2016's First Batch of Anti-Science Education Bills Arrive In Oklahoma (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader writes: It's only January and we're already seeing the first anti-science education bills of 2016 going through the Oklahoma legislature. The state's lawmakers fight over this every year, and it looks like this year won't be any different. "The Senate version of the bill (PDF) is by State Senator Josh Brecheen, a Republican. It is the fifth year in a row he's introduced a science education bill after announcing he wanted 'every publicly funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution.' This year's version omits any mention of specific areas of science that could be controversial. Instead, it simply prohibits any educational official from blocking a teacher who wanted to discuss the 'strengths and weaknesses' of scientific theories.

The one introduced in the Oklahoma House (PDF) is more traditional. Billed as a 'Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act' (because freedom!), it spells out a whole host of areas of science its author doesn't like: 'The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific concepts including but not limited to premises in the areas of biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics, and physics can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on some subjects such as, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.'"

Comments

Academic freedom?

[gstoddart]

Yeah, right. This is about allowing stuff which has no resemblance to be presented as science.

Teach your religion in your church. Stop trying to raise kids who can't distinguish facts and science from personal belief and wishful thinking.

This is just thinly veiled attempts at putting religious beliefs into school as if they are facts.

Re:Academic freedom?

[Kierthos]

When comparing churches and schools, church is the more appropriate venue for religion, and school is the more appropriate venue for education.

You want to religion taught in schools? Outside of religious schools, the problem becomes "What religion gets taught?", and there's a bundle of problems involved with that.

A few years back, Louisiana's state legislature was trying out the use of school vouchers for religious schools (in addition to secular schools). All well and good until, shock and horror, non-Christian schools applied to be included in that.

Oops.

That's the problem. If you allow religion and religious ideas to be taught in schools, you have to allow them all, not just the ones you like. Which tends to cause the same people who are pro-Creationism to have screaming fits and chew holes in the carpet.

Ia my impression wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would really like to believe that Democrats are just as stupid as Republicans. I don't see any reason why there would be a monopoly on stupid. And I certainly have seen lots of stupid democrats individually, And yet, my unscientific impression is that whenever something truly idiotic tries to become law there a preponderace of republicans backing it. How can this possibly occur? Same is true with the presidential race.

What is the mechanism that causes this lack of collective filtration for logic in one party but not the other.

Or am I mistaken? does the internet selectively bring me stories of republican idiocy and remove the democratic party stunts? If so this would explain a lot of why people are so angry and polarized these days.

I'm not talking about subjective disagreement. it's okay for people to disagree on some things. But legislating science? surely reasonable people in both parties would recognize the pattern here.

Re:Ia my impression wrong?

[Kierthos]

I would say a small part of it is that there is no equivalent to the Tea Party among Democrats. I mean, I've never heard anyone describe a politician as "Liberal in Name Only" (LINO), but you hear the calls of RINO all the time from the right.

It's like they're trying so hard to prove that they're more conservative than the next guy, that it removes options from the playbook (to mix my metaphors a little), because using one of those options, why that means you're a RINO.

So they have to cater to the ultra-conservative core of the party who espouses these views.

Re: Ia my impression wrong?

[BradleyUffner]

Hey, I can live with everything else provided zero taxes. With the money saved we can all send our kids to private school.

Well, except for those single parents raising 3 kids while working 2 minimum wage jobs. But they obviously don't count because they are lazy and poor.

Re:Ia my impression wrong?

[cat_jesus]

I am told that a republican congressman recently confided to a pundit that he spends all his time in Washington trying to convince people he's not crazy and then he spends all his time in his district trying to convince people he is crazy. The monster the republicans have created has gotten loose.

Your observation is correct, however. The Republican party exists to forward the agenda of the rich. They don't have the numbers needed to win elections in a straightforward manner so they have to manipulate the stupid, rig elections and disenfranchise voters. Basically, they have to cheat, steal and bribe their way to power.

Also consider that democratic officials generally start from a background of community service, whereas republicans are often drafted by the party from business roles. You will rarely see a business person run as a democrat because democrats generally understand that government isn't a business and can't be run like a business.

Republicans have gone so far over the ideological cliff that they can't even compromise any more. Compromise is a foundational principal in a democracy and they revile compromise so much that the hint of working with a democrat is enough to get you run out in a primary.

The media has a great deal of blame for this situation. They have allowed the republicans cow them into reporting their insane shit with a straight face and have legitimized anti-science and anti-intellectualism. The republicans have also forced the media to portray global warming(and any other issue) into a 50/50 opinion split instead of a Fringe 1% of scientists paid for by Big Oil and Big Coal vs the rest of the legitimate scientific community. Fact checking is a thing of the past and political reporting has devolved into click bait and doing what you can to get more viewers. This means not talking seriously about policy and instead creating Punch and Judy shows.

When you hear "there is a liberal bias in the media" what's being said is there is a factual and intellectual bias in the media. Unfortunately, that is no longer true. The media have been cowed by the constant accusations of being biased and there really isn't a liberal media beyond a handful of websites and Democracy Now which doesn't run on any national network.

Re:Strengths and weaknesses

[gstoddart]

Can anyone explain to me how discussing the strengths and weaknesses of a theory is anti-science?

Because what it really is a way for people to make spurious claims about what they claim are weaknesses in the science, when in reality they want to air things which are purely religious and 100% not founded in science.

And through this, they want their anti-science bullshit presented on the same level as real science.

So, imagine someone saying "obviously these fossils cannot be 400 million years old, as we all know the Earth is only 6000 years old". That's not science, it's religious belief being presented as fact.

These people aren't proposing a rational discussion of the limits of science, they are trying to redefine the playing field by pretending any old shit they make up is on the same level as science.

In this case, "Academic Freedom" is apparently the right to claim anything as fact, teach it as if it is science, and have a law which says they're allowed to ... because freedom.

This is about redefining what is actually science to lower the threshold and call any old crap science .. most notably, religious belief.

Belief in science

[JestersGrind]

The great thing about science is that it doesn't care what you believe in. If you don't believe in gravity and jump off of a tall building, you will still splatter when you hit the ground. By the way, there is no such thing as anti-science, only pro-ignorance. Let's call it for what it really is.

Re:Belief in science

[umafuckit]

The great thing about science is that it doesn't care what you believe in. If you don't believe in gravity and jump off of a tall building, you will still splatter when you hit the ground. By the way, there is no such thing as anti-science, only pro-ignorance. Let's call it for what it really is.

I don't agree. Ignorance isn't the same thing as science. Ignorance measures the level of knowledge you have on a topic. Whereas science isn't so much about the facts, but is a system for interrogating the world and determining what is true to the best of our abilities. Science is about gathering and evaluating evidence.

I agree that creationists are ignorant. But the main thing they're ignorant about is how science works. Their stance is anti-science because they are promoting creationism as a viable alternative to evolution, whilst being unwilling to understand how our evidence for evolution arises or even the difference between a theory and an idea. Creationists are anti-science because they inappropriately use sciency-sounding terminology to sow confusion and misunderstanding. They are also anti-science because their own ideas are not testable and exhibit serious logical flaws that they ignore. None of this is ignorance: it's a systematic effort to deceive, which is much worse.

Re:Is this the 21st Century?

[Ol Olsoc]

Why don't we add an amendment to this law saying that anyone in violation will be considered to be a witch and burned at the stake accordingly.

This must be why Oklahoma is such an economic powerhouse. Oh wait, turns out they are the dead last state in GDP. I'm sure these progressive laws had nothing to do with that, not a thing.

Oklahoma is a perfect example of modern day conservative values as applied. Freaky thing is it gets hard to blame the liberals when they've all been run out of power. http://oklahomawatch.org/2015/...

But I'm certain the Oklahoma legislature will tell us the cure is more tax cuts, a sure fire way to increase revenue. Any state that lives and dies on oil prices to shore up their ideological ideas is going to have a problem.

Let us help - pray for Broklahoma.

Re:Strengths and weaknesses

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Obviously you have no idea whom is actually behind this bill, or "how things work" in Oklahoma. Or, your a troll, or a Creationist who is just afraid to come out of the flat-Earth closet. If what your saying was actually what this bill was about, then perhaps it wouldn't be so horrible. But the situation on the ground, and the ideals behind THIS PARTICULAR BILL are not what your posting. I should know, I live in Oklahoma. And this bill is being pushed by the same people who wanted to reject AP History and replace it with religious sermons about sin, speeches by Ronald Reagan, and other nonsense. This isn't some stand alone bill, but another ploy by the same group who are just trying to once again get their religious views injected in public school.

Even more ridiculous is that this will really jack with standardized testing. Standardized testing doesn't give a teacher discretion in saying "well, you answered this question with your firmly held religious beliefs so I can't count it as wrong" which is another thing this bill is trying to legalize. If this bill passes, I can guarentee that if a history teacher "taught the controversy" and brought up the Treaty of Tripoli (that specifically states the US is in no way founded on the Christian religion) they would be fired anyway.

Re: Is this the 21st Century?

[valdezjuan]

That's pretty much what it reminds me of. Reading these always brings to mind how advanced the Arabic people were until the strict adherence to religious doctrine basically removed many of them from the sort of social/political evolution that comes from hearing/debating ideas that aren't your own. It also smacks of the current trend of downplaying scientific discoveries as mere 'theories' that are 'equally as valid' as Christian doctrine.

Re:You sound like a "Science Justice Warrior".

[Kierthos]

Here's the problem.

When creationists do after the theory of evolution, they're saying "your science is wrong, because we believe it's wrong."

And while you certainly can attack science that way, as far as the scientists are concerned, that's not a valid argument.

It would be like someone saying "The moon is made of cheese." The logical reply to that is "No, it isn't. We've sent men to the moon. They've brought back moon rocks, which surprisingly, aren't cheese."

But that doesn't work, does it? That person will still insist that the moon is made of cheese, or that the earth is flat, or that they don't believe in that some of science because of their religion or whatever.

Real scientists accept the possibility that they could be wrong. That's part of science. That wonderful moment of "Whoa, that's interesting" when something doesn't go as the models and theories predicted and you try and find out why.

Religion is the exact opposite. If you don't believe the same way, you're wrong. Depending on how fervently they believe, the response to that "wrongness" differs. Look at all the religious wars we've had over that sort of thing for proof of that.

So, excuse the hell out of me for not wanting non-science in my science.

Re:Strengths and weaknesses

[samkass]

The senate bill says what it says. You have the complete text. Show me where it says what you claim.

What I see is a trap for evolutionists. If you can't challenge a theory then it isn't science, it's doctrine. The author is trying to trick you into treating science exactly as he would treat religion.

Part of the problem here is that there is no competing scientific theory. We don't consider alternatives to gravity, the atom, germ theory, electromagnetism, or the rest of the well-established scientific foundations in grade school, either. Despite the fact that there are nuances to them that may hint at exciting new science, the core systems are supported by so much evidence, that it is appropriate to just state the prevailing theory, the supporting evidence, and the implications. Teaching a "controversy" is itself a lie, because there is no controversy on evolution within science. This is just science vs. not-science, and that's for philosophy class, not Biology. As soon as you mandate that teaching a lie is protected and immune from discipline, you're not teaching science anymore.