The Michael Medved show is a national radio show broadcast out of Seattle, Washington. According to Talkers magazine, he has the fifth largest radio audience.
The MP3 file is available for download. (38 minutes)
The description is:
On this episode of ID the Future, the Medved Show hosts the CSC’s Casey Luskin and student Zack Kopplin, a leading activist in the effort to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act. Luskin and Kopplin debate the implications of the Louisiana law for science education standards and whether or not the law promotes the teaching of creationism.
Topics:
- Medved: Should teachers be forced to teach creationism in public schools?
- Luskin: The Discovery Institute has never advocated that creationism be taught in public schools
- Medved: Does the Louisiana law mandate that creationism be taught in public schools
- Kopplin: Yes, the bill does because Bobby Jindal said that the bill teaches creationism
- Luskin: (Reads the actual text of the law) the law EXPLICITLY STATES that teaching creationism is forbidden
- Luskin: Governor Jindal is misinformed about the law, but if you look at the law it says NO CREATIONISM
- Kopplin: I don’t care about what the law actually says, I’ll just repeat that Bobby Jindal thinks it’s creationism
- Kopplin: Thirty years ago, there was an attempt to mandate creationism, therefore this law is doing the same thing
- Medved: Are there any complaints that creationism is being taught in any schools after this law has been passed
- Kopplin: No, I don’t know of any, but that’s not because there are none! Maybe there are some that I haven’t heard about yet
- Medved: If you are taught something that you think is stupid, then is that automatically a violation of your rights?
- Kopplin: Because you cannot allow the progress of science to call the religion of naturalism into question
- Luskin: About that Jindal quote – he was talking about what he wanted to pass, not the law that actually passed
- Luskin: (reads the text of the law again) The law explicitly says that teaching creationism in the classroom is prohibited
- Luskin: Intelligent design is not creationism. Creationism starts with the Bible. Intelligent Design starts with science
- Luskin: The law only supports teaching both sides of things that are already in the curriculum
- Luskin: ID is not already in the curriculum, therefore, the law does not allow it to be discussed
- Medved: Take Stephen C. Meyer’s book on the origin of life, could that be used in the classroom?
- Kopplin: I am not very familiar with Meyer’s book, but if it is critical of Darwinism and naturalism, then it should not be taught. I don’t need to read it before I can censor it
- Luskin: Meyer’s book advocates for ID, so it should not be taught in science classrooms
- Luskin: non-ID science papers that are critical of Darwinism should be allowed in science classroom so students get both sides
- Medved: Consider this brand new Oxford University Press book that is critical of Darwinian mechanisms, authored by Masatoshi Nei who is at Penn State University professor (written up on Evolution News)
- Medved: Should this research critical of Darwinism be allowed in science classrooms?
- Kopplin: I don’t know if this book should be allowed in science classrooms
- Kopplin: I already know without reading anything though that there will never be evidence that supports intelligent design
- Kopplin: There is no evidence against Darwinism and there is no controversy and there is no disagreement among scientists
- Luskin: There are hundreds of papers in mainstream science peer-reviewed publications critical of Darwinism
- Luskin: (lists a stack of papers critical of core tenets of Darwinian theory from respect science journals in the last few years)
- Luskin: Masatoshi Nei recently posted a comment critical of the usefulness of the mutation-selection mechanism
- Luskin: The real issue is whether students are allowed to hear mainstream scientific criticisms of Darwinism in the science classroom
- Medved: Is it OK for a teacher to admit that on a specific issue in science, that there is no credible naturalistic explanation?
- Kopplin: I am a history major, so I don’t want to comment on whether it is OK to admit that naturalism doesn’t explain everything
- Luskin: A Harvard chemist says that the origin of life is an open issue in this peer-reviewed journal article
- Luskin: Teachers should be allowed to say that there is no accepted naturalistic explanation for the origin of life
- Luskin: teachers should NOT be teaching religion, or creationism, or even intelligent design in science classrooms
- Luskin: but teachers should be allowed to say what the Harvard chemist said in that peer-reviewed article in the science classroom
- Kopplin: there was a creationist woman who sat next to the Discovery Institute person when the law was being debated
- Kopplin: so based on that there is a scary hidden creationist agenda behind the law which is not reflected in the actual text law
- Luskin: Um, that woman has no connection to the Discovery Institute
- Luskin: seating arrangement at the hearings were pre-determined, not selected by those in attendance
- Luskin: what about people who are pushing Darwinism, who are anti-religious atheists and humanists? should they be disqualified?
- Luskin: we should not discredit the arguments of either side based on speculations about their motives – what counts is the evidence
- Kopplin: but I have a letter signed by lots of Nobel-prize winning scientists that opposes the Louisiana science education law
- Luskin: but that letter never actually quotes from the law, it is critiquing views that have nothing to do with the actual law
- Medved: Summarize your views
- Kopplin: Criticism of Darwinism and naturalism using mainstream scientific evidence SHOULD NOT be allowed in the science classroom
- Luskin: Criticism of Darwinism and naturalism using mainstream scientific evidence SHOULD be allowed in the science classroom
And there is a period of questions from the callers.
This episode features a debate, so it is not to be missed. it is always a good idea to hear both sides. Unfortunately, ID people are the only ones who think that both sides should be heard.
I subscribe to the ID the Future podcast, and I really recommend that you do as well!
WINTERY KNIGHT 