for the teaching of something other then Global Warming too.  I'll also be interested to find out if this is the only reason that was given for the move.  If there is was this the real reason and the media just twisted someones words for this story.

Just looked into it.  This is definately the reason.  Undoubtablely they didn't read the bill.  The bill said in part that placing all differing views in science is designed to promote critical thinking skills in students.  Imagine Louisiana actually wants our children to hear all arguments and then make up their own minds.  I didn't realize that that was backwards.

Couric sure has a way to twist the truth into something unrecognizable.

She could use a man. Then she wouldn't twist pretty women too. 

"Forget change, I want improvement!"

Did you ever notice how semi-literate, left-wing loons like Couric all think they're brilliant scientists? Katie Couric couldn't see the "scientific community" with the Hubble telescope.

Another self-anointed seer, Jeanine Garofalo, was quoted in NewsBuster the other day saying,  "The reason a person is a conservative republican is because something is wrong with them. Again, that’s science – that’s neuroscience."

Neuroscience! Like Garofalo knows from neuroscience! If she has more than an eighth-grader's understanding of science, I'd be sorely surprised.

And then there are the "truthers," with their retarded,  pseudo-scientific explanations of how the Trade Center's collapse HAD to be from controlled detonation, because, as one particularly egregious bird-brain said, a building goes "clunkety-clunk, clunkety-clunk, clunkety-clunk..."a hundred times, and she times the clunks, and etc., etc.

Imbeciles posing as Einstein! They not only think they're "holier than thou," they all sincerely believe they're "smarter than thou."

The reason? Louisiana has a law that allows teachers to use supplemental materials in science class - things other than the state approved curriculum. Republican-up-and-comer Bobby Jindal signed it last summer after it passed the state legislature with overwhelming support.

This sounds like democracy in action and giving the local school district teh flexibility to vary teh curriculum a bit.  The locals have teh control just like our founders envisioned.  I think its great.

The local school board has teh ability to hire and fire who they wish and teach what they want.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

I'm no fan of K-K-Katie, but on the other hand Jindal is vulnerable on this issue. I'm all in favor of teaching both sides of any science, but creationism is not science. If Jindal ever intends to go national, he needs to clarify his beliefs and intent on the teaching of creationism. If not he limits himself to less than half of the Republican base.

Louisiana's bill sounds fairly innocuous however, but so does some of the junk in Obama's porkulus bill. It all depends on how it gets implemented as it trickles down to the civil servant level.

Seashell the story is about Coursic beating up on Jindal.  The winner here is the LA economy, where there is now an opening for a conference to any group that will be more exciting and fun then a bunch of nickel and dime Scientist.  How about filing the date with the TOPGUN Conference.

O's last day 1-20-2013

Bobby Jindal is probably a better scientist than most of those criticizing him.  I gathered some info on his parents and his own educational qualifications. 

Bobby Jindal was born in Baton Rouge in 1971. Jindal's parents came to this country for advanced education. His father, Amar Jindal, is a civil engineer. His mother, Raj Jindal, is an information technology specialist who is assistant secretary of the state Labor Department. Jindal's IQ tested at 146 as he went through the gifted program in the East Baton Rouge School System.
He went to Brown University, where he was an honors student in biology and public policy. A Rhodes Scholar, he was admitted to the medical and law schools of both Harvard and Yale—but chose Oxford instead.

Jindal's wife chose Tulane University, where she lived on campus, and studied chemical engineering, as her father had done. After earning a bachelor's degree, she went on to get a master's in business administration there and most of a Ph.D. at Louisiana State University, where she completed everything but her dissertation in marketing.

It is not hard to have intellectual objections to macro-evolutionary theory.  Basic changes within species occur as certain traits are favored or selected against over time...many examples (the finch beaks) are offered as evidence.  However, these examples are wholly inadequate to explain the appearance of new animals or the "genesis" of life itself.  How many "fruit flies" have been irradiated and mutated in experiments?  Many changes have been observed, but they've still always remained flies.

How many of you believe that everything in the universe was once contained in a space the size of the period at the end of this sentence as current cosmology suggests in the Big Bang theory?  Believing that takes faith!

Learn about my daughter's Ugandan home for orphans with AIDS at
www.africaourownhome.org

 Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe.  I would highly recommend it to people unsure about evolution.  In it, Behe shows that biomechanical machinery in your body could not evolved the way that Darwin insists they must...through "slight successive variations".  Darwin didn't know about these machines existed because he couldn't see them.  Darwin has made positive contributions to science, but common descent in not one of them.  I challenge these so called scientists to go down to Louisiana and explain to the school children how blood clotting in the human body "evolved".  Prove your evolutionary theory if you're so sure.  I've followed the debate over ID...the Darwinists are scared as hell.  They've smeared and lied about Behe all over the internet.  Their end is coming.

http://tinyurl.com/4agrt

  katie-couric-paints-gov-jindal-state-louisiana-foes-scientific-communi

Katie couric cannot even paint her fingernails correctly.

What a dweeb!!!

Aaaaaah---so now they're getting around to criticizing Bobby Jindal.

Pretty obvious who should be the GOP frontrunners...just look at who the MSM jumps on...they're the ones they're most frightened of and want to discredit.

All we have to do now is hope these 'independents' won't throw too big of a monkey wrench in the state GOP primaries...like last time.

One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

Isaac Newton believed that he could determine formulas for the motion of planets and the calculus and optics and so on because he believed in a God who created an ordered universe and that all he had to do was discern and discover God's laws.  He was a devoted Biblical scholar who believed the Bible was literally true and wrote a book titled "Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John."

Dr. Werhner von Braun was the Director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and the architect of the Saturn V moon rocket.  During a debate in California (1972) about whether to teach creation along with evolution as a possible explanation for the origin of life, he wrote this letter:

  Dear Mr. Grose: In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the “Case for DESIGN” as a viable scientific theory or the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without evoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world round us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system or the human eye?

Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature without a Divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?

Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God.

I have discussed the aspect of a Designer at some length because it might be that the primary resistance to acknowledging the “Case for Design” as a viable scientific alternative to the current “Case for Chance” lies in the inconceivability, in some scientists’ minds, of a Designer. The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.

We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance.

With kindest regards.

Sincerely,

Wernher von Braun

Learn about my daughter's Ugandan home for orphans with AIDS at
www.africaourownhome.org