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
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.
RTFA: "The bill responds to that uncertainty by ensuring educators can just teach whatever they want as long as they think it's science"
Ok Potsy...
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.
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.
Sure! Then the rich Bible thumpers can teach their kids Jeebus, the rich non-Bible thumpers can teach their kids that poor people are unworthy, and the poor people won't have schools. Great idea!
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
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.
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.
The purpose of vouchers is to defund the public school system and divert the money into private schools. It means that nobody will choose to send their kids (money) to the poor neighborhood schools except the poor folk who can't afford the commute. Poor kids will go to poor schools in poor districts, middle class kids will go to good schools in good districts. It's segregation by income.
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.
Oklahoma is 29th in state GDP.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
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.
Schools should now teach De-Evolution, the process of becoming a politician.
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.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
E pluribus unum
Yeah, that's kind of a problem. We live in a Bible Belt state. My wife is a middle school science teacher. State law requires evolution to be taught. But the School Board doesn't allow the word evolution.
Weirdly, that's probably the best thing possible. By not using the word, she gets to bypass all of the kids preconceptions. She also teaches scientific method, ecology, genetics, nuclear physics, plate tectonics (and a few other subjects). She has them openly debate genetic engineering and the pros/cons of different types of nuclear power.
When she's done, they know the subject wells enough that her guest speakers from a local university are generally shocked to find 8th graders more articulate on the subject than their freshman and sophomore students. In a district that doesn't permit the word evolution.
FYI She's religious, believes in evolution and old earth, but never tells the kids her beliefs. She teaches them how to think and decide for themselves.
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.
You are confusing dogma with facts.
The earth is approximately spherical. This is not dogma, it's been observed. Anyone questioning this and for example postulating that it is flat over a large scale is generally considered a fool.
People who demand Darwinist macro evolution theory is fact
It is a fact. It's been observed to happen in the lab up to and including speciation of macroscopic organisms. Secondly, the tree of life has been arrived at by two completely independent means and yields almost identical results. That is overwhelmingly strong evidence and combined with everything else is enough to raise it to the level of a fact.
In this case, I mean MACRO evolution
That's a term made up by creationists. There is no micro and macro evolution---there is only "evolution".
Charles Darwin was very clear about this weakness of his theory and gave examples which disqualified the theory.
No he didn't. There is no evidence that disqualifies evolution. If there was, it wouldn't be a great theory and we'd be looking for something better. There are things he couldn't explain but that doesn't mean they can't be explained now.
Scientific discovery did not stop 150 years ago.
Only someone woefully ignorance of science would think that. We'e filled in a lot of the gaps. We know much more now about how evolution occurs and the mechanisms by which it occurs. We have much much more data and have better predictions from the theory.
But the principle of evolution and the consequent apearance of new species is a fact.
If there is not a God, you'll never know.
I know there is no god to the same extent that I know there are no unicorns (if you like I'll describe my unicorn theory to you). Do I have incontravertible proof either way? Nope, but neither seem particularly likely, so I shall carry on with my life as if unicorns (and god) don't exist.
Oh and for fun: first define "god".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You start with a strawman
No, a straw man is when you set up a different, easier argument and attack that. Entertainingly that's exactly what you do here, you equate evolution with abiogenesis and then vigorously attack the latter, ignoring the former (evolution) entirely. That's actually a textbook straw man.
You claim evolution has happened
Yes I do claim that.
nope, hasn't happened,
Yes it has.
evolution requires life to spontaneously come into existence from inert substances and complex, multipart structures to appear instantly
For someone who claims to have read Darwin's work, you're coming as across as, well let us say someone who is not new here. The clue is in the name and it's called:
On the origin of species
not "the origin of life". The theory of evolution applies to living things and happens when you have living things,. The prerequisite is that there is life, it does not address how life formed. Claiming this is a flaw in evolution is like claiming that Newtonian mechanics is flawed because it doesn't explain how the universe exists so its WRONG.
IOW it's an argument truly remarkable for the magnitude of its inanity.
Darwin most certainly DID mention flaws in this theory, including the eye.
Like I said, there's a difference between things that we don't know how to explain and counterexamples. The eye is a fantastic example of that. We didn't know how to explain how it evolved and it seemed too complex. Then people figured it out. Now we know.
The point of my comment about 150 years is that research has shown the PROBABILITY of evolution to be increasingly lessening.
Oh this should be good... and er, what is there that makes it "less probable" when the amount of evidence for it grows day in, day out?
Specific shape of the universe, relatively small variability of environment, etc. all combine to lessen chance of random occurrence.
What's that got to do with evolution? That's all about whether or not life can survive. Fortunately we can observe that life does indeed exist [citation needed]. Evolution applies when you have life. It's not about whether you have life.
You claim lack of knowledge of a lifeform is proof of evolution.
u wot m8? I have literally no idea how you invented that from what I wrote. Then again you seem to have so little clue about anything, it does not surprise me.
You're twisting science into realm in which it is inapplicable and misusing the concepts. Too bad for you.
The only reason you think science is inapplicable is because it disagrees with you. Sucks for you mate, innit.
SJW n. One who posts facts.