Zack Kopplin debates Casey Luskin on the Louisiana Science Education Act on the Michael Medved show

The Michael Medved show is a national radio show broadcast out of Seattle, Washington. According to Talkers magazine, he has the fifth largest radio audience. He has a regular weekly segment on science and culture featuring  scholars from the Discovery Institute.

Here is the seventh segment from this past week, courtesy of the Intelligent Design: The Future podcast.

The MP3 file is available for download. (38 minutes)

The description is:

On this episode of ID the Future, the Medved Show hosts the CSC’s Casey Luskin and student Zack Kopplin, a leading activist in the effort to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act. Luskin and Kopplin debate the implications of the Louisiana law for science education standards and whether or not the law promotes the teaching of creationism.

Each week, leading fellows from Discovery Institute will join Michael Medved to talk about the intersection of science and culture. Listen in live online or on your local Medved station, or stay tuned at ID the Future for the weekly podcast.

Topics: (I tried harder to get Kopplin’s statements right than with Dan Barker last week, because Kopplin isn’t as much a jerk as Barker)

• Medved: Should teachers be forced to teach creationism in public schools?
• Luskin: The Discovery Institute has never advocated that creationism be taught in public schools
• Medved: Does the Louisiana law mandate that creationism be taught in public schools
• Kopplin: Yes, the bill does because Bobby Jindal said that the bill teaches creationism
• Luskin: (Reads the actual text of the law) the law EXPLICITLY STATES that teaching creationism is forbidden
• Luskin: Governor Jindal is misinfored about the law, but if you look at the law it says NO CREATIONISM
• Kopplin: I don’t care about what the law actually says, I’ll just repeat that Bobby Jindal thinks it’s creationism
• Kopplin: Thirty years ago, there was an attempt to mandate creationism, therefore this law is doing the same thing
• Medved: Are there any complaints that creationism is being taught in any schools after this law has been passed
• Kopplin: No, I don’t know of any, but that’s not because there are none! Maybe there are some that I haven’t heard about yet
• Medved: If you are taught something that you think is stupid, then is that automatically a violation of your rights?
• Kopplin: Because you cannot allow the progress of science to call the religion of naturalism into question
• Luskin: About that Jindal quote – he was talking about what he wanted to pass, not the law that actually passed
• Luskin: (reads the text of the law again) The law explicitly says that teachign creationism in the classroom is prohibited
• Luskin: Intelligent design is not creationism. Creationism starts with the Bible. Intelligent Design starts with science
• Luskin: The law only supports teaching both sides of things that are already in the curriculum
• Luskin: ID is not already in the curriculum, therefore, the law does not allow it to be discussed
• Medved: Take Stephen C. Meyer’s book on the origin of life, could that be used in the classroom?
• Kopplin: I am not very familiar with Meyer’s book, but if it is critical of Darwinism and naturalism, then it should not be taught. I don’t need to read it before I can censor it
• Luskin: Meyer’s book advocates for ID, so it should not be taught in science classrooms
• Luskin: non-ID science papers that are critical of Darwinism should be allowed in science classroom so students get both sides
• Medved: Consider this brand new Oxford University Press book that is critical of Darwinian mechanisms, authored by Masatoshi Nei who is at Penn State University professor (written up on Evolution News)
• Medved: Should this research critical of Darwinism be allowed in science classrooms?
• Kopplin: I don’t know if this book should be allowed in science classrooms
• Kopplin: I already know without reading anything though that there will never be evidence that supports intelligent design
• Kopplin: There is no evidence against Darwinism and there is no controversy and there is no disagreement among scientists
• Luskin: There are hundreds of papers in mainstream science peer-reviewed publications critical of Darwinism
• Luskin: (lists a stack of papers critical of core tenets of Darwinian theory from respect science journals in the last few years)
• Luskin: Masatoshi Nei recently posted a comment critical of the usefulness of the mutation-selection mechanism
• Luskin: The real issue is whether students are allowed to hear mainstream scientific criticisms of Darwinism in the science classroom
• Medved: Is it OK for a teacher to admit that on a specific issue in science, that there is no credible naturalistic explanation?
• Kopplin: I am a history major, so I don’t want to comment on whether it is OK to admit that naturalism doesn’t explain everything
• Luskin: A Harvard chemist says that the origin of life is an open issue in this peer-reviewed journal article
• Luskin: Teachers should be allowed to say that there is no accepted naturalistic explanation for the origin of life
• Luskin: teachers should NOT be teaching religion, or creationism, or even intelligent design in science classrooms
• Luskin: but teachers should be allowed to say what the Harvard chemist said in that peer-reviewed article in the science classroom
• Kopplin: there was a creationist woman who sat next to the Discovery Institute person when the law was being debated
• Kopplin: so based on that there is a scary hidden creationist agenda behind the law which is not reflected in the actual text law
• Luskin: Um, that woman has no connection to the Discovery Institute
• Luskin: seating arrangement at the hearings were pre-determined, not selected by those in attendance
• Luskin: what about people who are pushing Darwinism, who are anti-religious atheists and humanists? should they be disqualified?
• Luskin: we should not discredit the arguments of either side based on speculations about their motives – what counts is the evidence
• Kopplin: but I have a letter signed by lots of Nobel-prize winning scientists that opposes the Lousiana science education law
• Luskin: but that letter never actually quotes from the law, it is critiquing views that have nothing to do with the actual law
• Medved: Summarize your views
• Kopplin: Criticism of Darwinism and naturalism using mainstream scientific evidence SHOULD NOT be allowed in the science classroom
• Liskin: Criticism of Darwinism and naturalism using mainstream scientific evidence SHOULD be allowed in the science classroom

And there is a period of questions from the callers.

This episode features a debate, so it is not to be missed. it is always a good idea to hear both sides. Unfortunately, ID people are the only ones who think that both sides should be heard.

I subscribe to the ID the Future podcast, and I really recommend that you do as well!

Previous entries

• Episode one: Stephen C. Meyer on Thomas Nagel and intelligent design
• Episode two: Stephen C. Meyer on Richard Dawkins and the Cambrian explosion
• Episode three: John G. West discusses Darwinism and the value of human life
• Episode four: Stephen C. Meyer and John Lennox discuss human exceptionalism
• Episode five: Jay Richards and Stephen C. Meyer discuss scientific consensus
• Episode six: Dan Barker debates Casey Luskin on academic freedom

Filed under: Podcasts, Academic Freedom, Atheism, Both Sides, Classroom, Creationism, Critical Thinking, Darwinism, Discovery Institute, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Louisiana, Peer-Review, Science, Science Education Act, Scientific Evidence, Secularism, Teach the Controversy, Zack Kopplin

Atheist Inquisition led by Jerry Coyne seeks to censor pro-ID physicist at Ball State University

Evolution News reports.

Excerpt:

There is a very disturbing affair going on at Ball State University that everyone needs to know about. The public university in Muncie, Indiana, has been under pressure from a rabid national atheist group and from atheist activist Jerry Coyne to discipline an assistant physics professor for teaching about intelligent design. Coyne and the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) claim it’s a legal, constitutional matter, no less: teaching about ID violates the First Amendment! “It’s religion taught as science in a public university, and it’s not only wrong but illegal,” writes Coyne. “This will now go to the lawyers.”

Ball State has announced it will indeed scrutinize the situation. FFRF staff attorney Andrew L. Seidel complained in a legally vacuous letter to Ball State president Jo Ann Gora. Amazingly, the university responded with this ominous public statement:

The university received a complaint from a third party late yesterday afternoon about content in a specific course offered at Ball State. We take academic rigor and academic integrity very seriously. Having just received these concerns, it is impossible to comment on them at this point. We will explore in depth the issues and concerns raised and take the appropriate actions through our established processes and procedures.

Being the subject of such controversy, with your employer issuing public statements about how higher ups will be “explor[ing] concerns” about your “academic rigor” and “integrity,” is obviously the last thing an academic in Eric Hedin’s shoes wants. It’s enough to make the blood drain from your face.

Click here to sign the petition to defend academic freedom at Ball State University.

Filed under: News, Academic Freedom, Atheism, Ball State University, Church of Darwin, Classroom, Darwinism, Design, Dogma, Economy, Education, Evolution, Fascism, FFRF, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Galileo, Global Warming, Industry, Intelligent Design, Jerry Coyne, Larry Moran, Leftism, Naturalism, Persecution, Religion, Science, Secularism, Spanish Inquistition, Student, Teach the Controversy, Teacher

The learned helplessness of young men in a feminist state

Dr. Stuart Schneiderman writes an article that perfectly explains what young men are facing in a feminist-dominated society.

Excerpt:

It begins in the schools. There, empowered female teachers have set out to enhance the performance of girls by systematically favoring them at the expense of boys.

The Huffington Post reported that British boys are convinced that female teachers grade them unfairly. On the other hand, schoolgirls believe that male teachers grade them fairly.

I do not know the extent to which female American teachers try to punish boys in order to improve the performance of girls, but girls are consistently outperforming boys in schools and are taking up most of the places in colleges.

It seems inevitable that some boys are dropping out of school and failing to pursue advanced education because they have been demoralized.

Think about it, if all the girls receive great grades then boys will, at first try to improve their performance. Once they discover that they are still receiving lower grades, they will give up. This translates into depression.

Convinced, and not without reason, that the game is rigged, they stop playing.

Depression, as Martin Seligman defined it, is learned helplessness. When something is learned, someone is teaching it. When your female teachers convince you that you can never get it right and that you will never be judged fairly, you will become demoralized and depressed.

[...]Rob Long suggests that when these boys grow up they are unlikely to believe that it is possible to have harmonious relationships with women.

A recent poll bears this out. Suzanne Venker reports:

According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.

More women want to get married and more men don’t. This suggests that men are increasingly being conditioned to dread close contact with women. It also suggests that men have discovered that, like school, the marriage game is rigged against them.

Read the whole thing.

I post a lot of things for Christian men about how to detect a marriage-enabled Christian woman. But I think we can short-circuit all of that, if you’re rushed. Just send the woman this article and then ask her whether the situation facing young men is a problem she is concerned about, and what she intends to do personally in order to stop it. That’s a one question interview right there.

UPDATE: Reformed Seth has more on this problem.

Filed under: News, Boys, Classroom, Depression, Education, Feminism, Feminization, Grading, Learned Helplessness, Marriage Strike, Men, Teacher, Women

Teachers face termination for refusing to promote gay marriage

From the UK Telegraph. (H/T Dina)

Excerpt:

Primary school teachers could face the sack for refusing to promote gay marriage once same-sex unions become law, a minister has signalled.

Liz Truss, an education minister, refused to rule out the possibility that teachers, even in faith schools, could face disciplinary action for objecting on grounds of conscience.

Miss Truss said simply that it was impossible to know what the impact of the legislation would be at this stage.

Her admission came in a letter to a fellow Conservative MP, David Burrowes, last month.

[...]Mr O’Neill, an expert on human rights, was asked to advise on the impact redefining marriage to include same-sex couples could have on schools, churches, hospitals, foster carers and public buildings.

Among his conclusions was that schools could be within their statutory rights to dismiss staff who wilfully fail to use stories or textbooks promoting same-sex weddings.

Parents who object to gay marriage being taught to their children would also have no right to withdraw their child from lessons, he argued.

And, in theory, the fact that a school was a faith school would make no difference, he added.

Read the rest, because our country just voted for Barack Obama, and he supports gay marriage.

How would gay marriage change your life?

Filed under: News, Classroom, Conjugal Marriage, Conscience, Education, Equality, Family, Female, Feminism, Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Religion, Gay Activism, Gay Marriage, Human Rights, Liberty, Liberty of Conscience, Love, Male, Marriage, Meaning, Purpose, Religious Liberty, Romance, Same-Sex Marriage, Sexual Liberation, Teacher

Will allowing free discussions of scientific theories hurt innovation?

Some people are complaining that allowing students and teachers to question and debate scientific theories will harm economic growth and raise unemployment.

Evolution News explains:

One common piece of rhetoric being lobbed against academic freedom legislation is the claim that the bills would kill jobs and have a negative overall economic effect. An anti-academic freedom op-ed in The Tennessean stated that Tennessee’s academic freedom bill would have “adverse economic consequences for the state” and asked “What high-tech employer will want to open up shop in a state that allows ideology and prejudice to trump science education?”

If you actually read that op-ed, you will find that the authors make the following arguments against academic freedom:

1. scientific theories favored by the secular left should not be subject to falsification by scientific evidence
2. the only reason why some people oppose secular left ideologies like naturalism (e.g. – in the origin of life) and socialism (e.g – man-made global warming) is because of religious beliefs
3. some religious clergy accept ideologies like naturalism and socialism, so therefore everyone should have no problem with naturalistic speculations about the origin of life and doomsday predictions about catastrophic global warming – since there is no scientific reason to oppose these theories
4. scientific theories should be accepted or denied based on the pontifications of organizations like the AAAS or teacher associations, not on the basis of repeatable experiments and measurements
5. lawyers should be able to settle disputes about science using their ability to file lawsuits against school boards
6. although the new law explicitly forbids bringing religion into the classroom, it would bring religion into the classroom
7. environmental regulations, chevy volts on fire, green energy solyndra grants, cap and trade, drilling moratoriums, drilling permit delays and carbon taxes don’t hurt the economy, but allowing students and teachers to ask questions about scientific theories would hurt the economy

Now look at that last argument (#7). Is there any evidence to show that allowing academic freedom and free discussions about scientific theories and scientific evidence would hurt the economy and raise unemployment?

More from Evolution News:

In late 2010, two-and-a-half years after it passed its Science Education Act, Louisiana won the “State of the Year Award” from Business Facilities magazine, in part because of its burgeoning high-tech industry. As the magazine noted:

“The diversity and growth potential of Louisiana’s top projects in both high-tech and traditional manufacturing, as well as healthy total investments, overall job creation and innovative incentives made Louisiana a clear winner of our annual State of the Year Award,” said Business Facilities Editor-in-Chief Jack Rogers.

[...]To determine the winner, Business Facilities reviews each state’s top five projects in terms of overall investment and job creation. The magazine also evaluates the state’s execution of its economic development strategy, and the diversity and growth potential of its target industries.

“We were particularly impressed with the diversity of Louisiana’s strategy for developing high-growth sectors, including digital media, alternative energy, advanced manufacturing, and modular nuclear power plant components,” Rogers said.

The Business Facilities editor noted that Louisiana “has emerged unbowed from a series of disasters that would have brought less-determined locations to their knees — including a major hurricane, an oil spill and the national economic downturn — and charted a course for the future that positions the state to be a national leader for years to come.”

So despite a massive recession, manmade and natural disasters, and — most terrifying of all — an academic freedom law, Louisiana’s economy appears to be doing better than most all other states that don’t have academic freedom laws. It appears that in the experimental laboratory of the real world, the Darwin lobby’s claim that academic freedom bills harm the economy is resoundingly disproved.

To me, it seems intuitively true that students will be more interested in any topic where there are two sides presented fairly. No one likes to be preached at – it’s boring. I realize that some people who are lazy-brained ideologues will try to bypass a fair investigation of scientific disputes and just jump right to agreeing with their government-paid educators, but that’s not a good way of becoming educated. A better way to be educated is to consider the evidence for and against propositions, and not jump to believe whatever the people in authority say that you should believe in order to be considered “smart”. It’s better to really be smart rather than just to be told that you are smart because you agree with everyone.

Filed under: News, AAAS, Academic Freedom, Atheism, Catholic Church, Classroom, Climate Change, Darwinism, Dogma, Economy, Education, Galileo, Global Warming, Industry, Leftism, Naturalism, Religion, Science, Secularism, Socialism, Student, Teach the Controversy, Teacher, Technology, Tennessee