Why Creationism is Taught in Louisiana Schools – Seriously?

Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, said he had reservations with repealing the act after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had. He said he thought repealing the act could “lock the door on being able to view ideas from many places, concepts from many cultures.”

“Yet if I closed my mind when I saw this man—in the dust, throwing some bones on the ground, semi-clothed—if I had closed him off and just said, ‘That’s not science. I’m not going to see this doctor,’ I would have shut off a very good experience for myself,” Guillory said.

via Louisiana and creationism: Law allowing religion to be taught in school survives repeal attempt..

That’s why. I wonder if “being able to view ideas from many places, concepts from many cultures” includes Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and Native American creation stories and/or medicine instead of science?

Because, you know, historically speaking, Young Earth Creationism isn’t Jewish (nor Christian)… Wonder if we can teach Jon Levenson and John Walton believe the author of Genesis 1 meant ?

You Might Also Like

16 Replies to “Why Creationism is Taught in Louisiana Schools – Seriously?”

    1. thanks, Bilbo – I am a Louisiana native, so I’ve followed this for a while. I just thought this reasoning was something to behold!

  1. From the post:

    The 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act, which was signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal, expressly forbids the promotion of any religious doctrine in the classroom, but allows teachers to “use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner,” including evolution and origin-of-life theories. Additionally, teachers using supplemental resources must first “teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system,” and the State Board of Education reserves the right to veto any inappropriate supplemental materials. Guidelines adopted by the state education board further stipulate that any supplementary information presented by teachers must be “scientifically sound and supported by empirical evidence.”

    Voting for the repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act were Senator Dan Claitor, R-Baton Rouge and Senator Eric LaFleur, D-Ville Platte. Voting against the repeal were Senator Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, Senator Mike Walsworth, R-West Monroe, and Senator Mack “Bodi” White, R-Denham Springs. Senate Education Committee Chairman Conrad Appel did not vote, abstaining for the second year in a row, although in 2011 he opposed a similar attempt to repeal the Act.

    Leading the repeal effort is Zack Kopplin, a Rice University student from Baton Rouge who has been lobbying for years to overturn the Louisiana Science Education Act. However, Kopplin was forced to acknowledge, in response to a question from Education Committee Chairman Conrad Appel and Senator Mike Walsworth, that no complaint had ever been lodged about creationism being taught in schools since the law was passed in 2008.

  2. The issue is not and never has been about the origins of the earth. For the most part, those pushing creationism – as opposed to the useful idiots serving as the movement’s public face – could care less about how this world came into being. Instead, the real issue is control.
    .
    Traditionally, the South has been controlled by elites. Usually owning most of the land, running the businesses, and sitting on governing boards, these families are accustomed to ruling without being questioned. They neither need nor appreciate newfangled ideas. Things are fine just the way they are thank you.
    .
    Teaching creationism in schools is just one way to perpetuate their control. After all, there is nothing in creationist theory that threatens the status quo. Acceptance of creationism is predicated on believing what one is told to believe. Furthermore, creationism put God in charge. Not surprisingly, of course, this just happens to be the same God that chose to bless the Southern elites with wealth and power. That’s how come they get to run the church. It’s all part of God’s plan. He created the world just to put them in charge! How convenient!!!
    .
    On the other hand, science is dangerous. It disturbs cherished assumptions. Theories change with new discoveries. Worst of all, it causes young minds to question old authorities.
    .
    Reading between the lines of the Louisiana educational scheme, it becomes obvious that those pulling the strings behind the scenes are trying to keep their old game alive for as long as possible. Unwilling to be come a laughing stock of the nation with a Scopes Monkey Trial II, they are trying a tact of peaceful coexistence with science in the hopes that science will falter.
    .
    In the end, those pushing creationism don’t care about facts or evidence. They want to win. It’s just that simple.

    1. Hi Know,

      Maybe you’re right, but from the passage I quoted from the post at Uncommon Descent, it doesn’t seem to be the case that anyone is trying to get creationism taught in Louisiana public schools. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

  3. I have no evidence. I only know how the system works.
    .
    Allowing the teaching of creationism is no more advancing religion in schools than post-Brown pupil placement existed for the purpose of resegregating students.
    .
    Those good ol’ boys (and girls) running Louisiana aren’t stupid enough to try a frontal attack on separation of church and state when they can halfway get what they want with a flanking movement through inserting a preselected choice alternative favored by a whole pot full of constituents and which, more importantly, serves their purpose.
    .
    These little political cat and mouse games are fun to watch when one knows what to look for.

    1. Okay, I guess we all have our own conspiracy theories. You think the power elite is trying to keep control by slyly re-introducing creationism. I think the power elite is trying to keep control by slyly carrying out false flag terrorism. Six of one, half dozen of the other, I guess.

  4. What’s so interesting about the Greenwald article? The United States has become increasingly paranoid since the First Red Scare of 1919 and the associated Palmer Raids.
    .
    Anyone living through the Second Red Scare aka McCarthyism should be able to significant parallels between the former war on communism and the current war on terrorism. Moreover, it was all quite predictable.
    .
    Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States had been searching for a suitable enemy to replace its former adversary. The first targets were the infamous drug lords. However, when compare to the former Soviet Union, they looked more like the petty criminals that J. Edgar Hoover used to build his reputation as a crime fighter as he ignored organized crime.
    .
    Then, came 9/11. It was a godsend. Suddenly the United States had a worthy adversary. Oh, my God, there might be terrorists under every bed. They could be foreign. They could be domestic. It didn’t much matter so long as the public could be convince that they were out there somewhere just waiting to strike.
    .
    Only things haven’t worked out quite as Washington planned. For one thing, oblivious to the Sino-Soviet split, the Cold War methodology on which the war on terrorism was built assumed a monolithic apparatus with a central command structure equivalent to the Kremlin. Instead, the new enemies of the state often work independently. They need no Osama bin Laden to coordinate their activities through some sinister master plan.
    .
    As a result of the new paradigm, Washington is scrambling to get a handle on information. Like an undisciplined three-year-old in a candy store, it is grabbing as much as it can. Only, much like the three-year-old, it is choking on its own greed.
    .
    Since Washington cannot control events, it must try to control perception. Upon learning of the Boston Marathon Bombing. I was less concerned with who detonated the IEDs than with who would be the new Richard Jewell. After all, the entire United States criminal justice system revolves around finding someone to blame – even if that person only fits a profile and didn’t actually commit the crime. As history will eventually reveal about the American Devil’s Island at Guantanamo Bay, this mindset has been transferred to the war on terrorism.
    .
    Katherine Russell Tsarnaev may very well be the latest Richard Jewell. It matters little whether Russell was actually involved. Appearances and guilt by association will suffice for purposes of a show trial. Even worse, much like Jewell, Russell may only be tried and convicted in a media feeding frenzy.
    .
    Meanwhile, with its increasingly heavy-handed tactics, Washington is creating new enemies. That’s really the story behind Timothy McVeigh. In turn, this will justify more intrusion and intervention until the whole scheme loses popular support and collapses.

    1. You’ve pointed out very ably the motivations the Pentagon would have for carrying out false flag terrorist activities. Thank you.

      1. The Pentagon is not the culprit. It’s the toy manufacturers – otherwise known as defense contractors. No one makes war without something to gain. That’s why it’s always a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.

    2. Thanks for the link, Know. My paranoia is already fairly high, so it’s difficult to raise it even further, but that certainly gives it somewhat of a boost.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.