, "just-so stories are not accepted here." I do not question that the Nazis committed atrocities against Jews and others. It is the "systematic" part that I question, because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews. According to official Holocaust history, many "Jewish" victims did not even think of themselves as Jews, not even secular Jews. Non-Jews would have been fearful of being mistaken for Jews. Even supposing for the sake of argument that I am wrong, debating the issue enhances our understanding of how the Nazis identified Jews and non-Jews. Shutting off debate only creates ignorance. The same is true of evolution.
IT's easy to rebut your post. That people don't like something is not by proxy "protesting too much." If you are against slavery then fighting laws that are pro slavery isn't a de facto abdication that the pro slavery movement is correct.
It's called taking a stand.
Lazarus Lupin
http://strangespanner.blogspot.com/
art and review
PS: Before folks noses get out of joint I am not equating slavery with creationism.
You missed the point, bozo. They say they don't like the law because it introduces creationism into science classes -- but that is not true, because the law has disclaimers against creationism. That is why I say they are protesting too much. It is like falsely claiming that a labor law that prohibits slavery actually legalizes slavery. Duh
Post a Comment
<< Home