Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.'"
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.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
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
Sounds good to me. I'm sure there a still a few flaws or mechanisms we don't understand in theories like evolution, or the theory of gravity, and those should be pointed out and discussed to show that science is always evolving. And of course it can sometimes be difficult to tie everything together in string theory (see what I did there?). Too bad for the good Senator though that creationism isn't considered a scientific theory.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
This is an amateurish approach. If you really want to change how a subject is taught, you go through the curriculum departments of the school districts. Of course, for that to work you have to require teachers to put in training hours, and you might have to pay them for that time.
If a school dislikes how a science teacher doesn't teach science, they can find any number of reasons to grade that teacher as underperforming, and that teacher won't advance in pay. It will be impossible to prove that it was because the administrator took punitive action against a creationst teacher if the administrator plays his or her card close to the chest and doesn't even discuss the religious issues when doing the grading or when the controversy rears it's ugly head.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
And here I was thinking that the whole thing about Oklahoma being backwards was a myth.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Why? Because too many people think that there is one, and explaining why evolution is right and ID/creationism is bunk is a Good Thing.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Can anyone explain to me how discussing the strengths and weaknesses of a theory is anti-science? Particularly in light of part D which states, "This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
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
Let me help you, the good teachers of Oklahoma. Just present the subjects as they are and let them do the screaming.
With education like this, one is assured a steady stream of H1B Visas and Americans working at McDonald's...
As long as they teach the Pastafarian creation story.
There's a point when people's beliefs shouldn't be respected. Years ago, a Fundie kook in my county got this shit passed and the county had to spend thousands and thousands of dollars to get the Creationist bullshit out via the court system.
And we also need to stop defending Evolution based on their arguments. They use nonscientific arguments that aren't based on fact and actually distorts the facts. I saw an Creationist kook equate evolution with adaptation - like lifting weights and getting bigger muscles are the same thing as 'evolving'.
And as Dawkins points out, debating them is pointless.
They need to be ignored. That's all. Trying to suppress them only works into their world view that they are being oppressed and persecuted. They are delusional people and should be treated as such: ignored when we can.
When they push this crap, it should be defeated immediately cast aside as being nonsense and people like State Senator Josh Brecheen should be ridiculed and made fun of for being a superstitious, ignorant, delusional and possibly mentally ill person.
Religion in this country is holding us back. It is turning our country into a bunch of scientifically illiterate people's and the rest of the World is eating our lunch - I meant that in the present tense.
They offer symbolic solutions to problems that are too complex for the voters to understand. This requires that they tell lies in order to buy votes. After the election, they do a whole lot of nothing effective because being effective entails risk which is dangerous to their careers. This means that voters are always choosing lies, and this selects for the liars who show up to tell them. Democracy is a failure and always has been.
In a way, Oklahoma , is digging its own grave. No teacher worth his salt will be able to teach the wisdom of science in such a restrictive atmosphere.
The kids will suffer while growing up with faerie tales in a fog of ignorance and intolerance. Sad really.
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.
are beholden to politics. Don't like it? Get the government out of schools.
Teachers can teach that evolution was put into motion when Gil Gerard, star of the television series Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, used a time machine, went back and ejaculated into the primordial ooze.
The feminist movement has been far more successful at getting it's antiscience into the education system. Social constructivism, postmodernism, curriculum transformation projects to rewrite history, womens studies in general, are all anti-scientific doctrines and ideas which feminists have managed to get tought in schools and universities as gospel.
It's easy to criticize christianity, but second wave feminism is a much larger threat to objective science than right wing conservatives are.
I am of the belief that we were created by GOD, but evolved over time.
Man, you "science" guys really hate it when your religious monopoly is challenged.
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.
What do they have against Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World"?
Oh. It's the whole stem cell research debate...aka, the tired old abortion debate but with sexier, scarier, sciencey language. 'nuff said.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
There is another state religion that denies evolution. This religion is being taught in all public schools. This is so because it is also uniformly taught in higher education. It forms the central dogma of what are called "the social sciences". As anti-science, this religion is far more damaging than the "dinosaurs and man walked side by side" theocrats because it actually informs most of what we call "public policy" at the Federal level. It is exemplified by (though hardly limited to) the widely praised writings of Harvard professors Richard "Dick" Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould who, together with other fellow travelers, attempted to get Edward O. Wilson ejected from Harvard because Wilson dared posit evolution might apply to signiicant aspects of human social behavior, as well as to that of other organisms.
Those who weren't around in the late 1970's watching all this might not be aware of exactly how virulent and organized -- let alone wrong-headed -- the attacks were.
But one thing is for certain: The dogma that human biodiversity is an insignificant consideration in the social sciences is under increasing attack by the scientific evidence and, at the same time, it is ever more influential on public policy.
So-called "creationism" as theocratic anti-science threat is a red-herring.
Seastead this.
Creation: does not make falsifiable predictions (since for every lack of evidence you can always claim that "the creator decided not to do it that way" -> is no scientific theory
Evolution: makes falsifiable predictions -> is a scientific theory.
Discussion over.
You sound like what I'd call a "Science Justice Warrior".
You have the same arrogant and hypocritical attitude as a "Social Justice Warrior", you're just focused on science instead of social issues.
You claim to support the scientific method, yet you suggest it's wrong for others to suggest theories that differ from your preferred ones.
You're no different than the "Social Justice Warriors" who claims to support equality, but then directs racism, sexism, and heterophobia at white heterosexual males.
You also want to subject these people offering competing theories to censorship and oppression.
You're no different than the "Social Justice Warriors" who try to suppress all opinions and ideas that differ from theirs.
Then you want to subject them to childish name-calling.
You're no different than the "Social Justice Warriors" who subject others to childish name-calling.
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if you secretly wished violence and death against these people, too.
You're possibly no different than the "Social Justice Warriors" who would love to physically eliminate their opponents.
You know what? You make real scientists look bad.
It would be nice if some teacher could teach about the "controversy" and explain that the scientific method was about hypothesis test and there is none of that in the intelligent design. But I'm sure that such a teacher would be fired and somehow the law that protects teaching about the controversy wouldn't protect them. Why is it that we have a whole party of anti-science people?
Here's where I object to this type to "educational reform".
If we allow this charade to come to its logical conclusion, in a couple of decades, a large percentage of Oklahomans will become largely unemployable in any capacity past menial labor. And if we accept that the demand for menial labor is going to steadily decrease, this leaves many of these people relegated the welfare ranks, ironically where the Republicans would prefer to let them starve.
This means that "we" (the larger SlashDot community) will eventually have to pay to carry these "miseducated" Americans or make the judgment call to let them get by on their own, something that I would be reticent to do.
Add to that, the fact that the Republicans will refuse to accept any responsibility for this catastrophe or will hand us the line that this was done by the old Republican Party and that the new, improved Republicans would never have enacted this type of legislation. Alternately, maybe they'll simply claim it was the liberal media that caused the problem, seeing as it would be hard to pin this on terrorism, drugs, or pornography.
As a Texan ex-pat (not from Texas), are you shitting me? Can we go annex them?
If we had a voucher system in my Bible Belt area, EVERY school would be teaching bible nonsense thereby negating the usefulness of vouchers.
We need a Federally controlled and funded school system that teaches a secular curriculum that has natural science requirements.
Or moron. Take your pick.
A froth of bigots ranting straw man arguments; grossly misrepresenting what the legislation clearly says.
If evolution is a robust as the Law of Gravity, what are you worried about?
Oklahoma is 29th in state GDP.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
One of the best things about science is that, while we accept things "as they appear to be" and formulate theories about why that is, and what the mechanisms are that govern what we see, those theories are continually up for examination and re-examination in light of new evidence that is not explained by the existing theory. If the new evidence can be independently verified, and the results replicated, then the theory can be adjusted.
So, by (at least as I read it based on the summary) allowing teachers and students the possibility to discuss evolution versus creationism, to look with a critical eye at the evidence and find (NOT make) new evidence, to draw conclusions and either reinforce existing theories (by concluding that the evidence supports them) or contradict existing theories and propose new ones (because the evidence does not support the existing theories), this approach appears at first glance to be a very scientific approach to the debate.
However, that will "obviously"* not be the case. The goal is almost certainly not to allow a free and open discussion, but to push an agenda by only acknowledging evidence that supports the agenda, with the rationale that the time allotted for the debate is insufficient to consider all the evidence, so we have to pick and choose.
* Why do I say "obviously"? Partly because my (limited) experience of Oklahoma is of a state dominated by the conservative religious Right, who would mostly rather give a blow-job to Satan than admit that evolution is right and they are descended from monkeys; and partly because the people of Oklahoma are more concerned with where their next pay check is coming from than they are concerned with where THEY came from (not unlike many other parts of the world, though).
The basic approach of most religions is to say "come to us, we have the answers to all your questions", and most religious authority figures really dislike the fact that science ("we are still looking for the answers to all our questions, but we have some interesting answers to some of your questions already") comes up with answers that disagree with their religious doctrine and proof to support those answers, instead of relying on peoples' faith in the "right" religious answer.
OP is quasi-correct.
Science, by definition, is an analytical tool which is based on constant questioning and testing with the goal of disproving proposals (too lazy to reserach the plural of hypothesis...) As with any tool, it has a limited scope of applicability.
It is impossible to ultimately prove or disprove anything without complete, ultimate knowledge of all that was, is, and will ever be. Given that is impossible, science is properly viewed as a constantly fluctuating qualifier component of probability.
The word "science" is frequently misused as a dogmatic bludgeon, most obvious lately by the political left's AGW dogma; "settled science." Science is outside the realm of personal opinion.
It is impossible to definitively prove the existence or non-existence of the ultimate diety unless situations change (return of Christ, for example.) As science developed, many physical relationships of matter were codified, true. As scientific knowledge advances, the perceive probability of life on Earth spontaneously occurring has diminished greatly
The real issue is the human propensity for dogma. People who demand Darwinist macro evolution theory is fact and religious cults are similar. They both selectively choose which "facts" they will accept and which they will disregard. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. Just a Piltdown Man was a fraud, so are many of the claims used to promote evolution. In this case, I mean MACRO evolution. Charles Darwin was very clear about this weakness of his theory and gave examples which disqualified the theory. The dogmatic way in which proponents of macro evolution demand this old theory is ultimate truth betray themselves as acting with complete disregard for science. Scientific discovery did not stop 150 years ago. What seemed plausible then, is now rendered nearly impossible with current knowledge.
As an example from the Christian realm, the Bible includes what appear to be mutually exclusive direct instructions from God to both test all things and not to doubt God.
If there is a God, you'll know at some point...or you won't.
If there is not a God, you'll never know.
Why do we allow our public servants to go so far down these paths? Just shoot the asshole!
We probably need some of both. Period. Now why do elected Republicans push these bills? Perhaps religious lobbies that fund their campaigns to increase church-going numbers? It could be as simple as that...Money. Do they actually believe in these things? Maybe...maybe not. Their job puts food on the table for their family, so whatever it takes to make that happen, they'll do that. If that means accepting money from the corporate class to put a bill on the table, they'll do it. Once it is on the table, the Political Debate will likely weed out the nut-job bills, right? Not if everyone debating and voting are in the exact same put-food-on-the-table position. Assuming the bill gets passed, its out the hands and out of their thoughts...and on the people it affects.
When the bill gets implemented/enforced, the people it actually affects finally start to notice. They didn't notice before because the public access channels are boring to watch. Now, people start to complain, and maybe a fraction of that reaches the actual political officials. Some of these officials actually react, if they care. The complaining has to reach a critical mass before it becomes a public debate. A wanna-be politician jumps on that wagon, making promises along the way, in order to get elected during the next cycle. He/she may or may not be elected, and if elected, may or may not fulfill those promises. That takes years. Meanwhile, the affected people that didn't take notice are none the wiser but still vote and are now potentially influenced by a bill that was supposed to be weeded out by the elected politician, whom, hopefully, knew better to begin with.
Once the politician chooses personal priorities over protecting and improving the lives of his/her constituents, they are committing malpractice. Too bad you cannot disbar the politician.
The sorting hat is just putting these people in Slytherin.
Google "Nixon's southern strategy" for some insight on this sorting hat. over the last century the parties have nearly flip-flopped in role. It used to be that the party that became the Democrats were the party of the "evil" southern slave holders and republicans, the party of abe lincoln, were busting that up. This continued through reconstruction. Then there came a gradual flipflop culminating in FDR amd the rise of a liberal dominated government. But even their the south was still democratic. It was Nixon who set the stage to flip the south to the republicans and chose his platform accordingly. THe democratic party went into decline as there was an anti-liberal backlash against the vision of humphrey and mondale. The Democrats didn't recover until clinton, when the party swung the party away from liberal and to the center. Or to be more correctly, this change happened in that era, and clinton rode the wave.
So people do sort themselves regionally. The parties that adopt those regions behave like them. the platforms shift accordingly.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If people want to live in Oklahomastan, more power to them. Just another place on the map for me to avoid. Obviously having a functional brain means I have zero in-common with these folks, and I don't like being around people I have nothing in common with either way. It's annoying-to-aggravating on interaction scale, so who cares what they do. US is headed for balkanisation anyway. It will be hilarious once the smarter states decide they are tired of subsidizing the boonies. I don't enjoy having 45% Tax taken out of my bonus, just so most of the money can be sent to places that hate me.
It has been used and abused so much, it's become meaningless kind of like the sign on front gate of that horrible place, "work sets you free." (yeah, godwins law here. didn't RTFA).
mfwright@batnet.com
Thanks for including links to actual bill legislation in you submission, Anonymous Submitter. Being Slashdot and all, I predict very few will read the proposed law before getting their rant on, but at least it gives opportunity for some cogent discourse.
Schools should now teach De-Evolution, the process of becoming a politician.
No. 30th. Ahead of Utah. Ya know who is last? Socialist Bernie Sanders' state of Vermont. If you have ever been to Tulsa or OKC you will see very vibrant economies. People actually have children there. Can Oklahoma's schools be any worse than the politically correct hellholes for schools on the East Coast?
"it simply prohibits any educational official from blocking a teacher who wanted to discuss the 'strengths and weaknesses' of scientific theories"
Because any questioning of the Church of Science is ANTI SCIENCE? F'king retards.
Maybe it's just me, but I kind of like that they are teaching both nearly contradicting sides of these topics. I think, in a rare moment of idealism for myself, that it encourages a more flexible mind compared to this dogmatic "This is how it is or else you're some dumb redneck" ad-hominum BS that most "intellectuals" preach everywhere they go. The scientific method requires us to prove the same thing, over and over and over again, it doesn't matter that you think of it as a waste of time, that's how it has always been. How are you going to motivate people to experiment when you just say "Don't bother, we already know the answer. Look it up in your textbook."? You can't. In some ways it's even better that we are starting with stuff that is easily debunkable, that allows their minds to build momentum. It allows them to build confidence by actually achieving something for a change. I don't even care that they then have to deal with the pinheads that are going to tell them they are wrong, because dealing with those people diplomatically is yet another life lesson to learn.
God created the evolution. End of history
Insert religion bashing here.
Whether it's evangelical christians, muslims, or proponents of 'social justice', when science gets in the way, it's demonized. We're still in the dark ages.
I may not even disagree with your opinion, but don't spout incorrect information. Oklahoma isn't even in the bottom 10 states, by GDP.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Let them pass this silly law, then sue them demanding equal time for the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of creation and all of the hundreds of other creation myths. We have constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, so not giving equal time to EVERY creation myth is a violation of the constitution!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
and of religion even I see this shit as fucking stupid... of course being an engineer may skew my view, but I don't see, and never have, faith and science as exclusive to one another. but hey according to these people I'm a heretic I suppose....
And Detroit is an example of modern day liberal values applied.
Which is why party politics is bullshit.
Since neither creation nor evolution qualify as science, but rely on faith and supposition, I think it is a good thing to present both viewpoints.
Seems to me that allowing teachers to teach about the DEBATE of creationism vs. evolution is a good thing... And is anyone in support of teachers being BLOCKED from discussing the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories? Scientific theories are so frail they can't be DISCUSSED, they must be taught as absolutes?
Seems to me that allowing debate and discussion is fine, it puts no theory above another, and by calling this "anti-education" is the original poster of a mindset that teaching something as innocuous as the movie "Inherit The Wind" is bad? That discussing the strengths and weaknesses of, say, string theory SHOULD be prohibited?
Ken
If creationism wants equal footing in schools it should be held to a few standards:
1). Needs to have testable, provable and repeatable experiments.
2) It needs to be defended from multiple sources, as in you can't use the bible to defend it.
3) It needs to be taught with no religious overtone.
Creationism is a view held by the uneducated and the demented, when your entire theory is: "God did it", you've failed at all costs to provide anyone with a theory or even rational thought, and this is why it doesn't belong in schools.
American Legislative Exchange Council (A.L.E.C.)
Man, I hope I can find a job outside this backward-looking clusterf k of a state soon.
If we are going to teach Creationism in science classes--something that I am against--then we should require that it be taught accurately, which means that both creation stories in the Bible should be taught.
In Genesis 1, God creates the oceans, fishes, animals, then man. In Genesis 2, God creates the man, then the animals.
If we must teach Creationism in the classroom, then make sure to insist that the Creation Stories are taught.
"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.' "
I think the senator would not be happy with the results if they actually did this. Imagine if, instead of teaching evolution as a dogma, they discussed the many different lines of evidence that led scientists to their current conclusions about evolution. Imagine discussing the many puzzling questions in biology for which creationism has no answer, but which evolutionary theory resolves. Imagine a vigorous discussion of epistemology and the scientific method.
I can't think of a better way of debunking creationism.
First, the Oklahoma Budget is a hundred and some million short, so they cut about $60 million out of the schools. They cut meal programs, STEM programs, arts (always. They cut those even when money falls out of the ceiling). Probably cut Science too, making the whole bill moot.
But one thing they DIDN'T cut is administrative salaries. Administrative salaries account for 90% of salaries in Oklahoma schools. This SHOULD be about 5%. But Oklahoma, along with pretty much every other state has bolstered the useless overhead administration in education by a factor of many hundreds over the last 30 years. There are some school districts where the administrator to teacher ratio is higher than 1:1. There is literally more than one administrator per classroom (of course, they never set foot in a classroom).
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Trotskyite neocons. I can't parse that one. could you explain. (yes I know about trotsky).
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Isn't that called de-evolution?
Bunch of fuckin' oxymorons.
No we don't! Even though his wife is trying to remain 'Fair and Balanced" doesn't mean she actually is. Most people simply can't be truly neutral on a subject because no matter how you much you try, you beliefs ALWAYS influence you. Simply put, she can't give 110% because she doesn't believe in the subject 110%. You may be fine with a 50, 60,or 70% but I am not.
I have to say that I'm thankful that the majority of the public is unaware that these bills exist. Otherwise the general support for them would be overwhelmingly positive and I would find myself spending even more time trying to talk sense into the senseless.
I mean we're talking about a state who's governor allowed one of her children to live in a travel trailer on the grounds of the Governor's Mansion.
but most stupid people are Republicans.
I'd like to know why we need a bill to allow teachers to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a particular theory. Evolution is not iron clad. There has been much research done, and the results have been mixed. Some of the confusion is due to "scientists" not following the scientific method and trying to create the results they'd like to see for political, financial, or (anti)religious reasons. There's a legitimate discussion to be had here. While I happen to believe in creationism, I also understand that it's not part of science and therefore doesn't belong in a science class. However, the total suppression of being allowed to talk about it feels like censorship, and seems fairly intolerant in an environment that is supposed to support the free exchange of ideas.
See subject: I've always held that belief & I've always been astounded folks wouldn't accept that if that's true then God would have built a biological mechanism that can adapt to survive evolving to do so as needed for surrounding conditions.
* Thus, it's rather ignorant & arrogant to not recognize evolution as part of God's plan + design imo...
(To each his own but they're contradicting their own belief systems to NOT recognize that much!)
APK
P.S.=> God is indeed perfect and would have built his creations to evolve to survive as that would be perfection in design itself in a more perfect design that can do so... apk
" it simply prohibits any educational official from blocking a teacher who wanted to discuss the 'strengths and weaknesses' of scientific theories. "
So wait.... how it this anti-science. It's actually the other way around, anyone who wants to block someone who wanted to "discuss the 'strengths and weaknesses' of scientific theories. " would actually be anti-science.
Do you see the problem here? Leftists want to shut down any debate and they do it by name calling, because they don't know any other way. Intelligent debate only exists in the center and the right.
and they made me teach creationism I'd teach about the creation story from the Native Americans or some other culture. ("Oh, you meant the Christian creation story!, Silly me.") Or I'd spend a class going over the creation fables of a large number of cultures. You can make me tell it to them but I'm going to put it in the proper context.
Cue it becoming a political talking point on party lines rather than the merits of the material at hand. This has already been decided in United States Federal Court with Kitzmiller Versus Dover. I think its time we stopped hosting all these unbalanced Fitzroys parading around in our educational system. Instead of slitting their own neck, its sacrificing their constituents.
FIRE BAD!
"teaching evolution AND creation"... But then you have to ask, *WHOSE* story of creation? The Abrahamic 6-days and whooping it up on the seventh day? Or perhaps Vishnu sprouting a flower in his navel? Or perhaps the Shinto Egg? That's just three right off the top of my head, I know there are many others, so in reality you'd have to teach ALL of them, otherwise you spend years in court because some group you forgot about got left out.
Granted, the whole "egg" story in Shinto sounds an awful like a "big bang" creation theory of the universe. Or, isolated semi-locally, a supernova spawning a stellar nursery.