Tennessee "Teaching the Controversy" Bill Becomes Law

MrKevvy writes "The Tennessee 'Teaching the Controversy' bill was passed into law today. 'A law to allow public school teachers to challenge the scientific consensus on issues like climate change and evolution will soon take effect in Tennessee. State governor Bill Haslam allowed the bill — passed by the state House and Senate — to become law without signing it, saying he did not believe the legislation "changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools."'" The governor adds: "However, I also don’t believe that it accomplishes anything that isn’t already acceptable in our schools."

Comments

Methinks a law of unintended consequences

[crazyjj]

I can't wait for the first lawsuit involving a teacher fired for teaching kids about gay sex in his sex-ed class, or the first atheist teacher who catches even a sideways glance for teaching about evolution openly in any way he/she wants to.

When I went to school in Georgia many years ago, biology teachers would have killed for a law like this. Not so they could preach about Jesus riding a dinosaur, mind you, but so they could teach *evolution* openly with absolutely no fear of retaliation for it.

Try firing Scopes now, you bible-thumping fucktards.

Re:Methinks a law of unintended consequences

[Shatrat]

I don't think this law does what you think it does. I believe the goal of this law is to allow teachers to present creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to natural selection.

Re:Methinks a law of unintended consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

...legitimate scientific alternative...

Despite it being none of these things...

Re:Methinks a law of unintended consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

Modded down? Seriously? How did they do that without thumbs?

Re:Methinks a law of unintended consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile in China, students are learning.

Re:Methinks a law of unintended consequences

[DJRumpy]

Exactly what it is. If I had my child in a Tennessee school and the Teacher started using tax payer money to advance creationism, I would be the first to line up to sue the school, and I hope that is exactly what happens. Tax payer money should not be used to fund religious teachings and any state that thinks this is ok deserves to be hit with a lawsuit.

Stupidity at it's finest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)
The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)
Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not ‘teaching’ ID but instead is merely ‘making students aware of it.’ In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. .... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. .... Defendants’ argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. (footnote 7 on page 46)
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64)
[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)
ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)
Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the publi

Re:Methinks a law of unintended consequences

[Dutchmaan]

"expect yourself and your poor kid to be face serious repercussions." The very teachings of Jesus himself. One can almost see him smiling lovingly down on the persecution of non-believers.

Re:Methinks a law of unintended consequences

[silentcoder]

>"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
--Isaac Newton

Would that be the same Newton who was spent most of his career on a fruitless attempt at alchemy ? The man did all his greatest work by the age of 22 and spent the rest of his life on a road with no destination.
Alchemy was fraud with paganistic rituals and supernatural causation - the very reasons why it was such an abject failure. Contrary to popular opinion- it also didn't become chemistry, chemistry was born from early physics. The only good thing that came out of alchemy was some useful devices which early chemists didn't have to reinvent (like the mortar and pestle).

Which brings us to the next problem with your chosen authority: Isaac Newton was NOT A Christian, never in his life - he specifically refuted Christianity. At that time you weren't allowed to hold a chair at a university in Britain unless you were Christian - they made an exception for Newton specifically (it was quite the scandal at the time) on the basis of his incredible work with optics and the laws of motion.
So why would he say what you quoted ? Because you quoted him out of context. He wasn't talking about the God of Christianity as an intelligent being - his religious views were much more Spinozan, a type of "God in the mechanics of the universe itself" view. Newton could see God in the way light shimmers on a drop of water, not as a person but as part of the universe itself. While Spinozan thought is very interesting and popular among many scientists (the ones who aren't outright atheists) it's definitely not religion in the general sense of the word - since a Spinozan God has no wisdom, authority, laws, personality or indeed - mind.

Which brings us to the biggest problem of all. Your argument is a call-to-authority "Somebody famous for his expertise in the field said it, therefore it's true". That's a fallacy and the most roundly rejected fallacy in all of science. The single most dearly held dream of every scientist is to prove the great authority in his field was WRONG, he sure as hell will not assume that being the authority made somebody right - even if he respects that person's works greatly - it's through proving the authority false that you become an authority.

Finally - Newton is a horrible choice for an authority when it comes to science. He wasn't a scientist. He was a natural philosopher - which is a sort of early fore-runner of science. The scientific method was only really finalized into it's present form in the past two centuries - nothing before that was really science. Some of it was very scientific and laid foundations which later real scientists used (such as Newton's work) at least initially - but none of it was really science yet, it couldn't be because science as a concept didn't exist yet. Newton was no authority on science - he lived before science existed. Even then a philosopher of science is a better source than a scientist for understanding science as CONCEPT - since that is what philosophers of science study. Scientists study the world by doing science - philosophers of science study the scientists and work out what they do and what works (and what doesn't).

It's long been a basic principle of science that you cannot consider anything which claims a supernatural cause to be science. That doesn't mean a scientist can't be religious - many of them are - but it does mean that he has to keep his religion out of his work, or his work stops being science.

Re:Methinks a law of unintended consequences

[ChatHuant]

Meanwhile in China, students are learning.

...learning the version of history approved by their government

It's indeed fortunate that history is taught objectively and neutrally in the US

Re:Methinks a law of unintended consequences

[AlamedaStone]

Damage already done, and for years. Some group of kids is going to be brought up with this "Creationism is good" shit and be basically non-contributing/non-functional members of society.

Might take 4 years to overturn this and guess what? that's a quite large group of kids in Tennessee.

Chalk that up to lack of sex ed and contraception. Remember kids, everything you see and hear and think and feel is wrong. Now take all that shame and let it ferment into hatred for anyone with less shame than you!

Praise Jesus.

Re:Methinks a law of unintended consequences

[Hatta]

It's in the Constitution actually. Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 reads in part "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they[Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Teach the controversy

[TubeSteak]

Aliens built the Pyramids
Teach The Controversy

http://controversy.wearscience.com/

He should have vetoed it.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Not because the bill means anything - I agree that it probably has no effect relative to what is currently allowed - but because we, as a nation, need to get over this urge to make meaningless laws.

If the law has zero net effect, than DON'T MAKE IT LAW!

And if the legislature makes meaningless laws, veto it as a statement of principle. If they want to override, that's their privilege.

Re:There you have it

[Moheeheeko]

"Newton was a commie, gravity is actually God keeping you on the ground."

I weep for the future.

Re:Teaching kids to think requires controversy

[macromorgan]

What debate though? One side is backed up by reason and evidence, and the other is not. There's a lot of facts on one side, and a lot of plugging fingers in ears screaming "I can't hear you" on the other side.

Re:Tennessee is doomed...

[MightyMartian]

Well, if nothing else, Southerners will be so pig-ignorant in a few generations that they will make much more compliant domestics and pool cleaners for the Mexican-Americans when they take over.

Re:Teaching kids to think requires controversy

[MozeeToby]

Without evolution, nothing in biology beyond the 4th grade level makes sense. Morphology, Anatomy, Physiology, Cytology, Embryology, Ecology, Taxonomy, Genetics, Paleontology, Microbiology... nothing, nothing, nothing in any of those fields can be adequately explained without bearing evolution in mind. Debating evolution in a biology class is like debating Netwon's third law of motion while riding a rocket to the moon.

A Walk in the Woods

[An Ominous Coward]

As Bill Bryson quipped, this is just "proving conclusively that the danger for Tennesseans isn't so much that they may be descended from apes as overtaken by them."

Surprisingly, not all of them.

[flyhigher]

Creationism (as in Biblical creationism) is spreading in China through missionary work:

http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/01/18/chinese-creationist/

But it's worse than that. US creationist organizations are actively translating their materials and working to disseminate them on a global scale:

http://nwcreation.net/international.html

Re:Surprisingly, not all of them.

[geekoid]

Because creationism is not science.
There is not debate. There is no controversy. Just a bunch of religions zealots shoving their shit with lies and manipulation down children's throats.

"cosmological theories cover the fact that we evolved to this point, but that the Universe was created by some omnipotent being,"
No, there isn't. There are no cosmological theories that say the universe was creating by some omnipotent being.
But that is besides the point, the are talking about evolution not the beginning of all things.

That said, the very notion that some being created the beginning of the universe means you have no clue what beginning of the universe means.

What you are talking about is made up crap by christian apologists.

Re:Surprisingly, not all of them.

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Well some cosmologists aim for a compromise, why the hell shouldn't all be presented and let each kid/student/person/parent choose and pursue.

That's fine ... except not all theories should be presented in the same class. Present those theories that could be tested using the scientific method in science class; present other theories in philosophy or similar classes. Evolution falls into the first category; intelligent design, creationism, the theory that Atum "took matters into his own hands", etc. fall into the second category.

Tennessee schools not up to par with universities.

[Anonymous Coward]

See, something like this sort of happened before and when the University of CA systesm was sued, the judge dimissed it.

When TN students start getting rejection letters from accredited universities or at the very least colleges that understand that this is the 21st Century, maybe they'll change their tune.

This also happened with Kansas when one of their school boards banned teaching of evolution and California told their students to not even apply to their schools.

In the meantime, the rest of the World - even die hard theocratic countries - are pushing science educatoin. China is already on our heels when it comes scientifc progress.

Religious fundamentalism is destroying science education in this country - and giving everyone else of faith a bad name.

Re:Teaching kids to think requires controversy

[DetriusXii]

Try talking to a smart Catholic who can cite Aquinas at the drop of a hat: they can make scientists look like imbeciles because very, very, VERY few scientists have a shred of knowledge about how to debate.

Why should scientists be impressed by someone that can cite Aquinas? Are scientists supposed to care what St. Thomas Aquinas thought when discussing evolution?