Letters: Academic freedom isn’t religion

Recently The Advocate covered the academic freedom policy adopted by Central Community School System.

The article suggested Louisiana’s 2008 Science Education Act “opens the door to teaching creationism.” It quoted a critic of Central’s policy stating it would “give the teachers in Central some cover for teaching creationism.” Critics must not be reading the policies they attack. Their arguments are refuted by the language of the LSEA and Central’s new policy.

The LSEA clearly states any policy “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.” If you promote religion in the classroom, you’re not protected by the LSEA. Clearly the policy adopted by the Central Community School System does not promote or advocate any religion. The policy can be located on the home page of the CCSS website: http://centralcss.org

Central’s new academic freedom policy is in complete agreement with the LSEA on this point. It aims, as the policy states, to “help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.” Like the LSEA, this language only protects the teaching of science, and in no way protects the teaching of religion.

Critics of academic freedom are trying to mislabel scientific critiques of evolution as “creationism” in a bid to censor from students the right to learn about current scientific controversies. I would hope that all parties would encourage critical thinking and analysis on all issues discussed in the classroom.

This new policy allows teachers the freedom to present scientific evidence for the pros and cons of all controversial issues. How can anyone be opposed to letting the students analyze the information and decide for themselves what they believe to be true.

I strongly encourage other school boards to step forward and provide similar guidance to their teachers and institutions.

Keith Holmes

physician

Central

Comments

1) Comment by potkcalb - 27/09/2012

Phil no scientist claims that science has all the answers. That would be the antithesis of science. Do you understand? For the umpteenth time why do you keep bringing it up? Public school children are subject to the same religious rights and restrictions, no more and no less, than employees of health departments or personnel of any government agency funded by tax payers.

2) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 27/09/2012

"We all here have covered this already pretty much." but phil feels he has to have the last word. i guess teh little voice inside of his head told him to.

3) Comment by phil - 27/09/2012

We all here have covered this already pretty much. The atheists basically want God out of the schools. That is the sum of it. As believers in God, and the big majority, we need to make sure that does not happen. Nobody needs to actually teach religion in public schools. All that has to be done is to teach that science does not have all of the answers. That is a completely true statement and everyone knows it.

4) Comment by Karla - 26/09/2012

I will never understand how and why it would be in the interest of religion to push religious teachings in science classrooms. It is so obvious that biblical teachings of the natural world do not stand the science test. so, why would one want to weaken belief by applying science?

5) Comment by Karla - 26/09/2012

yes, unfortunately science education is that bad! if I was a science teacher and had the freedom to use whatever I want, including religion, I would teach my students critical thinking by letting them apply the scientific method to the bible. Develop a testable hypothesis: "the world was created 5000 years ago." now find evidence for and against this hypothesis! I wonder how many students would start wondering about their beliefs and how strong the push would be by creationists to allow any material in science classes if every science teacher used this approach...

6) Comment by nimby? - 26/09/2012

if the argument for creationism is ridiculous , obviously inaccurate , based on fear and ignorance wouldn't this be a wonderful opportunity to dispel any thought of religion , christianity ? if such a percentage of our population is "ignorant" perhaps it is time to consider literacy , intelligence tests in order to vote ....

7) Comment by potkcalb - 26/09/2012

lnPVille everyone knows about the original rejection of plate techtonics, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and...and...and...no need for you to provide a laundry list. The point that I was trying to make is that scientists and science teachers acknowledge ideas and beliefs but can not address the supernatural in the context of science. That is the bottom line.Try rereading prbeav's most recent comment. He is right. "The discussion has gone off topic."

8) Comment by InPVille - 26/09/2012

@potkcalb" ""critical thinking" is a code word for infusing religion disguised as science" - - - Ah! conspiracy theory thinking at work. -[**]- "No one teaches anyone how to think." - - - Well, there goes the usefulness of logic courses. "Scientists and science teachers are always open to new ideas." The idea that science is open to new ideas is a misstatement that can lead you astray. It is more accurate to say existing scientific ideas continue to hold sway until some scientist proves there is a better explanation based on evidence and valid experiment. Alfred Wegener put forth the idea of mantle dynamics. The idea was largely dismissed. This was partially because Wegener was a meteorologist. The leading scientific theory that the mantle was static continued to hold sway in scientific thought until mid-ocean ridges palaeomagnetism, and other supporting evidence was produced and rendered the static mantle theory untenable. Stress, smoking, diet, and spice consumption were believed to be risk factors or things which led to stomach ulcers. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall proposed that peptic ulcers were caused by Helicobacter pylori bacteria. Before that John Lykoudis had some success treating peptic ulcers with antibiotics. The hypothesis was poorly received. But experiments eventually proved Warren and Marshall correct. -[**]- "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck -[**]- If science teachers can't help students see what is something based on science and what isn't, then better teacher development methods are needed.

9) Comment by prbeav - 26/09/2012

The discussion has gone off topic. The point is that Louisiana has made it legal to waste biology classes on mythology.<paragraph> Further, the legislation supports the idea that when reality opposes "God's truth," it is critical for believers to defend "God's truth" even after "God's truth," has been dis-proven. For example, rotation of the sun around the earth was defended purely to defend "God's word."<paragraph>Creationism is defended purely to defend "God's word," and the majority Christians in Louisiana will tolerate other creation myths to accommodate the folly. Rational Christians could stop the folly.

10) Comment by potkcalb - 26/09/2012

linPVille "critical thinking" is a code word for infusing religion disguised as science into to science education. And yes you are right. I do lack confidence in the 40 or more percent of Americans that are so ignorant that they do not grasp that evolution is essentially a settled issue in science. Teaching "how to think" is a meaningless phrase. No one teaches anyone how to think. Scientists and science teachers are always open to new ideas. They acknowledge that many explanations for origins of the universe and life, including a myriad of religion ones, are believed. So where does the teacher go after that acknowledgement? The supernatural is not science. It is not amenable to analysis, to data gathering, to investigation. One can surmise, conjecture, believe, express opinions and beliefs in or out of class and they should. But pseudo-scientific concepts like intelligent design, irreducible complexity, guided intervention and the like are beliefs to support the idea of a creator. They are not subject to scientific methodology.

11) Comment by InPVille - 26/09/2012

@potkcalb: So basically you are saying that human beings are irrational and it is impossible to teach them(or perhaps just most of them) critical thinking skills. It is remarkable to me that certain people who are so firmly confident of the correctness of their science can be so lacking in confidence that they can present a successful case to support their argument. So basically don't try to teach people how to think and how the scientific method works. Just teach them what to think. But that isn't going to work either, is it. Because by your own argument they are only going to continue believing what is in their creationist museums. . . really defeatist thinking.

12) Comment by potkcalb - 25/09/2012

To add another note lnPVille, creationist museums show people walking around with "T Rex and Velociraptors." Many adults believe that nonsense. Do you really think the children of these people are going to be receptive to or persuaded by classroom discussions no matter how informed or erudite?

13) Comment by potkcalb - 25/09/2012

lnPVille creationists are not interested in objective and scientific analysis. Their sole agenda is to make creationism an alternative to evolution. They will argue for and cite pseudo- scientific nonsense such as intelligent design, creation science, and guided intervention, beliefs that have no basis in science and are not amenable to scientific analysis or investigation. And yes I can assure you that in spite of scientific evidence that the universe is, within a few decimal places,13.7 billion years old, the earth 4.5 to 4.6 billion years, and fossil evidence of life on earth as far back as 3.4 and possibly 3,8 billion years ago, they will never accept it no matter how voluminous the evidence. After all, they have the Bible,their beliefs, and that's all they need.

14) Comment by InPVille - 25/09/2012

If as you say Evolution isn't controversial and I would tend to agree, what is the problem here? The policy clearly states "that the purpose of science education is to inform students about the scientific evidence. and to help them develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become scientifically minded citizens." Since there is no "scientific" controversy, it should be an easy win using the scientific evidence. The students will learn about what is and what isn't scientific evidence, they will learn critical thinking skills, and be able to respond appropriately to differences of opinion about controversial issues. If a scientific question is so firmly established, why the fear that you can't win the day if the scientific cards are laid on the table. I'd like to see someone try to claim that about 5,000 years ago we were walking the planet with T Rex and Velociraptors. However, about global warming it would be a different story. What I don't see is why human cloning is listed. That is more of a issue of morality and how suited to a school level science class escapes me at the moment.

15) Comment by DMJ - 25/09/2012

That's just it, Pville. Evolution isn't controversial, not among scientists anyway. Teach the controversy? There is no controversy, save the one created by religion....which we all know is the fuel behind this effort.

16) Comment by InPVille - 25/09/2012

Here is the link to the Central School Policy discussed for those of you who are Web Challenged: http://centralcss.org/files/2013/4694/1968/1948_001science_curric.pdf -[**]- Here is the actual text for those of you who are severely Web Challenged - - - "TEACHER ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN SCIENCE EDUCATION WHEN COVERING CONTROVERSIAL SCIENTIFIC SUBJECTS: -[Paragraph]- The Central Community School System understands that the purpose of science education is to inform students about the scientific evidence and to help them develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become scientifically minded citizens. The School System also understands that the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning, can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the District's expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects. -[Paragraph]- The School System shall endeavor to create an environment within the schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately to differences of opinion about controversial issues. The District shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teacher shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught."

17) Comment by LSUinVail - 25/09/2012

These yahoos who believe in magic and the supernatural should keep their fairytales out of the science classroom. Science is science and loosely based myth is just that.

18) Comment by Human Ape - 25/09/2012

"This new policy allows teachers the freedom to present scientific evidence for the pros and cons of all controversial issues." Translation: "This new policy allows incompetent god-soaked teachers the freedom to dishonestly tell their students (victims) there are problems with evolution (which is the strongest basic fact of science)." This is nothing less than a religious attack against science education. There is no controversy about the basic facts of evolution, including the proven fact that the Magic Jeebus Man shares an ancestor with chimpanzee apes. darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com

19) Comment by [e-mail] - 25/09/2012

"All around the mulberry tree...."; too much nonsense on either side in this one.

20) Comment by DMJ - 25/09/2012

"This new policy allows teachers the freedom to present scientific evidence for the pros and cons of all controversial issues." Sure, it does. What it does is allow for conservative places like Central to teach that evolution might not be real, that there are "2 sides" to the global warming issue, and basically refute any science that doesn't fit the conservative agenda. Let's at least be honest about it.

21) Comment by chem - 25/09/2012

Mr. Holmes is being disingenuous with his letter. The LSEA was passed to do one thing and one thing only—to teach relgion in schools. The first attempt to teach creationism in schools was soundly defeated in Edwards v Aguillard. After that defeat, the proponents of creationism repackaged their religious nonsense as "intelligent design". That didn't work either. Everyone saw through the deception and this attempt was also struck down by the court in Kitzmiller v Dover. And by the way, the judge in that decision was a conservative republican. This latest attempt uses phrases such as "critical thinking about evolution" and to "teach the controversies." As far as evolution is concerned, there are no "controversies." Evolution, after 150 years of investigation, remains one of the most solid theories in all of science. This will all end up in court and the religious proponents will again lose, but it will cost the taxpayers a large sum to derail their nonsense.

22) Comment by prbeav - 25/09/2012

"In teaching creationism in science class believers are saying 'look how my faith fits into your science' when, instead, they should be saying 'look how your science fits into my faith.' " But doesn't the basis of that faith require adjustment, as in the earth-sun example?>>>>Everybody treats these kinds of contradictions according to their own objectives.>>>>A few years ago, after four decades trying to persuade myself to believe the unbelievable, I placed my faith in reality, much of which is not known. I was able to admit to myself that the Bible does not represent reality.>>>>Now, regarding the universal unknowns, I admit to myself, "I do not know." I stopped contradicting myself by admitting (to myself) what I always thought.

23) Comment by potkcalb - 25/09/2012

Well said posts-What is really an oxymoron is the suggestion to "let the children decide" between science and religion in a science class. And it is not the purpose of science to satisfy the greatest number of people or even one person. Science is not democratic. It has nothing to do with majority rule or what some may want. Science that aims to please is not science.

24) Comment by postscript56 - 25/09/2012

As a Christian I find this debate to be sad and embarrasing. I am reminded the church has been spectacularly wrong in the past (see earth revolves around sun). This concept is pushed by people of weak faith who have no answer for any challenge to what they believe. The apostle Peter wrote that believers should always be ready to answer a challenge to their faith. But in teaching creationism in science class believers are saying "look how my faith fits into your science" when, instead, they should be saying "look how your science fits into my faith." A high school science classroom is no place to teach faith issues. By being unable or unwilling to acknowledge this, people of weak faith are damaging both science and religion.

25) Comment by potkcalb - 25/09/2012

Scientists and science teachers are always open to new ideas, and they are not opposed to theories in addition to, or in lieu of, evolution but they have to qualify as theories. A scientific theory is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and testing." The theory of evolution meets all of those criteria. Currently no other purported explanation meets any of them. Surmises , conjectures, opinions, are not theories.The Louisiana Science Education Act has nothing to do with academic freedom. Its sole purpose is to introduce religion into science education no matter how clothed in scientific jargon like "creation science...irreducible complexity...intelligent design...critical thinking...or that latest morph guided intervention."

26) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 24/09/2012

I disagree. I just read the two paragraphs of the only policy I could find pertaining to this and it was extremely vague. >>>>>>>> I also have a question. Where are the teachers to get this material which allows "teachers the freedom to present scientific evidence for the pros and cons of all controversial issues." Science is not an opinion. There are scientist that spend years, their lives, studying these topics and a high school teacher is just suppose to challenge it-- analytically? This author is just trying to flip the debate around. It is NOT religion trying to move into the science classroom, it is "Critics of academic freedom are trying to mislabel scientific critiques of evolution as “creationism” in a bid to censor from students the right to learn about current scientific controversies.">>>>>>>>> Science teaches its own controversies. I.e. Evolution is only a theory-- not a fact. >>>>>>>>>>> Well, my kids are grown. They wont be damaged by this senseless debate, but it seems to me the grownups are still using the classroom to wage an ideological war between religion and science. I really doubt the kids even care.