Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Mexico Bill To Protect Anti-Science Education

Posted by samzenpus on from the dare-to-be-stupid dept.

An anonymous reader writes "From the Wired article: 'If educators in New Mexico want to teach evolution or climate change as a "controversial scientific topic," a new bill seeks to protect them from punishment. House Bill 302, as it's called, states that public school teachers who want to teach "scientific weaknesses" about "controversial scientific topics" including evolution, climate change, human cloning and — ambiguously — "other scientific topics" may do so without fear of reprimand. The legislation was introduced to the New Mexico House of Representatives on Feb. 1 by Republican Rep. Thomas A. Anderson. Supporters of science education say this and other bills are designed to spook teachers who want to teach legitimate science and protect other teachers who may already be customizing their curricula with anti-science lesson plans.'"

13 of 726 comments (clear)

  1. What scientists... by Barrinmw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...don't believe in the theory of evolution at least in principle? I know there are actual scientists who are skeptical of climate change but evolution?

    1. Re:What scientists... by Morty · · Score: 3, Interesting

      +1. Many public-school science teachers are not even educated as scientists. Actual scientists can command salaries higher than what teachers are paid, so very few people who graduate with a science degree are willing to work in a public high school. This means many teachers are liberal arts folks who got a certificate in education. Many, perhaps even most of these folks still try to do a good job. But some fraction of them bring the same ignorance to bear as in the general population.

    2. Re:What scientists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      >>Actual scientists can command salaries higher than what teachers are paid

      I don't think you understand quite how much teachers are paid.

      Assuming you can even get a meaningful job with a bachelor's in biology, you'll be making less than if you did working as a biology teacher.

    3. Re:What scientists... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      An excellent post. Were I currently in possession of mod points, they would be yours.

      I think the religious lobby pushing this 'controversy' are perhaps smarter (or at least better manipulators) than we give them credit for. They know that we (and by 'we' in this context I mean the general scientific community) would be negating our own arguments if we were not to accept objective facts. Those on the religious side of the argument have realised that if they hit us with facts (such as that evolution is a simplification), however out-of-context or irrelevant they may be, we will always be willing to concede to those facts - our logical integrity gives no other option - but in a political environment, conceding that the opposition's point is valid (whether or not it supports their overall argument) is almost seen as tantamount to endorsing their viewpoint.

    4. Re:What scientists... by bunratty · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, climatologists certainly do not deny that the climate changes naturally. Feel free to point out any that make such a denial. Your claim is simply a straw man argument against global warming.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    5. Re:What scientists... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Irreducible Complexity suffers from major logical flaws. The main premise of it is that some things in nature are so complex that if a part were removed, they could not function in the same way and thus could not have evolved as such. One example used is the bacterial flagella which aids in locomotion. It is comprised of many parts. Behe argued how could something like that been created by evolution alone as missing any of the parts would cause it not to function as a motor. As other scientists pointed out, the flagella may evolved from organelles that had nothing to do with locomotion. They pointed out that the flagella may have evolved under a different purpose like the Type III Secretion system. The Type III Secretion system contains a subset of the same parts as the flagellum. The Type III secretion systems are like syringes that inject poison and could have been a predecessor to the flagellum. Or they could have shared a common predecessor. This is called exaptation and is a well understood evolutionary principle. ie. Wings didn't start out as wings; they might evolved from specialized arms which evolved from specialized feet.

      The other problem with Irreducible Complexity is that is is a negative argument against evolution. It is not a positive argument for creationism. As Judge Jones III put in the Kitzmiller trial:

      the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's

      Because many like Behe have long argued that if evolutions fails in any way, creationism must there be correct. That is a logical fallacy. In the best light, if irreducible complexity disproves evolution, that's all it does. It does not prove creationism.

      A major problem for Behe was the examples he and others have said were irreducibly complex have been shown by the scientific community as not irreducibly complex. The flagellum is one. The human immune system is another. Behe argued many years ago in Darwin's Black Box that science has no answer to how the human system evolved. However since the publication of his book, many scientists have done a great deal of research into the matter and have come up with plausible hypotheses. On the stand, Behe refused to admit that he was wrong even when presented with the research.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:What scientists... by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you can pay $20k a year to get a degree and make $40,000 a year teaching high school biology, gosh, why would you want to do actual science??

      For one thing, science is hard. Many of my grad school classmates have dropped out or "mastered out" as they were tired of research. Others went all the way but knew from the start that research wasn't for them and/or wanted to teach. Most programs require some teaching, many students find they like it much better. For some it's a backup, they finish their degree but aren't good enough at it to do it as a career, or find it pays better than taking a postdoc. When looking at a postdoc position, spending 60 hours a week in lab, versus less or equal pay teaching for less hours a week with better benefits, they might be swayed. Lastly, many grad school science programs pay the student to do research, so it's not that they're paying $20k a year, it's that they're getting paid $17k per year to get a degree then moving up to $40k. They might have student loans from undergrad to pay off, but that's true no matter what you're teaching.

  2. Good. by Yetihehe · · Score: 1, Interesting

    They can teach about scientific weakness, right? How about teaching about scientific weakness of intelligent design? Now they can do it without reprimand. As for which theory is better: if you need to say evolution is right because it's right and not because it predicts things better, isn't it just a dogma?

    --
    Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
  3. Re:How is it anti-science to teach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Exactly, while I believe that evolution will likely be proved to be true, it's still a theory, and there are likely many scientific gains of doubting and searching for rebuttals. Perhaps in searching for ways to disprove evolution we might find more solid proof of it.

  4. Re:Why not? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Things like Creationism aren't science, and therefore do not belong in a science class. They should, however, be discussed in Philosophy class. Oh, wait, that's right. Most US schools do not teach Philosophy anymore.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  5. Re:Why not? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That rather depends on what you mean by open minded. Being prepared to have your explanations demonstrated to be wrong is certainly a prerequesite. Wasting mental power on long debunked claims constantly being dressed up in new clothes is not open mindedness, it's just stupidity.

    Creationism is garbage, ID is Creationism in pseudo-scientific clothes, but in fact even more vapid and meaningless than Creationism. I would not count a young biologist as being closed minded for ignoring the mutterings of the likes of Behe and Dembske.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. Science Classes != Science by tirefire · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anyone still actually believe that science coursework below graduate-level material has anything beyond peripheral involvement with the proper growth of scientists? I mean, sure, nearly every scientist goes through it (read on for one notable exception), but let's be honest - high school science classes fail students in the same way that every other high school class fails students:

    - There is no experimentation whatsoever. Any "lab" work is done in a rigged environment where students go through the motions laid out by an instructor instead of designing and performing their own experiment from scratch.
    - There is a one-size-must-fit-all emphasis on abstraction, bookwork, and lecture. This is not how everyone learns best, or even at all.
    - There is no free association. You see your science teacher (who acts as though he knows everything, when really he just knows everything in the curriculum) and your (clueless) classmates, and that's it. You never interact with people who have conducted / are conducting real research.

    We wouldn't be worrying about ideas like Intelligent Design being discussed in school if we had actual science classes. Since science is more of a process than a product, proper science instruction would allow each student to determine for himself that Intelligent Design, healing crystals, etc. are pseudoscience. When you're just telling people that Evolution=FACT; Anthropogenic-Global-Warming=FACT; Creationism=LIE, there's no real intellectual development taking place. A science curriculum whose core is "these are the facts that our expert scientists agree on" is a great way to politicize science by training young minds to rely on entrenched "experts" to tell them the meaning of things.

    Fun fact: Francis Collins (THE Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project) is a born-again evangelical christian. He thinks religion is the most important thing in his life. He rejects intelligent design. He was homeschooled by middle-of-the-road christian parents.

    Maybe when we talk about science, religion, Intelligent Design, etc. on Slashdot, we could frame our discussion around inspiring people like Collins who manage to find a good balance all on their own. To do otherwise is to basically admit that our schools are brainwashing centers (which they are, but that's another discussion) and that most young minds are powerless to separate fact from fiction on their own (I hope to God they aren't, and if they are, we shouldn't waste money on "science classes" in the first place).

  7. Re:How is it anti-science to teach... by salesgeek · · Score: 1, Interesting

    First of all, no one is saying that a theory's weaknesses can't be discussed, but these kinds of laws are not designed to do that, they are designed to give weight to Creationism and ID

    Government has no business legislating what scientific theories are correct and incorrect, strong or weak or what science is to be taught or not taught. I find it equally absurd that evolutionists and creationists think the correct laboratory to prove their theories is a legislature or a court room.

    --
    -- $G