Slashdot Mirror
Tennessee Bill Helps Teachers Challenge Evolution
sciencehabit writes "In a 70-28 vote yesterday, the Tennessee House of Representatives passed HB 368 (PDF), a bill that encourages science teachers to explore controversial topics without fear of reprisal. Critics say the measure will enable K-12 teachers to present intelligent design and creationism as acceptable alternatives to evolution in the classroom. If the bill passes, Tennessee would join Louisiana as the second state to have specific 'protection' for the teaching of evolution in the classroom."
Where do you draw the line?
Primary and Secondary school. Post-secondary students can generally choose which university/college to go to, and generally what classes to take, if they even go to a university instead of something like a trade school. Under-18, you have no choice. You either fork out big bucks for private school, or you go to your local public one. And if your local public school is now allowed to teach you that the scientific method is bunk, then you're going to be woefully un-prepared for anything more advanced.
Intelligent design isn't just bad science. It's bad fact-checking, bad journal publishing, bad sourcing, bad record-keeping. If anything, ID should be held up not as an "alternative" to evolution, but as a case study in "how to get any BS published".
My statistics class had such a study. We had to go through papers and show how the author twisted his stastistics and "massaged" results to get the data he wanted to conclude. ID would be a perfect example.
You can be religious and think ID is a bunch of hooey. This isn't an either-or proposition.
True.
But what happens when someone moves from absolutely believing that the Bible is an infallible document that is absolutely the correct un-tainted word of God, to discovering that it's full of errors, omissions, inconsistencies, and has been changed in thousands of places over time.
Changes that are both accidental and intentional. Changes made for reasons both innocent and manipulative.
It's a big deal to discover that something you thought was infallible has errors.
Then what? If it has one big error , how many more are there?
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
I can not *prove* God exists any more than you can *prove* that God does not exist.
Actually, no, I don't have to prove he doesn't exist. He simply doesn't until you prove he does. There's no impasse here other than your (or anyone's) inability to prove what they believe.
If you don't see the connection between blind faith in something that can't be proven in any fashion, and Charles Manson's delusional followers, well I think we're done here. You can't have one without the other no matter how much you protest.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
if I'm wrong and have deluded myself into belief in a lie for my life, there's no consequence to my belief other than I've followed a lie. I am doing no harm to my fellow man.
You may not be, but plenty of other 'religious' folk seem quite hell bent on imposing their views on the rest of the world. So yes I attribute that to anyone who supports that idea. You can't have one without the other.
TO you it is the same as believing in Santa...to me it is a part of who I am.
I assert that to a 5 yr old it is quite definitely part of who they are as well.
I'm willing to revise my opinions based on evidence, and to date I have found no evidence that God does not exist.
This is the very definition of 'science' that I am in favor of. Having 'evidence' drive things, not fantastical belief systems with no supporting evidence. You seem to agree with me on this point.
And I stand by the concept that as a general rule, athiests seem to have a serious problem accepting that religious people have their beliefs, and feel the need to mock and belittle those with faith for their faith.
I heartily disagree with you. The whole point of the article was about the religious pushing their views onto others. Religious history is literally rife with them pushing their beliefs onto others. Atheists and my ilk object heartily to being forced to accommodate in our lives the beliefs of others that are clearly not based on factual evidence. Again something you say you agree with.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people