Unintelligent By Design: Louisiana School District Considers Teaching Creationism

from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State:





Members of the Livingston Parish School Board in Louisiana may be on the verge of making a huge mistake – one that could cost their community a lot of money.

During a recent meeting, several board members went off on a tangent about teaching creationism. During this public session, they openly discussed their desire to bring religion into the classroom. It was not a wise move.

The trouble began when Jan Benton, director of curriculum for the parish schools, noted that a new law in Louisiana allows schools to present “critical thinking and creationism” in science classes.

Board Member David Tate got excited and said, “We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this school board believe in creationism. Why can’t we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?”

Clint Mitchell quickly chimed in, “I agree…. You don’t have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution. Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom.”

Then, Keith Martin, the board’s president, piled on, asserting that it’s time to take a look at the issue.

“We shouldn’t just jump into this thing, but we do need to look at it,” Martin said. “The American Civil Liberties Union and even some of our principals would not be pleased with us, but we shouldn’t worry about the ACLU. It’s more important that we do the correct thing for the children we educate.” ...............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://blog.au.org/2010/07/29/unintelligent-by-design-louisiana-school-district-considers-teaching-creationism/

It explains the national rankings.

LMAO

"First God made idiots. That was for practice. The He made school boards."-Mark Twain.

in a public school when I can teach evolution in a church.

fetishists in the Senate."

Creationists cannot prevail in a lawsuit, and "intelligent design" creationists will run up against Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

It's unconstitutional to teach creationism as an alternate "theory" in American public schools. Period.

I mean

The Universe (or universes if there are multiple universe in different dimensions if that is even possible)

HAD to have been Created.

When I say Created I mean by some force, natural or supernatural.

Most scientists seem to think it was one or the other from what I've read (many scientists see an intelligence role in the design of the universe and many believe in some divine power (or G-d or whatever in the general sense - many are agnostic and say we don't know and can't know really and it can't be proven.

But the term Creationist seems to refer ONLY to biblical myths or funadamentlist reading of scritpure (7 days, adam and eve, 5000+ years so far etc.)

I actually believe all these creation stories are allegories and that there are "spirutal: interpretations which are not literal that can work in the sicentific context AND that intelligent design fits this NON literal and nonfundamentalist interpretation (i.e. adam and eve are the actual primates whom we ecolved from and seven days may be seven aeons for example of billions of years or even more.

Many scientists too say that the design of the universe and the universal laws and constants are too specialized to be NOT intended or designed by a higher intelligence or power. Maybe we call that power Nature" but whatever it is it has intelligence and meets some definition of G-d (again in the generic meaning of that term, also Allah, Elohim, Brahma, the Goddess, etc). This perspective is described in "Before the Big Bang" by Dr. Ernest Sternglass (links may be found at www.radiation.org for this book) and by Sir James Jeans the famous British Astophysicist.

These astrophysicists essentially concluded that the design of the universe simply LOOKS intelligent and artistic even and that the odds of it happening randomly are simply too remote. When you get into the mysteries of quantum mechanics etc it gets even more wacky and seemingly holographic like one huge active liquid light like universal intelligence which encompasses all time and space in a unified field or matrix which resembles a great mind.

I heard a recent survey on NPR that a huge percentage of scientists and physicists actually believe in a higher intelligence or "G-d" (I use this term this way because in reality there is no way to really name the ineffable which is exactrly why there is a prohibition against doing that in many major religious belief systems. In judaism for example you simply say
Hashem" which means "the Name" which is shorthand for "The Name Which Cannot Be Said". (Only the High Priest can say the name of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) once a year on the Day of Atonment in the Holy of Holies which is in the Dome of the Rock under the Rock in a beautiful carved out chamber where the Ark of the Covenant may have lain before being lplundered or hidden away in whatever destruction that happened to the Temple on the Temple Mount.

Anyway -

Back to my question:

Don't we oversimplify or overgeneralize when we lump Creationism in with Intelligent Design" Isn't that counterproductibe?

Can't we agree, we who might be agnostic, that Nature is the designer and that Nature is a fine way of defining "G-d"? (BTW I get the divisiveness issue related to this and religion and the oppressibeness of the socalled "G-d" people and fundies and institutions who are self righteous and can be hateful - so I am really saying there are distinctions that should be made here)


. i am asking if we are too cavalier with our generalizations and missing the main points: that SOMEHOW this universe came into being and that Fundamentalist Creationism (literalism or strict constructionism of the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc) is what is unfounded and scientifically myth and nonsense while Intelligent Design is actually a perspective that accounts for what some or many scientists say
seems to be what really happened but that it cannot yet be proven except by looking at the remote unlikelihood that we have this universe and this intelligence and this life and even this miniscule conversation about it TOTALLY randomly and with no purpose, meaning or higher intelligence than human beings somehow involved at all. (C'mon, to think we are the pinnacle of unversal intelligence is as moronic as thinking that there is no life elsewhere in the universe or, bac in the day, that North America was not populated before Columbus because it had not been :discovered: yet.

Something brought us into being. A Happy accident? Or a miserbale chemical and electric clusterfuck of meaninglessness. I choose to believe it has meaning and purpose, I have to. I want to. It makes me happy.

And I believe that science actually supports this to some substantial degree and that reaosnable human beings can disagree about that. To call it "GOD" is wrong in my opinion, but to say SOMETHING made it happen and study THAT is not a bad thing at all. trying to figure it all out etc.)

Nature is "G-d". Nature is the intelligent designer in my humble opinion. It sure looks intelligent to me this universe and it is brimming with life and energy and brilliance.

Nature:

She made a pretty universe which is a lot of fun if we do not blow it. And She does not want us to blow it, I am guessing. Should we NOT be advocating the teaching of THAT? And NOT myth and strict contruction fundamentalism? They are two very doifferent ideas. One has no scientific meaning excapt as allegory, the other has lots of science which supports it. Yet it remains unsolved and maybe can never be solved. But do we then fail to even let our kids study these questions with no "religion"" attached to them. Maybe ban the word "God" altogether in schools but let them study and intelligent Nature?


Just asking.

Food for thought.

Fire away!.


Liberation Angel.


(For more of my thoughts and perspectives see my youtube playlists linked in my sig line below)