Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
OneNewsNow quotes Casey Luskin about the Louisiana "academic freedom" bill:
"[This law basically] requires the public school system in Louisiana to be friendly towards teachers who want to 'help students understand, analyze, critic, and objectively review scientific theories being studied' - including the scientific theory of evolution," Luskin contends. However, the law states that teachers must be consistent with the prohibition of the promotion of religion. "Well, the bill does not allow the teaching of religion," Luskin explains, "but there are many legitimate scientific critics of evolution that have a purely scientific basis that you can talk about without having to get into religion at all."
But look at the first comment and you'll see exactly the kinds of arguments that are going to be used by ignorant teachers:
"Bravo Governor Jindal. What a novel idea teaching both sides of a theory. Scientific evidence will destroy the theory of devilution. One example, the sun is shrinking at a measurable and consistent with mathematical formulas and has been so ever since these measurements have been taken, mid 1800. If you were to increase the size of the sun based on its shrink size you would find that the sun would be touching the earth about 10 million years ago making it impossible for evolution to happen, not enough time. This is one of a myriad of examples but space does not allow me to list the 100's of examples that exist. At least now the students may get a balanced view of evolution showing all the scientific evidence and I am confident that they will come away seeing that evolution is a hoax put on the people by those trying to find a way to disprove the Holy Scriptures. Agenda over substance which is typical leftist propaganda. Thank you Governor Jindal."
Ah, the old shrinking sun argument, staple of every young earth creationist webpage and pamphlet. It's complete and utter nonsense, as my friend Howard Van Till, a retired astronomy professor, demonstrated long ago. There is only one place where you'll find this argument: in creationist texts. It can be argued without discussing the religious motivation behind it, but it remains a purely creationist argument.
And you know damn well that this is the kind of argument that some teachers are going to bring in to "critically analyze" evolution. They're going to be feeding all sorts of ridiculous claims to their students. They'll be telling them that the moon doesn't have enough dust on it, that there are human and dinosaur prints together in a Texas river bed, and who knows what else. The entire creationist joke book is going to be unloaded on unsuspecting students. And then they're going to get sued. And they're going to lose. And it will be Jindal's fault.
Politics
Comments
In other words, they'll be lying for Jesus.
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | July 7, 2008 9:45 AM
Will YECs allow for the teaching that there are mico-organisms in the Ganges River that make it the purist river in the world? Will they allow the teaching that an earthen bridge was built linking India with Sri Lanka (not mentioning the Ramayana)?
Both of these have Hindu explanations that run counter to scientific theories. The former is evidence of the purity of the goddess Ganga, which is the Ganges River itself. The latter is evidence of the sacredness of the Ramayana as a religious document, and proof that the bridge was constructed 1.7 million years ago (in the Treta Yuga era) by the god Rama.
Somehow, I think not...
Posted by: Umlud | July 7, 2008 9:45 AM
That's funny...isn't that just what the ID crowd (including Luskin) were telling us about ID (back when they still believed in ID), right up to the point where the evidence in Dover indicated the reverse and the judge found it was inseperable from it's Creationist roots?
Posted by: Dave S. | July 7, 2008 10:08 AM
Never heard the "shrinking sun" theory before; but then again never paid much attention to YEC theories before finding this blog.
Had a friend at college-a Fundie who became a good drinking buddy-who told me that dinosaur bones were placed on the Earth by Satan to confuse us. That killed the theory for me right there. He also got me a leather-bound KJV Bible for Christmas that year; because the version I had was incorrect (and not leather-bound)-but that's a different story...
Posted by: Rev. AJB | July 7, 2008 10:37 AM
I have an entirely different beef with Luskin's post. The word is 'CRITIQUE' not critic! He screws that up twice. All other problems are just the usual bullshit spewed forth on numerous creationist websites which Ed has already pointed out.
Posted by: llDayo | July 7, 2008 11:11 AM
Casey Luskin said:
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 7, 2008 11:17 AM
Looks like WND's Chuck Norris didn't get the memo:
"What opponents are up in arms about is that, with SB 733, teachers could supplement evolutionary teachings with materials on Creationism or Intelligent Design."
Posted by: Cheryl Shepherd-Adams | July 7, 2008 11:21 AM
"Bravo Governor Jindal. What a novel idea teaching both sides of a theory. Scientific evidence will destroy the theory of devilution."
Both sides? Eh-hmm, don't they mean all three sides? It's about time the Flying Spaghetti Monster enters into this debate! Surely some of the Pastafarian hordes must reside in Louisiana?
Bobby Henderson 2005 - Open Letter to the Kansas Board of Education:
"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
Posted by: Dirk Diggler | July 7, 2008 11:35 AM
I'm fearing that its time for a wake up call. There's been too much focus on Louisiana as though it was a unique anomoly. The DI is making progress with their "critical analysis" strategy. Its frightening that I should have to provide a link to this website to make the point, but here it is: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/information_on_louisiana_scien.html
I know there's probably a lie in there somewhere, but the point is that Louisiana is not alone. Their list doesn't include Kentucky since that law is too blatantly religious for their strategy of surviving a court challenge (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/158-00/177.PDF). The point is that there's nothing new here, and most of this is taking place under most people's radar. Various evidence, including AP Bio teacher's listserv posts, has convinced me that there is much more "critical analysis of evolution" going on in public school science classes than anyone realizes. "Critical analysis", which effectively replaces the results of scientific community peer review with the analysis of high school students provided with anti-evolution pseudoscience, is just too tempting for officials and teachers desperate for a compromise. There is almost no other solution being offered to them. We're losing by default.
I'm seeing way too much complacency. The "critical analysis" strategy has been on the ground for years, and there has yet to be a court challenge on this playing field the DI is being allowed to set up. This business of relying on the courts has to stop. Everyone has to start getting serious about how evolution education should be framed for the general public. We can conclude that the "crusading atheist taking no prisoners - let the lawyers handle it" approach isn't working - should have been able to predict that. Biology education needs to be decoupled from the culture war - on both sides. Yes, progress can be made there, if we're willing. If y'all are just having too much fun with the culture war, then I guess we're stuck.
Posted by: Mike | July 7, 2008 12:33 PM
You're right, Mike, I'm just having too much fun fighting against Dominionism. If I'd just start fighting and be willing to get serious about evolution education, then surely the Dominionists would stop trying to push government-required religious indoctrination. We scientists offer no alternative to teaching to facts, so those teachers wishing to compromise between facts and the Dominionists are getting no help from us, causing us to "lose by default".
Why can't we come up with a way to teach both the facts and that a 6,000 year old universe wholly fashioned in situ by the Hand of God? Because we are complacent, that's why.
Posted by: Shygetz | July 7, 2008 12:50 PM
Even Answers in Genesis says not to use the shrinking sun argument. I know these guys never read any actual science, but you think that would at least keep up with their own arguments.
Posted by: Alan B. | July 7, 2008 1:00 PM
"then surely the Dominionists would stop trying to push government-required religious indoctrination"
Excellent! Exhibit A. You see, this is the problem. Its not the "Dominionists", or whatever, that we have to speak to, its the school system officials, legislators, and the rest of the general public, who have to deal with the DI, etc, and their followers. You're not going to convert anyone. The people adopting "critical analysis" as a compromise are not in a position to just stick it to their constituents. They have to be able to say "Teaching good established science doesn't threaten your religious beliefs." and mean it. Tolerance. That's all it is. Teaching biology has to be tolerant of people who choose not to "believe" evolution, and at the same time emphasize that current science is decided by peer review. This isn't impossible, but not enough people are onboard developing it.
Posted by: Mike | July 7, 2008 1:32 PM
Mike,
I'm totally with you. My question is where do we best focus our energies? I'm a publishing PhD level geoscientist and I'm normally a pretty creative guy, but I have to say that I'm at a loss as to how to approach the school officials and general public on this topic. Sure, I get asked to give talks on my research on occasion, but that's a totally different game.
Posted by: Josh | July 7, 2008 2:29 PM
As if the people of Louisiana haven't suffered enough over the course of this century. They've already consistently sat at or near the bottom of most U.S. education rankings out there due to incompetent leadership; what's next? I wonder how satisfied Jindal and the State legislature will be when their schools start turning up ranked below those of Liberia or Zimbabwe.
Posted by: Julian | July 7, 2008 3:28 PM
I, too, disagree with you, Mike, but from a different angle. Bluntly, in most communities in which this sort of legislation has been proposed and/or has a significant chance of passage, the scientifically knowledgeable voters are significantly outnumbered by those unable to intelligently judge the issues. This includes not only the YEC believers themselves, but those who have no real knowledge or concern either way, and who can therefore be easily swayed by the deceptive "teach the controversy" or "critical analysis" arguments. If I recall the numbers correctly, the Louisiana law passed with well over 95% of the legislators in favor - if that doesn't show science to be outnumbered by ignorance and deceit, then nothing does.
Certainly, it would be better to educate those people - but how does one engage them in the issue long enough to learn those facts, when the YEC arguments are so much simpler and easier to present? Using the courts to fight the "tyranny of the majority" is certainly a worse choice than defeating these laws before passage - but when the laws have already passed, then there is little other recourse than to fight them in the only remaining venue.
Posted by: BobApril | July 7, 2008 4:28 PM
Josh,
Good things happen when the scientific community speaks with one voice about evolution education. Example: the Kansas kangaroo court hearings. What frightens me the most is the naivette of most of the scientific community acknowledging and dealing with the problem. Its most often (no, not exclusively) left to crusading atheists to deal with it, and we've seen how well that works, not that an atheist can't address the problem, just not when they insist on attacking religion at the same time. The one single thing most responsible for our present mess is the failure to teach science to the general public, and the biggest failure in that is in teaching the most basic fact: what science is. I get the feeling most academics don't know (or care) either. So I think the greatest amount of energy should be spent getting the scientific community to focus on the crisis in evolution education, and not leave science education in the hands of education colleges who want high school students to be their own little scientists and analyze everything to see if they "believe" it. Some of this has to be owned up to. Science isn't fair, or democratic. Science isn't the awesomely powerful tool for discoverying absolute truth that it has often been framed as either.
When I teach biology, once at an Orthodox Jewish school, I introduce the course with discussion of what science is, and is not, and refer back to this during the course. I present science as a human, creative, self-limited process using the only tool I've been able find for this, the video of Jacob Bronowski's "Knowledge and Certainty" from "The Ascent of Man" (and if you know it you can imagine the impact at a Jewish school), and Gould's NOMA concept. The only discussion of religion is that science is not religion. I refuse to take class time to discuss pseudoscience, but refer student's to Jason Rosenhouse's excellent essay on how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. I do what I can to help the students realize that science isn't, or should not be, a threat to whatever their religion beliefs might be.
But that's inconsequential (almost). I may be happy with that, but there needs to be an agreed on pedogy for teaching evolution while making as few students as possible uncomfortable. I think that the success of "critical analysis" among educated, non-creationist, people who should know better is evidence that we don't have this yet. NCSE is the only organization I know of that works on this, and they don't have nearly enough influence. The typical education college is as likely to have creationists and apologists preparing biology teachers as someone who knows enough not to trust creation science drivel.
Basically, "We have met the enemy, and they is us." We have to get our own house in order first. This has been done with science education before. There is now general agreement on the value of cognitive learning and experiments where there was once only memorizing buckets-o-absolute facts. The importance of science education wasn't appreciated at all before Sputnik.
Posted by: Mike | July 7, 2008 4:41 PM
Josh,
Good things happen when the scientific community speaks with one voice about evolution education. Example: the Kansas kangaroo court hearings. What frightens me the most is the naivette of most of the scientific community acknowledging and dealing with the problem. Its most often (no, not exclusively) left to crusading atheists to deal with it, and we've seen how well that works, not that an atheist can't address the problem, just not when they insist on attacking religion at the same time. The one single thing most responsible for our present mess is the failure to teach science to the general public, and the biggest failure in that is in teaching the most basic fact: what science is. I get the feeling most academics don't know (or care) either. So I think the greatest amount of energy should be spent getting the scientific community to focus on the crisis in evolution education, and not leave science education in the hands of education colleges who want high school students to be their own little scientists and analyze everything to see if they "believe" it. Some of this has to be owned up to. Science isn't fair, or democratic. Science isn't the awesomely powerful tool for discoverying absolute truth that it has often been framed as either.
When I teach biology, once at an Orthodox Jewish school, I introduce the course with discussion of what science is, and is not, and refer back to this during the course. I present science as a human, creative, self-limited process using the only tool I've been able find for this, the video of Jacob Bronowski's "Knowledge and Certainty" from "The Ascent of Man" (and if you know it you can imagine the impact at a Jewish school), and Gould's NOMA concept. The only discussion of religion is that science is not religion. I refuse to take class time to discuss pseudoscience, but refer student's to Jason Rosenhouse's excellent essay on how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. I do what I can to help the students realize that science isn't, or should not be, a threat to whatever their religion beliefs might be.
But that's inconsequential (almost). I may be happy with that, but there needs to be an agreed on pedogy for teaching evolution while making as few students as possible uncomfortable. I think that the success of "critical analysis" among educated, non-creationist, people who should know better is evidence that we don't have this yet. NCSE is the only organization I know of that works on this, and they don't have nearly enough influence. The typical education college is as likely to have creationists and apologists preparing biology teachers as someone who knows enough not to trust creation science drivel.
Basically, "We have met the enemy, and they is us." We have to get our own house in order first. This has been done with science education before. There is now general agreement on the value of cognitive learning and experiments where there was once only memorizing buckets-o-absolute facts. The importance of science education wasn't appreciated at all before Sputnik.
One thing we need: a concensus that the nature of science is important enough that real class time needs to be devoted to it. I never have time to go into the sociology, or history of science, what peer review is, or how one goes about becoming a member of "the club", but a fundamental understanding of all these is essential for someone to be able to evaluate a new "discovery" reported in the morning paper.
Posted by: Mike | July 7, 2008 4:46 PM
"Using the courts to fight the "tyranny of the majority" is certainly a worse choice than defeating these laws before passage - but when the laws have already passed, then there is little other recourse than to fight them in the only remaining venue."
Look at the list. There are already too many of these to fight in the courts. Who's going to do it? In Ohio we got a rude awaking that no one was coming to our rescue. Without the involvement of the religious community in Ohio things would have been very different. We don't even know yet if the courts are going to see through the critical analysis scam. Not all of the locations are known for being extremely anti-intellectual. It can't be fought in the courts. It can't be fought as religion vs science. The officials who have allowed this to happen aren't all idiots, or even anti-intellectual. They're politicians pushed into a corner, and the scientific community has so far not done enough to give the politicians another option. Worse, some of the most vocal of the scientific community are dead set on convincing that public that they can "believe" mainstream, peer reviewed, science, or "believe" religion, but not both. They're free to say what they want, but the rest of us should not be allowing them to represent the entire scientific community. The fraction of atheists who are intolerant aren't to blame, the silent majority is.
Posted by: Mike | July 7, 2008 5:32 PM
Mike, how do you propose do accomplish this education? I understand your argument against allowing the more extreme atheists to speak for all of science - I don't agree, but I understand it. But how are your more moderate scientists and educators going to force the silent and ignorant majority to listen long enough to overcome the YEC crowd? Their message is simpler and panders to the status quo belief in God and the Bible. Breaking free of that long-standing bias requires a level of intellectual effort that most people are unwilling to invest in something they see as having no real effect on their lives - neither as teenage students nor as adults.
I strongly support the idea of improving education. If you have specifics on how those of us without teaching or scientific credentials can do so, I'd be delighted to hear them. Maybe that could, eventually, slow down the pace of these legislative efforts, and thus requiring fewer court fights. But for now, it is more than we can do to keep existing education programs from being subverted and distorted by these efforts to wedge religion into the classroom. To do that will require more court battles. Our efforts should not be restricted to the courts, but they must include them, in as many districts and courts as we can possibly manage.
Posted by: BobApril | July 7, 2008 6:49 PM
'Critical Analysis.' Tell me, what theory has had more slung at it?
If what we teach our children is at the crux of the matter, and if we feel that our children should not be subjected to mere belief taught as fact in a science class then perhaps the solution is to teach critical analysis along with the ABCs. A groundswell of parents expressing concern over the quality of science education would be a useful adjunct to the efforts of the NCSE.
What would be of much greater use would be a way to integrate critical thinking skills with shape and color recognition. To teach observation skills and baloney detection to kids before they get as far as middle (I still call it Jr. High) school.
It is, after all, up to the entire community of adults to prepare the young for the nasty reality awaiting them.
A spin-off would be using the critical analysis approach to counter a 'critical analysis' approach.
Teach your children well, they seek a code that they can live by. CSNY (from memory)
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 7, 2008 9:30 PM
Think of the opportunities for new toys and puzzles. There must be creative people who could devise ways for kids to get a desired reward for finding an answer. After all, science is simply the scrupulous application of the rules that we learn when we come to terms with the world around us; as toddlers. And toddlers learn fast and remember long. Imagine, children doing science, as if it were the most natural thing.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 7, 2008 9:36 PM
Posted by: tincture | July 8, 2008 7:35 AM
As an "internationalist", I must suggest another tactic that will possibly bluntly reveal the religious nature of YEC-sponsored "Academic Freedom" bills: get school boards to agree to use a wide slew of "textbooks", like Haryun YahYah's Islamic Creationist book, Hindu science books, and the like. These are written in English, usually cost very little (next to nothing, in some cases) and offer 'alternative explanations' to evolution. Of course, they are not YEC, let alone Xtian, thereby likely causing the YECcers to shout bloody murder and blasphemy. Just a thought. I mean, "alternative explanations" to evolution from different religious contexts are out there, written in English, some with very glossy Photoshopped pictures, and usually much cheaper than anything published in the US.
Posted by: Umlud | July 8, 2008 9:46 AM
I said at the beginning that the only thing that the stupid law said was that science teachers can teach science. Then they threw in that damn "supplemental materials" line. At least the House amendeded it to include BESE oversight. Pretty weird since the bill was introduced in the Senate over the objections of the BESE in the first place.
I just recently visited Bogalusa, LA, Senator Nevers district, for the first time, despite having lived within an hour's drive for most of my life. It's a scary, scary place.
Posted by: bullet | July 11, 2008 6:30 PM