Louisiana Senate Committee Refuses to Repeal Law Requiring Equal Treatment for Creation, Evolution

Bible GenesisBATON ROUGE, La. — A Senate committee in Louisiana has struck down an effort to repeal a law that allows requires equal treatment for biblical Creation and evolution in public schools.

The law, known as the “Balanced Treatment for Creation Science and Evolution Science Act,” has been deemed since 1987 as being unenforceable as it was struck down by the courts, but legislators have refused to take it off the books.

The 1981 Act provided freedom to public school teachers to “provide information and instruction in both creation and evolution models” that they deem “necessary and appropriate.” But the law was challenged in federal court, and in 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because it was designed “to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind.”

As previously reported, in 2013, Louisiana’s House Education Committee rebuffed an effort by Rep. Dan Claitor, R-Baton Rouge, to scrub the law from state code, and last month, the issue was brought up again in the Senate as Claitor is now a Senator.

Sen. John Milkovich, D-Keithville, argued to Claitor that science confirms the biblical account.

“Are you aware that there is an abundance of recent science that actually confirms the Genesis account of creation?” he asked.

“[S]cientific research and developments and advances in the last 100 years, particularly in the last fifty, twenty, ten years have validated the biblical story of creation by archaeological discoveries of civilizations in the mid-east that secularists said did not exist and further archaeological research determines are true,” Milkovich said.

  • Connect with Christian News

“I’m not asking you to give up your belief in God,” Claitor contended. “I’m not asking you to get in bed with the devil. I’m asking you to follow your oath to follow the Constitution.”

The Senate Education Committee ultimately voted 4-2 against repealing the law on Tuesday. Sen. Conrad Appel, R-Metairie, and Sen. Gerald Boudreaux, D-Lafayette, stood in favor of scrubbing the Act from the books. Sens. Beth Mizell, R-Franklinton, Mike Walsworth, R-West Monroe, and Mack White, R-Baton Rouge, joined Milkovich in voting against it.

Lawmakers have also sought to repeal the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act, but all five efforts have likewise been struck down.

The Education Act, which is believed to similarly allow the discussion of biblical creation in schools, is meant to “create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Louisiana – Still trying to catch up with Mississippi as the dumbest state in the Union.

    • kagl982

      Mississippi has the highest percentage of African Americans, 37 percent.

      Sounds like you have some melanin issues, which is typical of white liberals. Got a sheet in your closet?

      • gizmo23

        It is also the most RED state, the highest poverty rate

        • kagl982

          OK, so you people hate blacks and hate Republicans.
          What other groups do you hate?

      • Cady555

        Differences in the level of education between states are directly related to the quality of education in the states.

        When states refuse to adequately fund education, people tend to be less educated.

        • Paige Turner

          No, the highest per-pupil spending is DC, which ranks at the bottom academically.

          Go learn some facts, miss.

    • DanH

      The voice of someone raised in the South, trying to distance herself from her roots.

    • Paige Turner

      Don’t go there.
      They won’t mind.

  • BarkingDawg

    It still unenforceable

  • prjoe

    Dem Louisianans ain’t none too bright is they?

  • Michael C

    If creationists are able to provide evidence that not only supports the ideas of creationism but also disproves current scientific understandings of both the age of the universe and the evolution of species, creationism will stop being creationism and will just become science.

    Perhaps this is where you should focus your efforts instead of with PR firms and local politics.

    • Lexical Cannibal

      Are you kidding? They have proven it! Evidence is mounting all the time and every day more and more scientists are abandoning Darwin’s flawed theory for an intelligently designed universe. It’s just you who’ve been taken in by the secular media, passing off Man’s word like it can replace God’s truth! All your “evidence” and your “rigours” and your “objectively verifiable work” come to nothing before God’s word.

      …Sometimes I surprise myself with just how straight I can play that line.

      • Cady555

        Let me guess. You heard that in a church or religious event, and at some point during the event the organizers asked for money.

        Scientists do not reject evolution, and there is no trend of scentrists rejecting evolution. Evolution is accepted and scientists have moved on to learning about specific questions, such as how limbs evolved. (In the same way, a scientist studying photosynthesis in cacti doesn’t have to rediscover photosynthesis in general.)

        • Lexical Cannibal

          …maybe I played it a little *too* straight, even.

          • Cady555

            Yep. You just won a Poe. Congrats!

          • Lexical Cannibal

            I’d like to thank the academy, my family of course, all the little people, and a lifetime of religious indoctrination.

      • acontraryview

        LOL

      • SFBruce

        You certainly had me. Right up until that last sentence.

  • Barking Dawg

    It’s not an either/or. You can believe in God and evolution. In fact, most Christians do.

    • ISA41:10

      Not possible!

      • BarkingDawg

        I didn’t say that the two concepts were compatible.

    • Chike Chiemela

      I don’t think you can believe in the creation account and also believe in the evolution account. God created man therefore man did not evolve from apes, that is what Genesis tells us. Do you think you evolved from apes?

      • acontraryview

        Why couldn’t God have used evolution to create man?

      • John N

        No, we don’t believe we evolved from apes.

        We ARE apes. We evolved from a common ancester with the other apes. All available evidence points to that.

        • kagl982

          If you say you are, it’s probably true.

      • BarkingDawg

        I misspoke. Man believe in God and evolution.

        Sime even argue that evolution proves God

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    So sad. The whole creation world screams out the fact of creatinism. The liberal tyrants bend it forcibly so that they could continue the murder(abortion).

    • Jalapeno

      I’m sure if there was actual scientific evidence for creationism, it would be taught in science classes right alongside the rest of the science.

      In the meantime though..there’s no reason to pretend.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        The world is full of evidences for God’s creation. The existence of order and DNA alone proves God created everything. The atheists are banning the truth AGAINST all the evidences just because they wish to continue immorality and abortion.

        • John N

          The existence of DNA is proof of the existence of DNA only.

          Until you have can present any evidence for your god, creation is to be considered a fairy tale.

          You trying to prove religion by using science is admitting your faith is to weak to stand on its own.

        • Cady555

          Okay, let’s assume this is true. Now prove, with evidence, that your creation account with the people from clay, lady from rib, magic tree and talking snake is correct, while Egyptian Norse and Nativer American myths are false.

        • Jalapeno

          No, they don’t prove that at all.

          Science classes explain all that though, thankfully.

        • gizmo23

          How is evolution linked to immorality? We had plenty of immorality long before Darwin

      • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

        HEBREWS.11: (NKJV) = 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

        3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so
        that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
        _ _ _ _ _ _ _

        Evidence-based Science n faith in God r mutually exclusive, ie evolutionists hv no faith n will not see the kingdom of God/heaven after they die = they will be resurrected into hell.
        _ _ _ _ _ _ _

        JOHN.20: = 29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

        That You May Believe

        30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

  • cadcoke5

    Hearing a good presentation of the evidence supporting creation, and against evolution is quite a revelation. It doesn’t take much to topple evolution from its pedistal. I think that is why evolutionist are so hostile. They fear that even a little evidence will topple their materialist faith.

    • John N

      Actually scientists do not fear any evidence, because gathering and evaluating evidence is part of their core business.

      Scientist do worry about what is really happening, like politicians trying to push religion – the so called ‘creation science ‘ – into science education.

      And they should.

      • cadcoke5

        I am sorry, you are correct. Scientists do gather evidence. I should have used another word to describe the thought process involved with attempting to re-create the past.

        When it comes to forensics, the challenge is to imagine a story, that ends with the evidence we see now.

        The atheist faith is quite dogmatic about their faith being the only one permitted in schools, and they are quite intolerant of other religious views. The atheistic creation myths are often created and then later abandoned by the atheists. E.g.

        At the Scopes trial, Nebraska Man, was the “missing link” of the day. It was based on a jaw bone and a pig’s tooth. You can see what this mythical creature looked like on the cover of a National Geographic edition from that era. And this tradition continues in the modern day evolutionist’s work, as seen in the proposed Rodhocetus evolution. A fossil, without the parts of the skeleton that might include a blow-hole or the limbs, was re-created to include those parts. Now that a more complete fossil has been found, it turns out the nose was in front, and it had legs, not flippers. It is another mythical creature of the evolutionary religion.

        This is not just evolutionists correcting an error. When these kinds of myths are created, it is assured that anyone that says they are false, is deemed to be anti-science. And when the evidence against them cannot be ignored any longer, they come up with another one. E.g. the Whale was the replacement for horse evolution.

        As for teaching “religion” in science education. The irony is that this “respect no establishment of religion” was only intended to prohibit a specific denomination. So, it even allows the establishment of an atheistic religion.

        The apparent strategy of the atheists, is to make their religion the religion of the public schools and government, by making sure their faith is not considered to be a religion. Then, push to make any other religions forbidden in that arena. These re-definitions of faith and the establishment clause, have largely been successful. But, it is not faithful to the constitution, nor a good avenue to true science.

        • gizmo23

          Why would you want government involved in your faith at all ?

    • Cady555

      Please try again. Listen to a presentation on evolution from scientists without a religious agenda. Read a book. Read Intro to Evolution on Wikipedia and follow the links.

      • cadcoke5

        I am pretty well informed on both sides of the issue. And in regard to religious agenda, there was a certain man, whose only degree was in theology. He didn’t like the idea of Hell, and later came up with an idea of how to get God out of the picture, along with the idea of Hell… Darwin The Atheist religion (or at least Desist) seems to be at the heart of evolution.

        • Cady555

          Wow. A new one.

          Darwin was a naturalist who spent his life studying nature. There have been hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of scientists since Darwin who have researched various aspects of evolution. They have not devoted their scientific careers to pandering to any 19th century individual.

          And nNo. Darwin did not revolutionize scientific thought because he didn’t like the idea of hell. He followed the data. Like all the scientists who came after him. There were things that Darwin did not know. There are points he got wrong. The Theory of Evolution is not carved in granite. It expands when better information overtakes good information.

          Evolution continues to be nearly universally accepted by the scientific community because the facts support it.

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            And remember that yr forefathers were apes, gorillas n monkeys = u might hv inherited some of their wild animalistic traits.

          • Cady555

            Actually, we are apes and share a common ancestor with other primates.

            Read “Your Inner Fish” by Neil Shubin or watch the three part video. We share quite a bit with our primate, reptilian, and fish ancestors.

            Have you ever noticed that vertebrate limbs, reptiles onward, all share the one bone-two bones-lots of little bones-digits pattern?

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            Actually, only u n yr kind r apes n will die as apes. Like they say, “U r what u think u r.”
            .
            Pls don’t lump u n yr kind, ie evolutionists, together with me n my kind, ie creationists. R u trying to proselytize/convert others into evolution-homo-atheists.?

  • acontraryview

    They are certainly free to keep unenforceable laws on the books, although I don’t understand the purpose.

    • BarkingDawg

      It took them 30 years to get the anti-miscegenation laws off the books after the Loving decision.

      • acontraryview

        So true.

  • gizmo23

    God, and intelligent designer, designed nature and gave it the task of evolving all matter and life in the universe

  • SFBruce

    The good news here is school children in Louisiana aren’t being exposed to the misguided notion that creationism is actual science. At least, I hope that’s the case. It’s important to remember that among biologists, that group that constantly collects new data and adjusts and/or discards existing models based in that new data, the theory of evolution isn’t even remotely controversial.

  • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

    QUOTE: ……. [ But the law was challenged in federal court, and in 1987 case of Edwards
    v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional
    because it was designed “to advance the religious viewpoint that a
    supernatural being created humankind.” ]
    .
    .
    .
    “U shall not murder”, “U shall not steal” n “U shall not bear false witness against yr neighbor” r religious or Church laws.(EXODUS.20:13 & 15 & 16) Maybe, the US govt should also do away with such laws.

    • acontraryview

      “Maybe, the US govt should also do away with such laws.”

      Why? Those laws do not “advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind”.

      • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

        So, it’s OK for the Muslims in USA(eg Dearborn, Michigan) to implement parts or whole of their Sharia Law, eg banning of alcohol n gambling, chopping of hands for stealing, death penalty for adulterers n homosexuals, etc.?

        • acontraryview

          Please cite examples of the legal code in Dearborn, MI being modified to include the things you mention.

          • disqus_O2BUmbLecp

            Note the difference between my statement “to implement parts or whole of their Sharia Law” n my non-statement “to hv implemented …”.
            …….So, yr reply asking for examples was moot.
            .
            .
            U said: …”Why? Those laws do not “advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind”.
            .
            .
            My reply: … Actually, they do bc those laws were Jewish laws that came to the Jews from God. So, all these while u hv been obeying God by not committing murder, stealing, etc. ….

            EXODUS.20: = The Ten Commandments

            1 And God spoke all these words, saying:
            2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. …

            13 “You shall not murder.
            14 “You shall not commit adultery.
            15 “You shall not steal.
            16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. ….

          • acontraryview

            You could have worded your question with greater clarity.

            What would lead you to believe that Muslims in Dearborn, MI want to implement laws banning alcohol n gambling, chopping of hands for stealing, death penalty for adulterers n homosexuals, etc.?

            Even if they did want to, which there is no evidence of, such laws (with the possible exceptions of alcohol and gambling – which for many years were banned in some places by the desires of Christians) would violate the Constitution and thus would not be allowed to be implemented.

            “Actually, they do bc those laws were Jewish laws that came to the Jews from God.”

            The concepts of not being allowed to murder, stealing, or bearing false witness, were around long before Jews claimed to have received those admonishments from God. Further, those prohibitions exist here due to the protections provided by the Constitution. They are not the exclusive province of religious belief. So, no, they do not promote a particular religious belief.