The Clergy Letter Project Endorses SB 70

The Clergy Letter Project Endorses SB 70 to Repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act

The Clergy Letter Project, an international organization composed of more than 14,000 religious leaders and scientists from around the globe, enthusiastically endorsesLouisiana SB 70.  This bill, introduced by Senator Karen Carter Peterson, would repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act originally passed in 2008.

The Louisiana Science Education Act undermines high quality science education across the state of Louisiana by promoting various forms of creationism.  Students in Louisiana, like students all across the globe, deserve to be taught the very best science has to offer.  Science should not be tainted by religious indoctrination by those who work to spread their particular views in inappropriate ways in inappropriate places.

The members of The Clergy Letter Project recognize that evolution is as well supported a scientific theory as any.  Members recognize that a robust understanding of evolution is essential for scientific sense to be made about the natural world.  And members of The Clergy Letter Project understand that nothing about the theory of evolution diminishes their faith.  As the concluding sentence of The Christian Clergy Letter says, “We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.”

The Clergy Letter Project also offers high praise for Senator Peterson for introducing this important legislation as well as the Louisiana Coalition for Science and Zack Kopplin, a senior at Baton Rouge Magnet High School, for spearheading the repeal initiative.

Facebook Twitter Reddit Digg Stumbleupon Tumblr
This entry was posted in LSEA. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to The Clergy Letter Project Endorses SB 70

  1. Tenncrain says:

    Good going on your efforts, Zack.

    Here in Tennessee, the legislature was steamrolling towards an ‘academic freedom’ law and it seemed TN would unfortunately join Louisiana. Fortunately, the bill has been put on hold until next year (when the battle will surely heat up again).

    I grew up a young-earth creationist (YEC), intermittently attended private fundamentalist schools through HS. But when my YEC beliefs crashed down after taking university geology and biology, my Christian faith nearly collapsed as well. The spiritual turmoil that often results when anti-evolutionists first learn mainstream science is sad and so unnecessary; the point that there are many theists with no problem with science (including evolution) is rather important.

    Although I graduated with a non-science degree, my geology and biology classes also showed that if I had wanted a career in the life or earth sciences, the young-earth creationism/flood geology I grew up on would have been a very bad foundation to build on compared to other students who learn mainstream science in public or parochial schools.

    In all, I now feel inserting supernaturalism for scientific or proximate causes is poor theology as well as pseudo-science.

    BTW Zack, care to share in on your plans after you graduate HS in a few weeks? I bet science departments of many many universities would be eager to have you! Heck, if you go to Brown, you could be Dr Ken Miller’s biology student 🙂

    Too bad Bobby Jindal didn’t catch on to science when he attended Brown.

    • Zack Kopplin says:

      Yeah, that is a point I’ve been trying to hammer home. I hope this will help.

      Good luck in Tennessee. Make sure the Tennessee legislature learns some lessons from Louisiana about this law.

      • Tenncrain says:

        “Make sure the Tennessee legislature learns some lessons from Louisiana about this law.”

        During hearings, a Vanderbilt professor pointed out a huge biology conference (Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology) boycotting Louisiana (including New Orleans) and going elsewhere (to Salt Lake City) because of the Louisiana Science Education Act becoming law.

        The Tennessee representative sponsoring the academic freedom bill scoffed that they would just find other
        conventions to come to TN; this is the tunnel vision that science advocates have to overcome.

        This said, perhaps many TN lawmakers are unaware of more recent developments in Louisiana, like efforts of a young man (that’s you, Zack) and now 42 Nobel Laureates and The Clergy Project to overturn the LSEA law via SB 70.

        Oh, Zack, if you become Ken Miller’s student, who knows, you might get to appear with Ken on the Colbert Report 😉

    • John E. D. P. Malin says:

      To the Religious Group:

      Here I want to give an insight into Hebrew Manuscript Textual Criticism. Presently, Professor Ronald Hendel, University of California, Berkeley, is the Editor-in-Chief for the Oxford Hebrew Bible Project []. The Hebrew Bible that the Jews and Christians have used for the last four and a half centuries is the Daniel Bomberg 1524-25 C.E. text of Jacob ben Hayyim. The Rabbis and observant Jews use the Koren edition. However, all this changed with the publication of the Codex Leningradensis [Codex EBP.I B 19a] and the Codex Aleppensis [Keter ‘Aram Tsova]. These were superior manuscripts, reflecting the archetype Tiberian Masoretic Text [MT].

      Now, however, with the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient fragment papyri, there has been a revolution in our understanding of these ancient Hebrew scribal copying, editing, compiling and redacting of these source texts. We are now in the enviable position of representing to the best of our knowledge and mental acumen, a Hebrew ‘Vorlage’ [German, technical term, “Source-Text”] that represents a pre-Masoretic or proto-Masoretic text of the ‘Biblia Hebraica’ [Latin, Hebrew Bible]!

      One of the exciting finds of this new eclectic edition of Genesis is the reconstruction of the archetype of this important Hebrew Book. Let us zone in on Chapter One, verses 9-10 for the “new” reconstructed text: [9] “And God said: ‘Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear!’ And it was so! ” + “And the waters beneath heaven gathered into their gathering place, and the dry land appeared.” [10] “And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He seas; and God saw that it was good.”

      Notice this particular passage has been enriched by the addition [ + ]; it has the ‘Wortbericht’ [German, “divine word account”] verses 9a, 10; and, to this has been added, the ‘Tatbericht’ [German, “divine act/deed account”] verse 9b.

      You still have the fulfillment formula: “And it was so!” [Hebrew, way’hi-ken] used in verses 1: 7, 9, 11, 15, 24, & 30 in the MT [Verses 1: 6, 9, 11, 15, 20, 24, & 30 in the Greek Septuagint translation]. There is, of course, a variation of the formula in 1: 3 “And it was Light!” [Hebrew, way’hi-‘or] in both the Hebrew MT & Septuagint!

      Furthermore, you have the Divine approval formula: “And God saw that [it was] Good!” [Hebrew, wayyare’ ‘elohim ki-tob] used in 1: 4, *8, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, & (“very good”) 31 in the MT.

      This is an example of religious scholarship! This is not Science! However, the scientific method has even enriched biblical scholarship! That is my point here!!!


    • Greg says:

      In the beginning God created the heavens and earth…

  2. Steve Eylar says:

    I’m amazed that Bobby Jindal can be so anti-science as to threaten to veto SB 70. Science should be taught in science classes. You’d think that would be a simple concept. Keep up the good fight.

  3. John E. D. P. Malin says:


    Congratulations on winning the support of the 14,000 Clergy Letter Support Project!
    After Repeal of SB 70, I cannot entertain the prospects of Governor Jindal refusing to sign it into Law! That tells me there better be overwhelming support in the Legislature.

    Not only is “creationism” bad science, it is also bad religion. We, ancient language scholars, know the origin and history of the Hebrew text of Genesis quite well. Genesis 2: 4b–25 (the first “creation narrative” written) is a Neo-Assyrian historiographic Hebrew scribal “creationism” narrative of the late 8th century B.C.E. [Before the Common Era]; its doublet, Genesis 1: 1–2: 4a (the second “creation narrative” inserted) is a Neo-Babylonian Exilic composition of the 6th century B.C.E.

    How do we know this? From our Akkadian literature, and our understanding of Temple & Palace archival scribal techniques for coping, compiling, editing and redacting ancient texts! It was the great Babylonian Emperor, Nabu-kudurri-usur II (605-562 BCE) [Babylonian, “the (god) Nabu has protected the succession”; Hebrew transliteration, “Nebuchadnezzar II”] who patronized the Judaean Royal family, whom he held in custody, with patronage of their scribal religious learning.

    This great Emperor, with his son Amel-Marduk, single-handedly, caused a transformation of consciousness in the Middle East from a “mythological-magical” mentality to a historical-theological mentality. This is the “origin” of “creationism” in our Hebrew Bible!

    It was the Victorian Age that supplied the nonsense of Anno Mundi [Latin, “Year of the World”] dating techniques:

    1 A.M. Creation of World [3761 B.C.E.]

    1656 A.M. Flood

    2666 A.M. Exodus out of Egypt

    3146 A.M. Beginning Construction of Solomon’s great Temple

    Modern Archaeology has confirmed that there was no great Temple built in the 10th century. Jerusalem was a poor, insignificant village town! She did not achieve status of wealth until the 8th century, when she joined the Assyrian trade route economic networks. She really took off, when Samaria fell in 722 B.C.E., the Northern state of Israel.

    Thought you and your friends might like this esoteric, useless knowledge!

    I trust your rally on Thursay will be highly successful! I am attempting to try to be there!



    P.S. My twin brother and I had the pleasure of meeting your brilliant and wonderful father many years ago at a meeting on Tax Credits for the Movie Industry in Baton Rouge, LA. I see genius runs in the family!

  4. Jim Wyrtzen says:

    I really appreciate John’s comments on the Genesis texts. Those of us who read the Anchor Bible translations in the 1970’s probably remember that Spizer started his translation of Genesis, “When God began…” and it goes on that the world was without form and void…. Clearly it wasn’t about the beginning of time. It was describing a way of thinking about what they observed. A myth for the time and a borrowed one. But somehow we seem to always takes these as literal truth and miss the deeper meaning about life and human relationships.

    Thanks for the great work. Jim

    • John E. D. P. Malin says:

      Jim and Zack:

      Excellent observation, Jim! Since the days of Ephraim Aigdor Speiser (1902-1965), Genesis [Anchor Bible series, Volume 1], there has been the re-issue of Hermann Gunkel’s 3rd edition, Genesis, (translated by Mark E. Biddle), and, of course, my favorite, the massive, formidable three-volume treatise of Claus Westermann, Genesis, [Volume I (1-11), Volume II (12-36), and Volume III (37-50)] in German and English translation (the German edition is better)!

      Also, Alexander Heidel’s “The Babylonian Genesis” should be mentioned. There has been a revolution in our knowledge of Akkadian since Heidel’s days, so the book is a little out of date, yet still valuable.

      Zack, you stick to Science—it will make you more money, and you will have a happier life!

      Thanks Jim for your comment!



  5. R. H. Richardson says:

    I work with various denominations and discussions generally strengthen belief of spiritual guidance. Indeed, the Power of combining thoughtful discussion, prayer, and reading Scripture leads to a perspective of harmony of human discussion and reading Scripture lead to comfortable feelings of the processes of evolution and Scriptural discussions. The understanding of modern science is consistent with Scripture as closely as The Lord’s Prayer. The confusion emerges when we require language (e.g. English) to describe process as an objective scientist would. Science is full of “holes” to fill with more exploration, and the roles of thoughtful discussion makes spiritual understanding develop and “translate” better human language into spiritual understanding. The understanding is consistent, but a human language must be “felt” to recognize the consistencies. Scriptural words will “agree with” human inventions of words for a scientific context. As in all spiritual discussions with human words the understanding is revealed in Scriptural thinking to “map” meanings of science. Done with an open mind that can “hear” the meanings agree with both science and with spirit.

    • John E. D. P. Malin says:

      Monsieur Richardson:

      Your hermeneutics of gnosis, silence and inward epiphany by spiritual awakening usurps the sole prerogative of our merciful & wrathful Deity!

      Your advocacy of “emotional reason” is admirable; however, it is irrelevant to scientific discourse. One should not confuse the distinction between “belief” and “science.” The datum of the former is irrationality; the latter, rationality!

      One gives us prisons, wars, and cemeteries; the other gives us toilets, televisions, and museums. One operates on the vulgar passion of hope; the other on the exacting planning of execution.

      In short, one makes life miserable; the other endurable! I need not draw out for you which is which.


  6. R. H. Richardson says:

    Remember that our Spiritual Guide speaks all languages, but we must feel them in our heart to talk about them with other humans. A Spirit Guide (“God”) is not confused by our language, but tells us in any language by our heartfelt listening. When disagreement of humans appears, Spirit is not active. Spirit speaks with a soft voice and our meditation for leading our understanding.

    • John E. D. P. Malin says:

      Monsieur Richardson:

      More pious goo and dribble to deceive the mind!

      We now constrain the Omnipotent Deity by referring to Him as a “Spiritual Guide”?

      Furthermore, we have reduce the oracular to the wafting of gentle breezes or the stirring of rustling leaves?

      Someone requires coursework in cognitive science!

      You might want to review your Hebrew word “ruah” for the semantic notion of “spirit”; furthermore, the Greek loan-word translation “pneuma” bares exposure as well. These terms were translated into the Germanic tongue as “soul” [that mysterious magical force-sound of ocean sea water beating on rocks as captured by the 5th century C.E. pagan Germanic mind]!

      As usual, you have conflated the clear Stoic philosophic notion of the tri-partite complex of St. Paul: body, soul & spirit!

  7. Pingback: Support for the Repeal is Growing! | Repealing the Louisiana Science Education Act--Repealing Louisiana’s Job Killing Creationism Law

  8. Pingback: Audrey Bitoni » Blog Archive » Support for the Repeal is Growing! | Repealing the Louisiana …

  9. Libby Hilliard says:

    Mr. Kopplin-

    As I read the Louisiana Science Education Act, it does not MANDATE that creationism be taught in Louisiana public schools. What the law does is make it legal for those school districts, who so choose, to legally do so using alternative resources but including the state mandated textbooks.

    I have read your writings and you make several comments about the mission of our education system to turn out students who “think.” I could not agree with you more. How can students think, and reason for themselves, if no alternative sides are presented to them?

    Additionally, my son informed me that he was misled by you when you were drumming up support for the committee hearing at the capitol today. He was told by you that the Louisiana Science Education Act does away with presenting the theory of evolution in Louisiana Public Schools. Please read the section of the law already enacted and show me where evolution is banned. I see quite the opposite, that evolution is included, along with global warming, etc.

    §285.1. Science education; development of critical thinking skills

    A. This Section shall be known and may be cited as the “Louisiana Science Education Act.”

    B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.
    (2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection.

    C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

    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.

    Please show me where evolution is banned. If not in the section of the law I quoted, then please provide the section of the law on which you based your statements to hundreds of your fellow students in order to drum up support for your effort.

    • John Strong says:

      This bill is derived from boilerplate created by the Discovery Institute. Various versions of it have been introduced in several states, and I believe passed in Texas. So it is a known bill created by the people behind Intelligent Design, and each time it is brought up in some statehouse somewhere, the ID people can be demonstrated to be behind it.
      What it does is cut off the ability to regulate the introduction of non-scientific material in biology (and climate science) pedagogy in public schools. What the DI wants is for fellow politico-religionists to fly under this bill and introduce their non-science into the classroom. This is part of the Wedge Strategy, and the DI’s boilerplate can be found in the public domain for comparison.

    • John Strong says:

      You know what’s really interesting about this religion disclaimer at the bottom of this thing–the ID movement began openly religious, and after Kitzmiller turned 180 and started claiming that it wasn’t religious and never had been–despite the fact that there exist copies of their junk-science textbook _Of Pandas and People_ that use “creation,” “creationist,” etc. Newer copies of this textbook have any and all language that points to Genesis carefully redacted. It’s a pity for them they can’t recall and destroy the earlier editions that they published.

    • John Strong says:

      Just for funsies, here is the boilerplate that the Discovery Institute created. All of the so-called “academic freedom” bills submitted around the countries are based on this bill:

      [version: 9/7/2007]

      SYNOPSIS: Existing law does not expressly provide a right nor does it expressly protect tenure and employment for a public school teacher or teacher at an institution of higher education for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution. In addition, students are not expressly provided a right to positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.
      This bill would expressly provide rights and protection for teachers concerning scientific presentations on views regarding biological and chemical evolution and students concerning their positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.

      A BILL
      AN ACT

      Providing teacher rights and protection for a public school teacher or a teacher at an institution of higher education to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in applicable curricula or in a course of learning; providing employment and tenure protection and protection against discrimination for any public school teacher or teacher at a public institution of higher education related to the presentation of such information; and providing student protection for subscribing to a particular position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution.
      BE IT ENACTED BY ____________:
      Section 1. This law shall be known as the “Academic Freedom Act.”
      Section 2. The Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution. The Legislature further finds that the topic of evolution has generated intense controversy, lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, where some lower courts such as Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board, have created confusion about the rights of teachers and students to hold differing views about scientific controversies and express those views without fear of adverse employment or academic consequences. Finally, the Legislature finds that school districts and school administrators should not bear the primary burden of defending the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss the topics of biological or chemical evolution. It is the intent of the Legislature that this act expressly protects those rights.
      Section 3. Every K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of ______________, shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution.
      Section 4. No K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of ___________, shall be terminated, disciplined, denied tenure, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological or chemical evolution in any curricula or course of learning, provided, with respect to K-12 teachers, the [insert official title of state’s science standards] has been taught as appropriate to the grade and subject assignment.
      Section 5. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution of higher education shall be penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views regarding biological or chemical evolution.
      Section 6. The rights and privileges contained in this act apply when the subject of biological or chemical origins is part of the curriculum. Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or encouraging any change in the state curriculum standards in K-12 public schools, nor shall any provision of this act be construed as prescribing the curricular content of any course in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education in the state.
      Section 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
      Section 8. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.

  10. Sue says:

    Congrats to you, you belong up there with O’hare. Let’s just get rid of creationism right out of the whole country. I don’t know who raised you, but they did a good job. You served their purpose..
    Now let’s all go to hell in a hand basket. You can be the leader.

  11. Jason Murphree says:

    I am VERY impressed with this 17 year-old. That kid has a FUTURE. Even if you don’t agree with the post, you have to be impressed. Of course, I definitely agree, and so does 94% of the scientific community. You can’t really argue with 94% of the most brilliant, non-biased people on earth!

  12. Jason Murphree says:

    This 17 year old kid is quite impressive. 94% of scientists agree with what she is saying too!

  13. Guy says:

    Zack, I started crafting political messages when I was not much older than you, as a 20-year-old press secretary in a milestone gubernatorial race with national attention, but my hat is off to you, sir.

    You acquitted yourself very well indeed on Hardball today and you will clearly go far if you make this your calling. You can re-frame with the best of them despite your relatively few years.

    When you get ready to run for something, look me up. I’ve elected dozens of people to federal, state and local offices, often against long-standing “safe” incumbents and against all odds, but I know political talent when I see it and you possess it in spades.

    Good luck and Godspeed to you in this righteous cause.

  14. Bishop Usher says:

    Dude, you are all, like, SO wrong. Duh!

    The world is only 6,000 years old, give or take a Cretaceous Period here or there.

    • Rev. John Carl Bowers, Esq. says:

      “Bishop Usher,” your comment is funny, but perhaps a bit too clever for people who don’t know about Usher’s Chronology which attempted to date the world by a creation date of 4004 bc.

  15. Steve from Wisconsin says:

    When I was young, I was told that the universe was most definitely created through the so-called “Big Bang”, and that anyone who even dared to question the teacher was out of order, and had to be shut down. Most scientists have since backed away from that idea, at least as originally described. And recently, when one of my son’s friends tried to ask a question after his class watched “Inconvenient Truth” in a 10th grade science class, his teacher refused to allow it, saying this is “settled science” and there are no questions. But now, just a couple of years later, the term “global warming” is no longer used, and many scientists openly disagree with the “climate change” mantra. Whatever happened to the notion that schools were places where a person was allowed to ask questions and challenge ideas. I’m a Christian, and I believe in creationism, but I realize that a very large percentage of people don’t, and that’s fine. We need to start treating each other with more respect, regardless of what they believe, because no one really knows for sure how this world started. And before someone writes back to me, yes, I mean people on both sides are very guilty of being hostile and inappropriate toward one another.

  16. Pingback: Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Michele Bachman’s Stance On Evolution Demolished By High School Student |

  17. Pingback: Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Michele Bachman’s Stance On Evolution Demolished By High School Student |

  18. Pingback: Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Michele Bachman’s Stance On Evolution Demolished By High School Student |

  19. Pingback: OPISO » Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Michele Bachman’s Stance On Evolution Demolished By High School Student

  20. Pingback: Baton Rouge » Blog Archive » Michele Bachman’s Stance on Evolution Demolished by High School Student

  21. Pingback: Michele Bachmann’s Stance on Evolution Demolished by High School Student « Pesky Emotional Republican

  22. Pingback: Evolution Demolished by High School Student - Forums


    Intelligence should be measured by the ability to think through any given problem or subject on one’s own not simply memorizing facts and supporting the status quo. Knowledge without wisdom is useless and both without compassion are destructive. Yes, religous fanatics have brought about some horrific feats throughout history but our highly scientific and intelligent men have also wreeked havoc on this planet. Christianity leaves many questions unanswered but so does science. I think you have a right to argue against God and I should have the right to argue for Him. It is a very cowardly act to simply disallow an alternate opinion. God is not afraid of your questions. He is not afraid of your vast intellegence—He created it. By not allowing the arguement of creation I think that these brilliant minds that we should be in awe of show their inability to deal with questions they can not answer. It appears that it is intelligence that fears God.

    • John Strong says:

      It would be perfectly constitutional to include ID in an overview of religions course. It just does not belong in a science class.
      The Bible maintains that Pi is 3.0, but you can’t use 3.0 for mathematical calculations that require Pi. Suppose I jumped up in your Bible study and started gassing on about how the Bible’s higher math is tragically broken. Obviously you’d tell me that I am placing conditions on the Bible that it was never intended to fill.
      Thus, to understand your Bible, you look at it from a spiritual, allegorical, supernatural point of view, in the milieu of Bible study or listening to a sermon in church. In the same way, we look for our best explanation for empirically observed phenomena in science class. If we do not understand it, we do not say “God did it” and then move on–rather, we gather data and test until we do understand it.
      No one is trying to rob you of your opinion or your spirituality. Here we are merely trying to keep taxpayer money from subsidizing (bad) theology in the science classroom.

  24. Dawn Freeman says:

    @ Beverly Velasquez–had you read the Clergy Letter at the top of the page (specifically the last sentence of the third paragraph) you would understand that this is about having “science remain science”, and “religion remain religion”. Science has the means by which to test and retest it’s theories (the scientific method). Religion does not. And while you very correctly labelled “creationism” as an “opinion”, it is NOT science and should not be taught as such. There is no critical thinking to either “creationism” or “intelligent design” (which I, personally, find to be very much an oxymoron).

    Science seeks to answer all questions. Religion quashes questions–it is as the religious leaders say it is, end of story. (See? No thinking allowed!)

    And I think you were a bit backwards in your assessment of damages when you said, “Yes, religous fanatics have brought about some horrific feats throughout history but our highly scientific and intelligent men have also wreeked havoc on this planet.” (I copied and pasted from your post.) Religion has wreaked far more havoc on this planet and its inhabitants than “scientific and intelligent” (I prefer “intelligent, scientific” or scientifically intelligent”) men; but that distinction is only discernible by those who have developed critical thinking skills learned through the study of science.

    I happen to believe that God wants us to exercise our minds to find all the answers to our questions about our world and the universe, and that all questions can be answered. That’s what science does. Religion, on the other hand, requires and accepts nothing more or less than “blind faith”. While both science and religion (may) have places in society, they are completely different. It is not “cowardly” to disallow an “alternate opinion” when science deals with truth and facts.

    If you want your children to learn “creationism”, take them to church. That’s where it belongs–NOT in a science classroom.

  25. Ron says:

    Isn’t it ironic that many so-called atheist scientists who try to disprove the truth of creation become Christians, but scientists that are Christians who have studied evolution do not become ahteists!!!…………TRUTH defeats fiction!!

  26. Pingback: Michele Bachmann’s Stance on Evolution Demolished by High School Student « Guerrilla Ontology

  27. Rev. John Carl Bowers, Esq. says:

    The Louisiana Science Education Act– bad law, bad science, and bad religion too. (I believe I speak with some authority.) Perhaps it should be called the “Mis-education Act.”

    Creationists, IDers, and others who say things like “Evolution is only a theory, it’s not a fact” misunderstand (or intentionally mis-represent) the meaning of the term “theory” in science. Let them ask the doctors to whom they trust their own health about the germ theory of disease; let them ask the residents of Hiroshima about the theory of relativity. They will encounter facts enough.

    Good work, Zack. As a believer I pray for your efforts; as something of a scientist I wish you not “luck” but positive results in shining some light into Louisiana’s miasma.

  28. Pingback: Michele Bachmann's Stance on Evolution Demolished by High School Student

  29. Pingback: One Voice « first generation

  30. Pingback: MIchele Bachmann’s attack on US History, Constitution, Minorities « Arthur Frederick Ide's Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *