Where Bobby Jindal meets Darwin

In today's article by Bruce Chapman, the point is raised that in the state of Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal (above) has signed a law which, "sets parameters for teachers who introduce scientific supplements on Darwinian evolution, global warming, human cloning and other controversial subjects. The state's Science Education Act encourages "open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied." It specifically prohibits religious instruction or interpretations (or irreligious interpretations, for that matter). The law is simple, reasonable and avoids constitutional and scientific mistakes that afflicted earlier laws in Louisiana and elsewhere". I believe the key word here is "objective" in this case.


Chapman laments that a certain vocal minority in Louisiana are attempting to steer conversation on the subject toward a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of Creation when such religious arguments to counter Darwinian evolution, he argues, are not even necessary in the first place...

"Where public school districts have been willing to stick to scientific evidence for and against Darwinian theory, and ignore religious implications in the classroom, Darwinian opponents have not sued, let alone sued successfully.

Darwin's theory of evolution, as its main advocates assert it, presumes that there can be no scientific evidence against a totally unguided and unintelligent course to evolution. Evidence to the contrary is ruled out ahead of time. This causes Darwinists to label practically anyone a "creationist" who refuses to take the standard line. That of course includes young Earth creationists who think the world is only a few thousand years old, but also scholars who make a more limited critique that Darwin's theory cannot account for evidence of purpose and design in nature and the origins of the universe. Even "theistic evolutionists" -- who claim to adopt Darwin's theory, but still see a prior purpose of some kind guiding evolution -- are subject to Darwinian censure if they make that claim too boldly in a classroom.

To clear the air of Darwinist cant and enter a debate on the actual evidence, no religious assertions are necessary or desirable. Obviously, there may be religious implications to repudiation of Darwinism, just as there may be irreligious implications to the theory itself. Plainly, emotions on all sides are stirred up by those implications. But science is not supposed to be about religious implications, but about the evidence; and scientific evidence, though illuminating, can only take one so far."

I both agree and disagree with Chapman's article. I don't see any problem at all in teaching both Darwinian evolution and Creationism side by side, in an objective manner and thusly, the student can make up their own mind. Many of us have opinions on the matter which "evolve" over the course of our lifetimes and thus the student is armed with information to explore the matter more closely if they should wish to do so examine it later in life.

However, I can agree with Chapman that teleological arguments might be the best form of debate against Darwinism in American classrooms given the political climate here in the US. However I do puzzle over the fact that some adherents to Darwinism won't even allow for debate on those types of arguments when you think they would seize on the opportunity to try and refute such points "in the name of good science".



Realeted Note: The True Freethinker is speculating about a Richard Dawkins-David Berlinski debate. One point that I'm sure that many of us here could agree on is that such a debate would be fascinating and would serve for very interesting, further discussion on the topic.