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."
I pray that the day after this law passes, a biology teacher somewhere in the state walks into his classroom and spends the entire day showing how the fossil record contradicts the silly Genesis story in the Bible--knowing he's now protected by a law that says his principal and angry parents can't do jackshit to stop him.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The knife cuts both ways: Science teachers are now free to say "Creationism is delusional nonsense" without fear of reprisal.
Trolling is a art,
I have the right to teach Evolution in Sunday School?
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Now the students can write "God did it" on every question without the fear of getting a bad grade.
It is unfortunate that once again a group tried to legislate into "fact" what it cannot argue or demonstrate to be factual.
Shall we give equal rights to other religions? to be taught as facts about the formation of stars? Mohammedism? Buddhistology? shall we make the celestial teapot fact, by law?
The quote "explore controversial topics without fear of reprisal" sounds like the kindle for a flame war to me. It just means that teachers can make fun of or downplay topics that other teachers are teaching "without fear of reprisal".
Because apparently, we're devolving into a nation of idiots.
"Freedom of speech may be part of the Constitution, but I know of a place where the Constitution doesn't mean squat."
(The Supreme Court)
Requoting a sentence :
"...a bill that encourages science teachers to explore controversial topics without fear of reprisal."
So the article went straight from that wonderfully enlightened bill and went for creationism? Not partner preference, abortion, unsafe health conditions, or stem cells?
You could write 100 articles from that bill.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
...and see how long it takes for this law gets amended.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
At first I thought 'Tennessee Bill' was some sort of Tea Party superhero.
If I wanted my kids to learn about creationism or intelligent design wouldn't I take them to a church? Or teach them myself? If my kids are learning about creationism in school and NOT evolution, I should be able to choose, and be funded by the state, to send my kids to a school that teaches observable science. Church/School/State should always be separated imo.
In the interest of open dialog that truly allows learning and discovery, I pray the opposite of you. I pray that a teacher will actually question the so called science of evolution, as something not observable or repeatable.
no comment
Personally I would take this opportunity to enlighten students in the way of Pastafarianism, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster...
When I made the mistake of moving to Tennessee from Florida, my children were way ahead of the others in both high school and middle school. They became bored. I was very surprised and disappointed to find the local high school was promoting religion instead of spending more time on the basics. When we moved back to Florida they had a lot of catching up to do -- initially it was tough but I'm lucky they're bright kids.
Tennessee is a state where you still have white people calling black people "boy", where the people I met were alarmingly uneducated, and where kids have no bright futures waiting for them. It is a backwoods stretch of stench, a blight to our nation.
Hey there are teachers at universities that teach that the 9/11 attacks where a plot by the US government and they get defended on the grounds of Academic freedom.
http://media.www.smithsophian.com/media/storage/paper587/news/2007/09/20/News/Umass.Professor.Supports.911.Conspiracy.Theory-2984244.shtml
Where do you draw the line? I agree that Creation science isn't but then I have heard teachers spout all sorts of tripe over the years. I know of one child that actually had a teacher that when she found out that she was a member of a certain religion start teaching a course about the history of the religion from a very negative view point and full of miss information. The school defended her teachers right to teach history how she saw fit and that was in high school.
So do you want the government to tell teachers what they can and can not teach?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Just say:
The bill also says that its "shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."
And apparently it's all OK.
But yes, I look forward to a few teachers starting to teach the wackiest stuff they can think of. I'd pick old-school, myself. The four humors and all that.
Over 92% of Americans believe in God, but most Slashdotters don't, correct? I mean, not just saying they don't but degrading or belittling anyone's belief if they do.
Vescere bracis meis.
Who is Tennessee Bill?
Most Christians are pretty ignorant as to what the bible actually says, so let me offer what might be a different view than has been presented here before:
It would be pretty stupid for any Christian to say that the Earth is a meager 6000 years old, yet they do it anyway. However, there is pretty clear text that says that to God, time is of no consequence. "A day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day" and all that. Now, consider that in the "seven days" that he created the world, day and night didn't even exist until the 4th day (correct me if I got the "day" wrong), which means that the way that we're measuring this time is wrong. So, the entirety of the creation process that is documented in the Bible is not something that Christians should be using to try and disprove Evolution, because it makes no mention whatsoever about how the inhabitants of the planet were created, and why would it be so wrong to believe that a creator would use the biological laws of the world he'd created to achieve said end?
Just consider it.
Oh no. Does this mean teaching of the FSM is legalized?
Can I teach that Thanksgiving was invented by the Turkey Voluntary Extinction movement?
I really want my child to learn about atheism. On Sunday we will sit and read Richard Dawkins books. Which is a bit hard going as I agree with him; but he is a bit too smug.
Dueling Banjos is the state song. And on the ballot is Toothless Man vs. Mountain Man. If they don't secede, can we kick them out of the union to keep them out of DC?
This whole debate has everyone asking the wrong questions.
The problem is public education in the first place. Allow people to create schools however they want (without being crowded out by public education) and let the fittest survive.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
I just have one question. What is wrong with this bill as written? Go to the link and read the bill. It is amazingly clear for a law. I do not see anything in the bill that disagrees with positions taken on slashdot everyday by people from every ideological perspective. Just the other day we had a topic on here about how for most people science is something they take on faith. People were talking about how science is designed to be critiqued. This bill proposes that science teachers teach students how to do that "in an objective manner".
Forget what you think is wrong about the motivations of those who have written this bill. Evaluate this bill on the basis of what it actually says. I do not see any hidden phrases that allow it to enable some religious takeover of science education.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
so who needs it? that answer straightens out quite a bit of theatrical prop work? on to the tower of babel? convergences are pending.
using the genuine native american elders rising bird of prey leadership initiative (teepeeleaks etchings), there's more bad behavior than just real sex religious training, physical alterations & mutilations, depopulations, exterminations etc.. in our real history. our minds & spirits are also affected, but not dead yet, either. the planet will repair itself. will we? could probably breed out that hymen thing in a 1000 years or so, if nobody goes deity holycost on us again, ever. monkeys don't have one.
Who is Tennessee Bill, and why hasn't our FSM reached out to him?
That is all.
The anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment to the US constitution still trumps state law. Since the US Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that Creationism, "intelligent design", etc. are religious doctrine, they still cannot be taught in public school science classes, even in Tennessee. Just because this bill says they are not promoting religious doctrine doesn't make it so. If this passes, it will get tossed out as violating established constitutional law.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Why didn't soulkil opt for "Tennessee Bill Helps Teachers Challenge Genesis" or "Tennessee Bill Helps Teachers Present Evolution" To the implication was that teachers could NOT teach evolution...
I can start a debate on whether the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster is regular pasta, whole wheat grain variety or both? Or would this fall under the school's nutrition program? RAMEN!
This only means less competition in the work place for people who actually have a brain.
funny
I find it quite sad to see so many jurisdictions enshrining an ignorance of basic science into law, and defending the right of people to be both incredibly wrong, and to have their heads up their asses at the expense of verifiable scientific facts and discourse.
If your god intended you to be a drooling idiot, he wouldn't have given you the capacity to think.
I don't have a problem with religion, but when it decides that stupidity is the best course, and that it's best to ignore what we actually know about the world around us, it's quite pathetic.
I fail to see why religion needs to be compatible with basic science ... I realize there's a lot of different variations on Christianity, but even the Vatican has accepted basic science. It seems like the more you demand the right to deny evolution and the like, the more likely you are to be a wacky, radicalized person who insists that only your interpretation of the bible is correct -- and that anybody who disagrees with you is evil.
The friggin' Scopes Trial was in 1925 -- but it seems like some people are still convinced that there is a need to live in the dark ages and pretend we haven't learned anything ... though, TV and Wal Mart don't seem to be a problem.
This is like not marking children wrong on anything factual because everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and maybe little Billy really felt that 2+2=5, and we don't want to hurt his feelings.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Of course it isn't.
But it IS "an either-or proposition" if you insist on a LITERAL interpretation of The Bible.
You can be religious and understand/accept evolution and understand that "The Garden of Eden" was a parable.
You CANNOT believe that The Garden of Eden was a physical location on Earth and understand/accept evolution.
Not without some serious mental gymnastics about a trickster god.
There are a few things that you need to understand about why this is an issue. Christianity collapses entirely without the Creation story. While under Judaism, it was just a parable to explain the creation of the world, Christianity gives this story teeth for the following reason: The basis for Jesus's sacrifice was that Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden. From the Instant that happened, with the exception of a few Jews that followed the laws of Moses, 99.999% of all Humans all born on Earth before or since were damned to Hell. Thats the only reason the evolution issue is an issue at all. If this myth isn't true (and it isn't.) Christianity collapses and Jesus died for absolutely no reason than being a cult leader the Romans wanted to execute. (make no mistake, Christianity IS a doomsday cult.)
A few things about the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh:
- He started out as part of a War God along side two other gods, Ba'al, and Asherah. When their followers were eradicated Yahweh was given the title of 'Elohim'
- Jehovah is Yahweh in German
- He is a male God. Who advocates male supremacy and is VERY misogynistic
- He is very mean, cruel, and most Humans have a morality superior to Yahweh, in his original form. Yahweh has been watered down a whole bunch.
- Yahweh is often refered to as 'The Lord' due to Censorship in English copies of the Bible. It is considered a violation of the Ten commandments to call Yahweh, 'Yahweh'.
The issue is that for reasons of social control. US Christians do not believe their civilization will survive without Christianity. Yahweh is a tribal god that his followers keep extending and expanding his powers. Yahweh is not real, he is only as powerful as his followers say he is. As such, without an all powerful Yahweh to bind everyone, and keep the masses in line, A whole lot of people who make a whole lot of money, and have a whole lot of power stand to lose their power if belief in Yahweh fades.
Another thing is there are Humans in this world who believe the myth of Heaven and Hell. To those people, when the 'end' comes, they are supremely worried that Yahweh will let exactly zero Humans (or at least not them) into Heaven. The creation myth is a big part of the idea that Jesus died for the original sin of Man. The religion doesn't work if the Garden of Eden never happened.
I'll admit, it's been almost 20 years since I've been in high school. In Texas. Not only do I not recall any debate about the issue then, I don't even remember EITHER side being discussed in any great detail. What "science" class would discuss evolution anyway, except perhaps biology, where it's reasonably appropriate. Even so, it's a topic that would consume all of about 10 minutes. As far as religion goes, the most in-depth discussion about that would be in my senior English class when we were reading Dante.
I don't even understand why anyone's so excited about this. So an amino acid popped out of the primordial soup some 4 billion years ago. Was it random chance, or did some higher power guide that moment. Maybe some passing alien spacecraft dumped its garbage and it leaked out. The point is, from that moment on, all of history is exactly the same. All of the biological sciences are exactly the same. It doesn't freaking matter how it happened, we just know it happened. So if some teacher wants to say that some people believe that God created all life on Earth by manipulating the first amino acid into forming, then let them. All we're proving here is that people on both sides of the debate have WAY too much free time on their hands.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
This allows teachers to present alternate theories to evolution, not "finally teach evolution" like many posters are indicating. I went to a public highschool in Tennessee. Contrary to popular belief, the "religious South" does not teach Creationism in public schools. Teachers are forced to teach evolution and nothing else. They can't even answer questions about alternate theories, which is ridiculous. Science should be no more immune to critique, question, and criticism than religion ought to be. Nothing is too sacred to question, be it faith, science, or personal beliefs.
Additionally, also contrary to popular belief, evolution and creationism can co-exist. Strict young-earth creationists won't agree, but those with a open mind can find plenty of ways to allow them to coexist just fine.
*equips anti-flame armor* Here come the responses lol
We will use science to destroy wisdom and blind ourselves to what cannot be weighed or measured.
We will use use religion to become insane and become deaf to the truth..
If Science and Religion do not become one, the human species won't be around for a very long time I am afraid.
Each alone releases horrific consequences, but together they form a philosophy that can take us to the stars, or perhaps beyond our current Universe.
Religion will provide us the faith to try and get there
Science will provide the means.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
And that is exactly why "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism" is NOT a science and should NEVER be taught in a science class.
Science requires that any hypothesis or theory be falsifiable. At least in theory. It may be impossible to perform the experiment to falsify it.
With non-science, there is no way to falsify it.
If the experiment shows A, then the creator wanted it to.
If the experiment shows B, then the creator wanted it to.
Since it is not science, it should not be taught (even as a "controversy") in a science class.
Leave it in the social sciences / philosophy classes.
Theories.. These are all theories. There may be archeological evidence that seems to support evolution. There may be archeological evidence that seems to support the stories taught in the Bible and many other ancient religious texts. Why is it that some theories are accepted so profoundly as truth by one group, and then another group is mocked and slandered for accepting a different theory? All the comments here that mock creationism and open ideology are sad and contradictory to the idea of open discussion of theories and possibilities. This isn't progress. This is conflict.
I wonder if other professors or teachers in the past had to defend themselves when they spoke about the number zero which at one time didn't make sense or was feasible to the masses or other teachers, or had to defend themselves when they tried to say the world was round when the general consensus in the scientific realm was that the world was flat, or that there really wasn't any ether, etc...
I consider myself religious, but to try to demand that one line of thinking is fact and all others are "silly", is just being plain close minded and ignorant. I'm sure back in the days "when ether existed" there were plenty of scientists that could "prove" that it existed, as well as "prove" that the world was flat or that "zero" didn't really exist as a number.
Maybe we should instead have our kids learn to make decisions and build their brains to come up with new ideas and thoughts instead of trying to ram other's ideas down their throats like it is the "absolute truth", whether it be creationism, intelligent design, evolution, or 2 + 2 = 4. I'd much rather my kids learn to learn and think for themselves than to walk through life with some basic knowledge that may be disproved either at some point of their lives or hundreds of years from now.
If you can teach evolution alternatives with legal impunity:
I don't even need a ??? step!
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
and you can't fire me for claiming so. Or give a presentation that yanking off keeps the prostrate healthy. That'll get the fundie school board's panties in a knot.
Table-ized A.I.
So the 47th and 36th ranked states in K-12 education are the two leading proponents for this. Say no more.
Controversy or well accepted should not be the grounds for teaching. Teachers should teach topics that have proof reguardless of how contraversial. Gravity is uncontraversial and has proof (Teach It!) Evolution is very contraversial and has proof (Teach It) Intellegent design is contraversial and does not have a shred of proof (Don't Teach it) The real litmus test should NOT be how contraversial something is, but rather is it based on fact or faith.
Want to teach creationism or intelligent design? Go ahead, but do so in a theology class. Those concepts have no business whatsoever being taught in a science class.
If this thing passes anyone who cares about their child's education should move out of that state.
What a travesty. Between this, the fixation on celebrity culture and a total lack of work ethic America is truly doomed.
No part of a story about the world being created some 6 thousand years ago by a magical sky wizard adds up to dinosaurs that were around millions and billions of years ago.
According to creationists, the large reptile/bird creatures we call "dinosaurs" were called taninim (sing. tanin) by the ancient Hebrews. Some dinosaurs, those too big to fit in a 450 by 75 by 45 foot barge built under the direction of Noah Lamechson, died in the great flood of 1656 Anno Mundi. Smaller ones, such as the velociraptor Deinonychus famous from Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton, may have been hunted to death before the flood. Still other creatures were aquatic, such as the plesiosaur (one of the possibilities for Heb. leviathan), but could not adapt to the post-flood composition of seawater. As for fossil records and radioisotope dating, young-Earth creationists have their own theories on how the flood interferes with those.
Really that is what it all boils down to. No person or group has any right not to be mortally offended. That is what free speech is really all about. There is no real argument about evolution and the Bible. So what if God used evolution to create all things. Evolution is simply one tool that God might choose to use. And we have no clue about what Genesis means by seven days and seven nights either. For all we know God used Lucifer to create heaven and Earth just so we would have things like jock itch, athlete's foot and tooth ache in our world.
I think Tennessee Bill's existence itself challenges evolution!
"So don't get programmed by anybody but yourself" --Bill S. Preston, Esquire
Yes, you have the right to find a church that will allow you to teach Evolution in Sunday School.
"I deal only in facts, that's why I'm a cocky fuckin' bastard." -- Bill Hicks
The problem is that clamping your hands over your ears and screaming "Lalalalalala I can't hear you!" has become a viable strategy. There seems to be no selection process against it. If we're in the woods and I tell a conservative a mushroom is poisonous and they shouldn't eat it and they do, the problem resolves itself. In the modern day, I can tell them a fact that's every bit as true as the one about the mushroom such as deficits mattering but it doesn't just kill them, it kills both of us. What's wrong with this picture?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Pastafarianism predicts a decrease in global temperature as piracy increases, as evidenced by the fact that the Golden Age of Piracy occurred during a little ice age. But the lack of rapid global cooling after Napster and the P2P outbreak that followed it would appear to disprove this prophecy.
The bill's text, if passed into state law, would protect teachers from discipline if they "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught," namely, "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
This presents no advancement of ID and only allows for -scientific- criticism and exploration of evolution (something which anyone worthy of calling themself a "scientist" is going to readily support).
Happy: Science teachers should most definitely explore controversial topics. All teachers should explore controversial topics. That is a fundamental part of teaching.
Sad: Does this mean that prior to this law, a teacher could not discuss a controversial topic? That is frightening!
I don't understand the criticism though:
Critics say the measure will enable K-12 teachers to present intelligent design and creationism as acceptable alternatives to evolution in the classroom.
How so? It seems like it would do the opposite by allowing good science without fear of political reprisal.
...protect teachers from discipline if they help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught..."biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." The bill also says that its "shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."
Two comments here:
(1) The constitution says something along the lines of "...Separation of Church and State." Let me be VERY clear on this. That does not mean "NO RELIGION IN SCHOOLS OR GOVERNMENT". That simply means, that the government has no right or authority to designate a certain religion, or discriminate against a certain religion.
(2) I perfectly understand that people have their owns beliefs of how the world got here. A song writer wrote "Can we agree to disagree?". In a country where we have the freedom to choose, I believe you have the right to choose what you want to believe. However, you DO NOT have the right to shove your belief down my throat. I encourage you to examine the two most popular beliefs of how the world came to be: Creation or Evolution. Ask yourself this question as you do this: "Why am I here, and what is my purpose?". I think you will find that is the question people want an answer too.
no loss
Who mod'ed that up?
It makes the same old mistake that we see every time this topic comes up.
A scientific theory is NOT the same as a "theory".
A scientific theory is NEVER "proven".
A scientific theory can only be shown to be flawed.
You are 100% wrong.
...though that could lead to a very interesting - if short - discussion in science classes in Tennessee about the evidence for the efficacy of prayer...
As far as I am concerned the practice of religion should be confined to adults only. The teaching of religion should be treated with the same disgust as grooming of children for child abuse.
Another step back toward the Middle Ages.
If they want religion taught in public schools it should be offered as an alternative to Greek or Roman Mythology and not to science.
What's next, the Inquision?
I can see how it would break the establishment clause to teach "X is true", but not for "Catholics say X is true".
http://xkcd.com/556/
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Ther needs to be a followup.
The option to make kids aware of the existence of alternatives to the mainstream thinking is great, however there now needs to be constant checking to make sure it stays balanced, otherwise this opportunity will get hijacked by radical teachers to only teach a wildly unbalanced personal agenda.
So entities would no longer be able to choose to undergo arbitration under, say, either Sharia or Jewish Law, if they so choose--as they have innumerable times in the past. (One would think that people who claim to be as in love with the constitution as the Teabaggers would be aware of the Supremacy Clause anyway.) TN is a hopeless redneck state. I move that we question the legitimacy of having brought it back into the Union. TN seceded; it's not in my country.
I am reading the book Anarchy Evolution; Faith, Science, and Bad Religion and remember reading a passage that fits this perfectly:
"Sometimes creationists argue that educators should be forced to 'teach the controversy.' But there is no scientific controversy, just a social controversy."
It is completely absurd that intelligent design would be taught in a "science" curriculum since there is not one single piece of scientific evidence to support it thus meaning that intelligent design and creationism don't fit the definitions of science. However,I love the comments on here about how this can be used to an advantage in now being able to scientifically show how ridiculous the claims made by religion truly are and allow students to investigate it for themselves and make up their own minds.
Just say:
The bill also says that its "shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."
And apparently it's all OK.
But yes, I look forward to a few teachers starting to teach the wackiest stuff they can think of. I'd pick old-school, myself. The four humors and all that.
I suspect that the problem there is that the school board can find other reasons to fire you, move you to the special ed class, or find some other way to make sure you won't be teaching the potential leaders of tomorrow, if you piss them off.
In my high school there was a push going on from the religious right which amounted to about a dozen "holier than thou" troublemakers - my Biology teacher was itching for a fight but all the nuts were next door. The position was then as it should always be-- it is a SCIENCE education and it is up to the teacher to spend as much time as they choose explaining the science; they can address stupid creationist questioning or they can simply shut up the student; who has no right to speak to the point of being disruptive. If they fail to learn the SCIENCE in a SCIENCE class then they get an F. They can believe what they will but they can't be exempt from doing what the course requires. This is what some of them next door complained about and their lower grades didn't result in any legal battles; however, I suspect they were still given leniency from the retiring teacher next door. This group did fight for recognition of their prayer group and schools are truly terrorized by lawsuits; they didn't get formal recognition but they informally got more than some legit activities.
Read the actual bill, the Science Mag reporter is a moron.
If it reaches any higher court, it will be killed. Just like it was last time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard
A law that allows teachers to explore controversial topics without fear of reprisal also works the other way - someone wanting to explain creationism might have been afraid to do so before but is free to do so now. It will be interesting to see what happens in practice as a result.
Basically though the law is a very good one as a real scientists should be able to explore all sides and explain potential flaws for every theory from different angles.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The J and E thread reverse which comes first, animals or man. That's my favorite part about creationists - their own book gets it wrong almost immediately.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
I'm 30 years old and from the South. When I was a child evolution was the only acceptable subject that could be taught in science class. We discussed the religions of the world, including Christianity, in social studies. They were discussed and evaluated through an academic lens. In freshman Biology a girl raised her hand and asked the teacher: "Do you really believe in evolution?" with an astonished look on her face. The rest of the class snickered and the teacher said that of course she did. It was truly funny to the rest of us that she would be that sheltered. Fundies where a lot less common back then. There were one or two in each class but most people were only passively religious if at all. We weren't exactly in the boonies but we were in a small city bordered on all sides by about fifty miles of rural farmland. It frightens me how much and how fast things have changed. On Slashdot the European readers love to scoff at the backwards Americans but just ten years ago this sort of thing would be laughable. My great-grandmother was devoutly religious, my grandmother is religious, my mother was barely religious, and I am not religious at all. This is the trend that I grew up with and what I saw in most of my friends' lives. Somewhere along the line things shifted and that trend reversed.
I'll comment anyway (it will at least be valide about the abstract).
"a bill that encourages science teachers to explore controversial topics without fear of reprisal." Science teachers teach science thats a specific job description. Creationism is not science so science teachers can't teach it, thats religion studies or philosophy down the hall.
If the title of this post had been: "TN Bill Helps Science Teachers Avoid interference" then 90% of you would not have even reacted. Just because you respond like a mob with pitchforks, does not magically make this bill an attack on all that is your holy shrine of science...The bill does expressly prohibit a teacher to push a religion of any kind. As many of you have aptly pointed out, this bill protects the teaching of evolution just as much as it does the teaching of creationism. If a teacher addresses creationism, they are required to do so only in terms of its scientific strengths and weaknesses. The bill expressly only protects the relaying of scientific information.
hmm... then how did anything increase into a more complex structure? Survival does not imply progression.
Neither does the theory of evolution.
Evolution is a theory which has yet to be proven.
You really have no idea how science works. FFS go read a book on the subject. Firstly, evolution has been observed both in the laboratory and in nature. Look up Lenski's work on Cit+ E. Coli, polyploidy in Spartina Anglica (and look at what that does to the size of the genome) and the Red Vizcacha Rat. Secondly, the theory of evolution attempts to describe how this works. Note that it is a theory, which means that it has been critically tested, has not been falsified and has a high degree of evidential backing. Note also that theories are both contingent and corrigible.
From a non-religious point-of-view, there is absolutely no reason that evolution should be granted any merit beyond intelligent design.
Unfortunately it seems that all the proponents of "Intelligent Design" in the States just happen to be fundamentalist Christians and their "designer" seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to the god of the bible. If, one day, a computer program gains self-awareness, would it be correct in arguing that it simply 'came to be', and it did not have an intelligent designer? And this ridiculous argument was debunked before it was made by one of the great British philosophers, David Hume. Here's may take on it using your example. A computer program runs on a computer, the program will have at least one designer who will probably be different to the person who writes the code. The computer itself will have multiple designers and multiple manufacturers, so your supposed "intelligent designer" looks like a large team already. You will note the team live in the same universe as the software and the computer is made out of material in that universe. Given the number of bugs in virtually all software it would look like these designers and implementers are neither omnipotent or omniscient. Further you will not that the likes of Grace Hopper, Edsgar Djikstra and Alan Turing are all dead, so it doesn't look as though your designers are immortal either. If you are going to use an argument from analogy then you might find it useful to choose an example that has more similarities than dissimilarities to thing you are going to compare it with.
The Bible says that the world is flat and that the Sun orbits the Earth. Any intellectually honest proponent of the Talking Snake Theory of Creation would also be defending geocentrism and platygaeanism alongside creationism (moreso, since there are direct claims about platygaeanism and geocentrism in the Holy Bible), but we all know that they are not interested in intellectual honesty.
They've been playing the "God of the gaps" game for some time now, and they've noticed that the gaps keep shrinking and becoming fewer in number, so they're switching strategies from "God of the gaps" to "deny reality". It doesn't matter that their arguments have gone from questionable to openly laughable as long as their followers are gullible enough to swallow whatever they are fed.
Yeah I always wondered that. Like what kind of education and careers to these people have?
Kind of hard to be a Geologist if you think the world is 5000 years old. Astrophysics would be right out the door also... etc...
Anyway there will always be idiots, I think the bigger concern should be teaching better teachers, as apparently that is one job that you can do and having wacko ideas like the world being 5000 years old isn't going to be an impediment...
The issue is that evolution isn't controversial. Hell, even the Catholic Church recognizes it.
Not quite, the Catholic church promotes "theistic evolution" or "evolution with added god". This isn't compatible with the TofE in that it isn't naturalistic and it is teleological. Catholics are forbidden to believe in "atheistic evolution".
Back in the 80s, my biology teacher in Oklahoma said she was required by the state to discuss creationism; and she did so. Also telling us that she was required by the state to do so. She spent all of about 5 minutes doing so, including shooting down the DNA is code argument.
But the teachers in TN, should also mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, now that they're required to discuss alternative theories.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
I think you do not understand what "literal" means in this context.
Believing that The Garden of Eden was a place on Earth inhabited by Adam and Eve who were tempted blah blah blah is a literal interpretation of The Bible.
Then you do NOT subscribe to a literal interpretation. It's that easy.
Go buy a dictionary. Or use one of the on-line versions. You don't know what "literal" means nor do you grasp "straw man".
Who cares? This isn't about your personal interpretation (being non-literal) of anything.
Which is why your beliefs should NOT be taught in a science class.
if the world weren't about to end.
...shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine.
Logically:
...shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine.
=...shall not be construed to promote any doctrine.
=...shall be construed to promote no doctrine.
---> Nothing gets taught at school!
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Y'all niggahs are livin' in a TROLL STATE.
..seriously, is someone going to reign in the poop-eaters at some point? This is getting rediculous. The U.S. is full of rather dumb people right now, and the U.S. in general is just getting dumber and dumber with each passing year.
Because God told me it's true.
I can't wait to see this lawsuit turn up somewhere in the bible belt, where a student sues for getting an "F" on a test, and submits that because God told him that 2+2=5 the teacher has no right to dispute that knowledge as false.
Only after we get some incredibly stupid shit will people see the error of their ways. However, I've *already* seen some incredibly stupid shit, and frankly, it seems to be getting stupider with no sign of abating. Perhaps some time in the suture 2+2=5 will be accepted as fact, and no one will even bother trying to correct anyone.
We are truly headed for 'Idiocracy" where "ass" wins the academy award for best script.
Where is the FSM in all this? Can *that* theory also be taught in Tennessee Schools?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
As long as they teach that all religions, past and present, are credible alternatives, I'm fine with it. Teaching ID won't seem nearly as as appealing if they have to discuss Zeuss and Quetzalcoatl as equally likely as the Christian god. Pastafarianism deserves mention too. Don't let them single out Christianity as the best alternative.
Does this mean in these two states it would be legal for a bio-teach to profess that we are actually the descendants of aliens?!!
I can't believe I'm saying this, but .. I don't think it's useful to use the Catholic Church as the baseline for intellectual standards anymore. I'm an American, and we do everything better. The Vatican? Oh please. I bet our own natives were molesting children long before someone first came up with the word "Pope" as a business plan.
To the extent that teachers use this new law to actually teach, I'm all for it. Critical thinking and exploring all sides of an issue are important for students. But... what is to be feared is if this law is used to allow teachers to ignore/misrepresent facts in order to create a false controversy. From the examples the Bill gives, it's almost certain that the drafters of it don't want Pastafarianism or Hinduism or pink unicorns discussed in classrooms. They want teachers to be able to confidently ignore mountains of evidence supporting evolution in order to claim that there is a HUGE controversy and it's entirely valid to dismiss said evidence and believe a 2000 year old book instead.
**facepalm**
Darwin simply stated that it was survival of the fit (not fittest). So it is not about each generation being superior to the previous, it is a matter of each generation reflecting the traits of the most prolific of the previous set. In harsher times this meant that those who hunted the best were more likely to have offspring that made it to mating age. In modern times groups with morals against condoms, and for large families will represent a growing share of the population, while the well educated with access to birth control, forethought about the tradeoffs of procreation, etc will have fewer kids and be a smaller slice of the population.
Since the education of your parents is a good indicator of your education level (vastly fewer college grads have dropout parents than the other way around) it is likely that lower procreation rates among the well educated will cause this to be a shrinking lice of the population.
So yes, from a simplified Darwinian perspective we are presently evolving towards a society of less educated horny Morman's and Catholics. Other countries (i.e. Euroland) have taken roughly the same breeding stock and pointed it the other way.
Christianity and Evolution are very compatible. Christians should not challenge evolution, they should challenge their own theology. Just as God spoke to me one time to let me know he is real, he also let me know my first book was approved by him. In the book I wrote about God, I have an article entitled,"The Long Day Theory", Read it here
God spoke to me.
The Right doesn't want an educated populace, but an ingnorant, compliant, god-fearing one. On this facet, every fundamentalist religion is in complete agreement.
If it weren't for the invention of the con game known as Religion, we'd be travelling amongst the effing stars by now.
A science class should be about science. Creationism and its synonym 'intelligent design' are not science (ruled by an American court), so it has no place in a science class. Furthermore, there is no controversy about evolution in science. The vast majority of scientists accept evolution as a scientific fact.
The controversy of this topic only exists among the general public. Many people know nothing of science, nor its ways to explore and describe the universe. They should have no say in what happens in a science class, because if they would, the only thing students would learn is unchallenged general 'knowledge'.
The theory of evolution by means of natural selection was presented to the world in 1859. It has been widely accepted among biologists for at least 100 years, and has gotten even stronger support with every new discovery since then (genetics, chromosomes, DNA and so on).
From a scientific point of view, there is no controversy. Evolution is right and creationism is wrong, simple as that. Teaching creationism isn't presenting both sides of a controversial issue - it's lying to the students. This bill explicitely says "This section only protects the teaching of scientific information", so creationism should be exempt from its protection since it is, legally speaking, "not a scientific theory" (see McLean v. Arkansas 1981, Edwards v. Aguillard 1987 and Kitzmiller v. Dover 2005).
If the bill is intended to protect teachers who want to teach creationism or intelligent design, I highly doubt it will achieve its purpose.
Why can't public schools just focus on teaching students about the scientific method to the degree that they could apply the process to "controversial" topics and arrive at their own conclusions? Why do they need to be told what to think rather than taught how to think and explore intellectual topics?
This isn't just about science either. Christian parents routinely create all kinds of melodrama in English literature courses because they simply cannot tolerate their children being exposed to viewpoints that aren't vetted by their precious holy book. Would you people kindly take your superstitions back to the madrasas where they belong and fuck off? The rest of us are trying to learn something, not trying desperately to shutdown any kind of opposing perspectives.
Having read the PDF of the law I see no problem in it. They are merely stating that any teacher can teach the scientific strengths and weaknesses of any scientific theory "in an objective manner". To do this they will of course need to teach HOW science works, a process I think most people who've had years of science still do not understand. Maybe with a better understanding of the scientific method people will realize exactly how weak a scientific theory ID is when actually stated as a theory (it usually is stated as a catch all therefore not a true scientific theory since it can not be disproven). Should a teacher not teach HOW the scientific method works and praise ID as a viable theory I see nothing in the law to prevent disciplinary action or even dismissal on the basis they are a bad science teacher. It does after all state they must teach the relative strengths and weaknesses in an objective manner should they champion highly improbable theories over much more probable ones with no rational reasoning behind it they are displaying a considerably unscientific method. In particular challenge them to do the following with ID:
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
Step 3 becomes terrible hard with ID since it really states some "invisible unknown intelligence" is responsible for everything we can not explain (basically mysticism). When this is pointed out it can be almost summarily dismissed as a viable scientific theory.
I have a friend that taught science for many years to high schoolers and it baffled me that he actually did not understand how the scientific process works and that verifiable predictions MUST be a result for any serious theory (even mutli-dimension string theory has some predicted results). Should they specify where, how, when, what form this supposed intelligence takes then reasonable experimentation would be able to look for signs of these results. IMO students should also be taught is that science never totally proves or disproves anything. It merely points out how likely or unlikely the current theories describe the world as we see it and predict future behavior. Theories that have not made predictions and been tested at all are generally considered little stronger than the theory "Godzilla did it".
The fact that this conversation about ID has gone on so long shows how bad our science education is on the most fundamental level. We learn chemistry, biology and physics but most don't understand what even makes them science. Who knows maybe ID will actually help science in this respect. I definitely do not fear it degrading science. Those who want to believe in mysticism will believe in mysticism and those who want to believe in science will believe in science.
Now, scientific marxism-leninism! Nuff' said!
If this goes through, they should be forced to put stickers on the science books that mention such things reading: "This textbook contains material on intelligent design and creationism. Intelligent design and creationism are not only theories, there has never been any evidence discovered to support them at all. This material should be approached with an open mind, laughed at, and tossed in the trash."
...teaching that alternate viewpoints of the origin of the universe and life exist? "Teaching religion" has nothing to do with it. It's simply stating that alternate viewpoints do exist.
then in the extreme limit you would have publicly funded, private, religious education.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
So that means that a teacher who wants to analyze the case that homosexuals are the planet's savior from humans destroying it with overpopulation are protected...
"There has been a widespread pattern of discrimination against educators who would challenge evolution in the classroom," Casey Luskin, a policy analyst for the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute, in Seattle, Washington, told ScienceInsider. "Schools censor from students the evidence against evolution."
Yes. And there has also been a widespread pattern of discrimination against educators who would challenge the fact that the holocaust happened, and schools censor from students the evidence for holocaust denial. Thankfully.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I still don't understand why religion and science are always at each other's throats. Personally I see it as 2 halves of the same coin. If you actually read genesis with an objective mind it actually supports the theory of macro-evolution. God created man "from the dust of the earth," and the order of creation follows the believed evolutionary order. Also, everyone assumes a 100% accurate translation from the original old Hebrew. Language doesn't work that way. "Day" in the original language of genesis is actually a much more loose term and the actual translation depends heavily on context. It could very well mean just a period of time. A more accurate translation would be age or era. Zealots on both sides tend to discount all evidence that contradicts their personal belief system. This goes against all scientific principles along with the biblical admonition to "be humble." The conflicts between religion and science are imagined and played up by the radicals on both sides, and do more to harm humanity's search for our origins than help it.
So Tennessee is tossing aside the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in favor of teaching religious doctrine in public schools. What's next?...Abstinence-only Sex Ed? Witch trials? Burning at the stake? a Christian theocracy?
Does that mean Tennessee teachers can teach the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster, as they can "explore controversial topics without fear of reprisal" ? If so, then I welcome this bill, and hope some of the teachers can teach the ways of his noodliness without getting into trouble.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
Maybe a protest is in order. All can show up at their nearest church and demand the teaching of evolution. If these religious nut jobs want to use the educational system to spread their virus, than I suggest we spread the cure.
One can compare fossils against genesis all they want, the common error here is they both give the possibility that some origin exists, yet neither prove it. The bill notes "chemical origins of life", so I think it is much more restrictive in that quote than open debate about origin vs origin. They actually have to use probable causes and not just possibilities from any imagination. Sometimes people got to stop at the leather bound cover of the bible and wonder about the origins of it's DNA rather than skip to the inner pages. "What species is that cover from?" "Does that species still exist?" "Is that leather bound bible made from human skin?" "If not human, can we still map the DNA of that species?" Real science!
Given that those old leather bound bibles have been handed down for centuries... why do people miss the obvious?
Yet another reason why my kid hasn't seen the inside of the propaganda house in his life, and won't see the inside of one until college.
Can't wait to see all these religious nut jobs get all up in arms when a Science teacher starts trying to teach "Scientology" in the class room instead of the religious views they want to teach.
Same goes for Islam, Wicken, druidism, or any other host of non-christian religions. Oh the fun it will be watching them try and back track on this while still trying to enforce their slanted, non-scientific views in a science room.
But until then, if I owned my own business, I would have to start giving all my applicants science tests for any job I hired for that wasn't flipping burgers and anyone who tries to answer "What happens when you freeze water?" with "God makes ice" is going to be sent back to the 3rd grade as a requirement for working at my job.
Since when was Creationism... science?
"Some people believe that the earth was created by God. However there is no scientific proof that a supreme being ever existed, thus there is no god. However, shall we go over the libraries of scientific studies related to the BBT?"
Can you see the church goers having a fit?
"I've got no problem with god... it's his fan club I'm not to happy with."
-Unknown
The American school system seems to have the unique ability to make anything it teaches horribly uninteresting. None of us worry that they're the mathematics they're teaching are false, or basic geography or history; yet Americans who've been through those lessons generally demonstrate a lesser degree of knowledge of those subjects than people educated in other industrialized nations.
In theory, it's wrong to teach children bad science; but in practice - at least in America - it's probably the fastest way to sour them on religion for the rest of their natural lives. Personally, I think things would be much improved if in the future, Americans spent as much time on religion as they currently do on calculus or classical literature.
teach marxism in the classroom and with a particular focus on a materialist analysis of the history of the Deep South and watch everyone squirm :D
I am ashamed to serve on a boat named after this state.
Terrorists no longer need to use violence: they just need to stir the pot by funding trade unions and Christian extremist groups. Hey wait a second...
From the bill:
"(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion."
I look forward to the day a Tennessee teacher uses the law as an excuse to lecture the kids about how the 9/11 WTC suicide attack was justified. (Note: Not that I believe that. But it's right up there with "Evolution is just another theory among many equally valid")
It may be that those courting alternative ideas have, themselves, failed to evolve. It leads one to believe there could be a genetic factor causing this phenomenon. I tend to think there is a nasty ulterior motive involved to satisfy the lust for control of the mind of the easily
lead. I guess there is a certain satisfaction in convincing others to believe total bulls%^t, as once achieved, anything is possible.