Loch Ness Monster Disproves Evolution

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

That’s the kind of science nonsense that Louisiana’s taxpayers are going to be funding this upcoming school year. Governor Bobby Jindal’s bill will divert public school funds to pay for vouchers for students to attend private Christian schools like Eternity Christian Academy, in Westlake, LA.

The Eternity Christian Academy follows the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) curriculum. What comprises the ACE science curriculum?

ACE’s science material claims scientists have speculated that Noah took baby dinosaurs on the Ark and that some may still be alive today:

Have you heard of the ‘Loch Ness Monster’ in Scotland? ‘Nessie,’ for short, has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.

Creationists, using an imaginary being to disprove evolution.

The big losers in Jindal’s diversion of taxes to these establishments of religion, are the kids who go to these Christian Madrasahs. None of their high school level science courses will be accepted by any reputable university. Any university curriculum that requires even a general knowledge of science will not be open to them.

As more and more states slash funding for public education and divert those funds to the Christian Madrasahs, the pool of students exposed to actual science will shrink. Industries that rely on scientific expertise, such as medicine, pharmacology, oil and gas exploration, and defense, will have to look outside the United States to fill their requirements for qualified job applicants.

While ExxonMobil funds ALEC to get states to approve weak fraking legislation, ALEC is also the driving force behind Jindal’s voucher program. With Jindal’s taxpayer subsidy, more of the Religious Right will be able to afford to yank their kids out of the public education system, and many corporations, that fiscal conservatives love, will find the number of scientifically literate job seekers diminish. The marriage of religious conservatives and fiscal conservatives has always seemed like an alliance with opposing agendas on critical issues.

There may be some parents who use their vouchers to send their children to a secular private school that provides a better education than found in the local public school. However, the net effect of vouchers is to divert funding from schools that teach secular science to schools that teach creationism. Wealthy parents can already afford to send their children to private schools so the voucher is an outright taxpayer funded gift for them.

H/T: Bruce Wilson, Michael LaBossiere, The Independent Weekly, Leaving Fundamentalism, John Nichols, Julianne Hing, Kristin Rawls.

45 thoughts on “Loch Ness Monster Disproves Evolution”

  1. @CLH: Either through “psychic rewards” or through financial gain, and financial gain is the LARGEST determining factor.

    I will assume that this argument is simply beyond your comprehension, you do not have the mental equipment to adopt a frame of mind in which money can influence a decision without being the largest determining factor.

    Now you are adding the qualifier “within the subset of doing what they enjoy.” Well, as I said earlier, they are not going to turn down extra money for doing exactly what they are doing now, nobody is. They are not striving to make a virtue out of poverty or self-sacrifice.

    But, using my sister as an example, the “subset of what she would enjoy” meant ONE JOB: whichever job would maximize her impact on children. Under such circumstances, the most money is the least money is the average money; of the jobs offered to her, one paid 20% more, but she did not choose it, because she felt she would do more good in the job that could afford to pay less, but the lesser amount was ENOUGH.

    Yes, I did attend public schools. I believe without them, my life would have been very different and less productive. I would have earned less for myself, and far less for others.

    CLH says: I’m dropping Turley’s blog from my reading list.

    A funny choice, but I understand, many people incapable of making a coherent argument would rather sit in an echo chamber. Perhaps you can find a blog where everybody operates on the same false assumptions and bad logic that you do, and then you guys can take turns writing sneering posts at the dumb liberals that just don’t get it.

  2. False premise to beget false premise?

    Tony C- Your evidence is anecdotal at best, and of course not all teachers are in it for the money. In fact, I argued AGAINST the fact that teachers are in it for the money, but within the subset of doing what they enjoy, the MAJORITY will go to where it benefits them the most. Either through “psychic rewards” or through financial gain, and financial gain is the LARGEST determining factor. I said there was no DIRECT correlation, not that there was NO correlation. Are you stupid, or are you simply developmentally challenged, such that your reading comprehension skills are so low. Oh, I get it. You must have attended a public school. I’m about tired of this. Oh well, flame away.

    I’m dropping Turley’s blog from my reading list.

  3. @ David Blauw 1, June 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    “I fully endorse the theory of evolution, except for what I believe to be its greatest and most obvious flaw. We are not descendants of the Ape, the Apes are descendants of Homo Sapiens. Apean Beings social mores are much more civil and ethical.”

    I get that this is your sly take on the (in)human condition, except for a couple of obvious flaws that makes it fall flat

    – ape social interactions can be wildly brutal and violent.

    – Even as a joke, it misstates evolutionary theory in a way that it is commonly misstated, and so bears correcting – we are not descended from apes, nor vice-versa. We share a common ancestor, and then both branches of the evolutionary tree separate.

  4. @CLH: In other words, more money attracts better teachers,

    I do not believe that is an absolute, which is how you are presenting it. My sister taught a gifted-and-talented program for fifteen years, earning about 20% less to do it. The difference was the opportunity, she could have earned more teaching in a richer district; she was a Summa cum laude graduate of a good school and was offered more, but she was teaching because she wanted to make a difference in the lives of children, and she thought teaching a GT program in a deprived district would have a greater impact on the world than teaching arithmetic in a privileged district. I think she was right.

    Few people go into teaching for the money, even the majority of professors at universities could earn more in industry, but they aren’t really choosing their schools on how much money they will make. They choose their schools based on the platform it gives them; the prestige of the school, the collaborators they will have, the access to equipment, labs, research facilities, grants, students and programs, and for many perhaps the most important: How light their teaching schedule will be, so they can have more time for research, outreach, etc.

    I am not a lawyer and do not know how that translates to law school, but the professors I know and work with are not complaining about money, even though they typically make half what they could make in industry, because unlike industry they get to do what THEY find interesting, and they are contributing to a base of knowledge that will be public and hopefully will advance the planet.

    Your response simply repeated your error, perhaps it is beyond your personal comprehension, but money is not what attracts teachers, or government workers, or college professors, or even medical professionals.

    The number actually “in it for the money” are a minority, the majority are in it for the impact they will have upon others. Their rewards are psychic, it is how they feel about what they are doing and how they are benefiting humanity, not the size of their paycheck.

    If money is a primary motivator for a lawyer or doctor or engineer or other professional, working as a teacher is NOT a smart move. If Turley was still driven by money, I assume he would be in private practice. I assume Professor Turley is at GWU for non-monetary reasons, and would only leave for a major increase in those non-monetary reasons, pretty much regardless of the pay. He might, for example, accept a position as a Dean of a legal college or President of a university; with a greater power to shape the curricula and programs to his own vision. it isn’t about money, it is about impact, and that is measured with a different ruler.

    I will not argue they would do it for nothing, and I will not argue they would turn down more money for doing their job, but clearly for those that choose to teach and stick with teaching, at some point their feelings about more money are trumped by their feeling of less impact and less meaning in life. That does not seem to be something you comprehend, how they feel about the job is more important than what they are paid, and that is reflected in the stats of what they are paid versus other college grads that entered industry.

    Top lawyers in this country can earn millions of dollars a year. As much as Dr. Turley gives up by NOT working in industry, I strongly suspect that how he feels about his job, what he can do and the impact he can have, is much, much more important to him than the money he could make.

Comments are closed.