http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19926643.300-new-legal-threat-to-teaching-evolution-in-the-us.html

My summary and intepretation of the article:

The recent passage of the Science Education Act in Lousiana's legislature poses a threat to the teaching of evolution in schools in the state, and similar acts being proposed in other states mean it is a national issue.

The bill proposes that the merits of scientific ideas can be discussed in the science classroom. While such action is usually encouraged to promote freedom of thought, in this case the wording of the bill and the statements of its supporters prove a different intention: to make evolution and other topics appear controversial or unproven and then introduce unscientific, untestable ideas like creationism ("intelligent design") through the use of unregulated textbooks that are effectively biased and do not use scientific principles.

The adoption of the bill and its chance of being adopted elsewhere will in practice mean that proven, verifiable and key science like evolution, global warming and other ideas will be replaced by religiously-inspired and unscientific ideas. In my opinion, this is a threat to the integrity of US science education.

Extract from linked article:

America is so going to end up a third world theocracy in the next fifty years. The president will be a fundementalist christian and all things, be it knowledge or culture that don't jive with the bible with be illegal, science will be the forte of China, an various EU nations, and america will be banging rocks together wondering why they can't get on the interwebz anymore.

Meh, if they are really that stupid to let it happen, they deserve all they get.

Seeing as the "proof" they show for global warming is an al gore film...i really wouldnt want to see their "proof" for anything else.

You people sound like the church wanting to deny heliocentrism.


It is considered wrong to even discuss that these may be wrong within schools. Teachers take marks off. Does that sound right to you? I dont see how this could lead to anything worse than what they have now...

Sigh, the proof is a hell of a lot more than just "an al gore film", it is composed of decades of research spanning the globe, with hundreds if not thousands of climatolo...eh who am I kidding, the issue has been so politicized that no matter what I say you will still think you are right because Al Gore falls on the other side of the political fence than you. The very fact that politics (or religion, in the case of the OP) is being discussed at all in a scientific setting is not only disturbing, but really sad too...

Maybe humanity deserves what is coming.

(Quick Edit): To Mr. Bubbles: Don't take that "you'll still think you're right" thing as a personal swipe, I meant the "you" as an overall, I've just gotten into this with quite a few people ^_^  I realized to late that it sounded like I was calling you out.

The problem is that the POWER is in the hands of selected few and not in THE PEOPLE anymore, IMO.

frankly, i dont give a shit what way gore swings.... i have an issue because hes a liar and lies and makes money from telling these lies.  and then when people depict his lies as uncontested evidence.

Why are you so scared of hearing their evidence?  Afraid you might find they have constructed well thought out scientific arguments that might harm your beliefs?

Actually if you'll go over to the global warming thread you'll see many reasons why man made global warming is bad science... including numerous scientists quitting the IPCC for the IPCC misrepresenting data.

It's easy stuff to check up on.  Pretty much all credible scientific reports are published for the public.  Aside for ones bought and paid for by companies to make money off of.

Evolution on the otherhand isn't bad science. Regardless, "Objective" would be the term here. So long as it's kept Objective... why shouldn't there be debate on any issue? Assuming the teacher is competent in any way he should be able to answer any objections... that's what teachers are supposed to do you know... teach... and explain things. Rather then just state facts for people to memorize.

To Bubbles: Kazz is just to dern quick lol

No, I am just not so arrogant that I will ignore the work of men and women who have dedicated their lives to researching the climate and the effects mankind has on it just because I don't like what they have to say. Honestly, can you picture doing that to any other profession? Your doctor says "you have an infection" and you say "Nah, feels more like a cold, you don't know anything, you're a liar". An architect says, this wall needs to be at a 92 degree angle to bear the weight and you say "Pssh, I know better, I'm going to put it at a 84 degree angle, stupid architect".

These are SCIENTISTS, not taxi drivers, not pizza delivery boys, not senators, they are men and women of science. They have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. If a VAST majority say that there is a damn good chance that we are harming the environment, then I say, let's listen. I mean seriously, what is the worst thing that can happen if we try to lower our carbon footprint a little?

I completely agree; indeed, the point of the article and editorial in the same issue is to say that we can't strike down the laws as completely wrong because the kind of debate you imagine is constructive. However, the wording of the bill itself mentions issues (evolution, origins of life, climate change) that are exactly the kind of thing the religious right wants to cast doubt upon, and the bill's supporters aren't using your argument as their rationale; they're using the same religious and/or unscientific justifications they give when justifying teaching ID in science, which has been judged as illegal by a US court before. So, it's not broad debate the bill is intended to target; it is obvious the bill is intended to give religious organisations an opportunity to intervene in science education.