stand up for REAL science

When it was first enacted last year, I referred to the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) as a "Dover Trap." My concern with the bill was that it would embolden Louisiana public school teachers with Creationist leanings to bring religiously-based Creationist material into the classroom under the guise of "critical thinking." Such an action could ultimately make the local district the target of a costly lawsuit, similar to what happened in Dover, Pennsylvania.

Next Tuesday, members of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education committee will be discussing policy language for the state school administrators' handbook that will provide guidance for determining what supplemental teaching materials can be used under the LSEA. According to an article on 2theadvocate.com, Barbara Forrest, spokesperson for the Louisiana Coalition for Science, is pleased with the language that has been recommended for discussion at the upcoming meeting.

"I don't think there is anything in there that is going to give very much room to anyone who wants to teach creationism or who wants to undermine evolution," Forrest said of the advisory panel's proposed guidelines.

Unsurprisingly, an ardent supporter of the LSEA is not pleased, claiming that the proposed guidelines constitute "religious hostility."

But Gene Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum, said the advisory panel's recommendations were merely the first draft in the discussions.

Mills said those proposed guidelines included "religious hostility" that went beyond the intent of lawmakers and was a "cheap shot."

What could be so hostile about the language found in these guidelines?

Here's a description from an article on theadvertiser.com:

Proposed for discussion ... were requirements that any information in the supplemental material be "supported by empirical evidence."

Okay, so far there should be no problem. After all, empirical evidence is the currency of science, right?

The description continues:

The proposed language also said religious beliefs "shall not be advanced under the guise of encouraging critical thinking"

This should also pose no problem for supporters of the LSEA, given that the legislation itself states that it "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine." Indeed, supporters of the bill went to great lengths to disavow any religious motivations when the bill was being debated.

Finally:

...and that materials "that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind shall be prohibited in science classes."

Aye, there's the rub!

Apparently, Gene Mills is unhappy with the fact that the proposed guidelines would specifically prohibit materials that advance the religious belief that humans were created by a supernatural being. Based on legal precedence, this means that the teaching of creationism and/or intelligent design is going to be prohibited.

The trap may be disarmed!

In conclusion, from my vantage point, the proposed guidelines appear to be a strict, literal interpretation of Section D of the Bill (pg. 2).

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

Clearly, this whole episode in Louisiana is an example of literalism gone awry.