Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal announced his candidacy for President yesterday, and he faces a challenge in distinguishing himself in an already overpopulated field of Republican aspirants. Insofar as he succeeds in doing so, you can bet he’ll have the Louisiana Science Education Act thrown in his face by the media.
Here’s the headline at the Guardian: “Bobby Jindal: Republican who brought creationism into schools to join election.”
The New York Times reports:
Mr. Jindal, who was raised by Hindu parents but converted to Roman Catholicism, supports abortion restrictions, has raised doubts about evolution and signed the Louisiana Science Education Act, which critics say opened a back door to teaching creationism in public schools.
The image of Jindal as an anti-science hypocrite is largely the product of one man — Zack Kopplin, a 21-year-old history major at Rice University. Kopplin has spent much of the last five years campaigning against Jindal’s approach to the teaching of evolution, which Kopplin considers a backdoor invitation to teach creationism.
The so-called “creationist,” “anti-science” law is anything but that, as we’ve explained countless times at Evolution News & Views. If I were Governor Jindal and a reporter questioned me about the LSEA, here’s what I would say:
I supported passage of the Louisiana Science Education Act in 2008 because I support academic freedom — the freedom of teachers to introduce students to mainstream science on both sides of controversial subjects like evolutionary theory and climate change. It’s not a “creationist” law. Creationism is a religious doctrine and teaching religion in public school is explicitly excluded from protection under the law. Nor is it “anti-science.” It is “pro-science.” Questioning, debate, and critical thinking are crucial to scientific investigation. Whether unguided Darwinian evolution fully accounts for the development of complex life is a legitimate subject for scientists to investigate — and they do. Scientific research that is relevant to the approved curriculum should not be withheld from students, nor should teachers be put in career jeopardy for discussing that research in science class.
But Governor, doesn’t the law mandate teaching intelligent design?
No. Intelligent design is a separate scientific theory from Darwinian evolution. It seeks to identify and evaluate positive scientific evidence of design in biology and cosmology. Acknowledging that scientists question tenets of Darwinian evolution is not the same thing as making an argument for design. Intelligent design is not in the curriculum in Louisiana schools, so teaching about it is not covered by the law in my state.
Any more questions, ladies and gentlemen?
Stephen Meyer has written elsewhere here at ENV on the broader question of “What Should Politicians Say When Asked About Evolution?” Governor Jindal might want to take a look there as well.
Image by Gage Skidmore [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
