Tennessee to teach the controversy

[SixNein]

Unfortunately, my home state is once again attacking science with a bill designed to teach the controversy. The full text is here:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB0893.pdf

Here is clip I could find of the floor of the house committee discussing the house bill (pass last year):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJD59bzg90w So I want to make two points:
1. People should watch for this in their own (especially republican controlled) states.
2. I'm uncertain how the courts would go if it is challenged. On one hand, they are stopping short of directly promoting creationism; however, on the other hand, they are intentionally opening that door in hopes that some teachers will go through.

This method may have a chance of sticking.

 

[Evo]

The bill, as was read, requires that it has to be real scientific theory, which would exclude intelligent design, creationism, etc... Do these people think that religious myth is science? The way the bill is worded is different from what was said by the speaker. It sounds like they want to alow teaching of non-scientific "controversies", as in BS.

The actual bill. http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf

The way the bill reads "scientific controversies" would eliminate teaching non-scientific nonsense such as ID, creationism, etc... ID may be controversial, but it's not scientific.

 

[SixNein]

The bill requires that it has to be real scientific theory, which would exclude intelligent design, creationism, etc... What is wrong with the bill?

The main problem is that it reduces science to an opinion, and it would make some areas of science appear controversial when they are not. But here is a better description:

"We feel that the wording of this legislation clearly allows non-scientific explanations for topics such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning to be introduced into the science classroom," adding, "Concepts like evolution and climate change should not be misrepresented as controversial or needing of special evaluation. Instead, they should be presented as scientific explanations for events and processes that are supported by experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision based on detectable and measurable data."

http://ncse.com/news/2012/03/nabt-opposes-tennessees-monkey-bills-007265

 

[Evo]

I would say scientific controversy means that it has to be accepted science to begin with, which religious nonsense is not, IMO. Better to kill it, but I don't see how if it was challenged in court that it could stand up. Science isn't whatever someone thinks, it has to hold to scientific standards. But of course the people that wrote that don't know that, IMO.

 

[SixNein]

The bill, as was read, requires that it has to be real scientific theory, which would exclude intelligent design, creationism, etc... Do these people think that religious myth is science? The way the bill is worded is different from what was said by the speaker. It sounds like they want to alow teaching of non-scientific "controversies", as in BS.

The actual bill. http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf

The way the bill reads "scientific controversies" would eliminate teaching non-scientific nonsense such as ID, creationism, etc... ID may be controversial, but it's not scientific.

My concern is that it would allow teachers to use creationist arguments as long as they stop short of saying the word creator.

When I was in school, I had teachers make such arguments while stopping short of saying creator. This bill would essentially give them cover.

 

[Evo]

My concern is that it would allow teachers to use creationist arguments as long as they stop short of saying the word creator.

When I was in school, I had teachers make such arguments while stopping short of saying creator. This bill would essentially give them cover.

It's frightening. We had similar problems with the Kansas school board but I thought the ruling in Dover quashed this nonsense?

 

[SixNein]

It's frightening. We had similar problems with the Kansas school board but I thought the ruling in Dover quashed this nonsense?

If they stop short of endorsing a creator, does the separation of church and state still apply?

 

[Evo]

If they stop short of endorsing a creator, does the separation of church and state still apply?

It really comes down to does it meet scientific criteria?

Advocates of intelligent design seek to keep God and the Bible out of the discussion, and present intelligent design in the language of science as though it were a scientific hypothesis.[n 17][n 19] For a theory to qualify as scientific,[n 22][103][n 23] it is expected to be:

Consistent

Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)

Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)

Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments

Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)

Progressive (refines previous theories)

Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[104] violates the principle of parsimony,[n 24] is not scientifically useful,[n 25] is not falsifiable,[n 26] is not empirically testable,[n 27] and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional or progressive.[n 28][n 29][n 30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Criticism

 

[SixNein]

It really comes down to does it meet scientific criteria?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Criticism

But there is no constitutional protection for science education itself.

Example: A teacher presents evolution to the class. Teacher: "At least that is what some people believe." Teacher: "But many doubt it because there are gaps in the fossil record, there is too much complexity for evolution to explain, and it just too mathematically improbable to be true."

[Students leave class thinking evolution is a very weak opinion held by idiots]

 

[Evo]

But there is no constitutional protection for science education itself.

Example: A teacher presents evolution to the class. Teacher: "At least that is what some people believe." Teacher: "But many doubt it because there are gaps in the fossil record, there is too much complexity for evolution to explain, and it just too mathematically improbable to be true."

[Students leave class thinking evolution is a very weak opinion held by idiots]

Yeah, it needs to be shot down.

 

[Borg]

The speaker who voiced his opinion after Ms. Miller at the 9 minute mark is a moron. I don't care if he's offended or not.

... I take offense with people coming into this body... and presenting your opinion, which is exactly what it is and it's as good as my opinion, as though just because you have prefixes and suffixes on your name that all of a sudden, you're some type of standard. And I find that offensive.

The logic employed by the other speakers is equally stunning.

...if evolution is proved untrue, people might have to believe that the Earth actually was created like the bible says.
...I think there is a need for the bill because... our educational system somewhat disagrees with evolution and they're really not free to question that. Professors and teachers, if they disagree with evolution, they run the risk of losing their job.

Well, I'm glad this isn't about teaching creationism in the schools.

Mr. 9 minute mark also claimed that the science behind the atom (i.e. Atomic Theory) was a fact and differed from evolution because evolution is just a theory. Let's also just ignore the fact that the fossil record dates are based on carbon dating which comes from Atomic Theory.

@SixNein: I feel your pain. I lived in Louisville, Kentucky for 6 years. There was one section of town that I lived in for a while that didn't have a single bookstore other than the two religious bookstores that were in that area.

 

[turbo]

Maine has a Tea-Party governor and a Republican House, and right now they are trying to strip funding from public schools to support church-based schools. I hope we can fend that off, but the attack on real public education and science is real, even in this rural back-water.

This is a "neutral" (watered-down) description of the bill in question. There is no investigative reporting or political analysis in our newspapers here, anymore. In fact, most of the content of the Central Maine Morning Sentinel is bought from the AP or other news feeds.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/par...ersing-a-longtime-funding-ban_2012-02-12.html

 

[Evo]

The speaker who voiced his opinion after Ms. Miller at the 9 minute mark is a moron. I don't care if he's offended or not.

The logic employed by the other speakers is equally stunning.

Well, I'm glad this isn't about teaching creationism in the schools.

Mr. 9 minute mark also claimed that the science behind the atom (i.e. Atomic Theory) was a fact and differed from evolution because evolution is just a theory. Let's also just ignore the fact that the fossil record dates are based on carbon dating which comes from Atomic Theory.

@SixNein: I feel your pain. I lived in Louisville, Kentucky for 6 years. There was one section of town that I lived in for a while that didn't have a single bookstore other than the two religious bookstores that were in that area.

Thank goodness I didn't watch more than the introduction. I'd have had a stroke.

 

[SixNein]

Here is another video of the house floor discussing the bill.

http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=196&clip_id=3989&meta_id=73331

"They are just theories!"

The whole video pisses me off.

 

[SixNein]

Oklahoma has passed a similar version to the TN bill:

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2011-12 ENGR/hB/HB1551 ENGR.DOC

In addition to the above, the NY times had some interesting commentary on the subject:

The difference between the Butler Act and this new legislation encapsulates the change in the anti-science crowd’s strategy, from outright bans on disseminating factual information to fake controversy and false equivalencies. They’re learned to manufacture doubt and pretend it invalidates scientific consensus. It’s a surprisingly effective tactic.

http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/the-tennessee-monkey-bill/

 

[Gokul43201]

Oklahoma has passed a similar version to the TN bill

If I recall correctly (from the video in the OP, about 2/3rds of the way in perhaps), one of the legislators mentions that there are over a dozen (don't recall the exact number that he mentions) states with a similar law in their books.

 

[Danger]

Whether it's because of the vast amounts of alcohol that I've ingested today, or the fact that I'm still not entirely fluent in "Yank-speak", I actually cannot find anything wrong with the proposal as written. In fact, I rather admire it. It should, once and for all, relegate the Jesus freaks to the cellar where they belong.
As for that woman in the video... How can anyone who is so horrendously and embarrassingly useless at public speaking be a professor?! Don't they have to communicate with their students?

 

[SixNein]

If I recall correctly (from the video in the OP, about 2/3rds of the way in perhaps), one of the legislators mentions that there are over a dozen (don't recall the exact number that he mentions) states with a similar law in their books.

To my knowledge, there exists one other state: Louisiana Science Education Act

"They are derived from language originally drafted for the Santorum Amendment, in the United States Senate. As of August 2011, the Louisiana Science Education Act is the only such bill to have successfully passed into law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Freedom_bills

 

[Danger]

That's just sick. As for my opinion of Santorum, though, Google him. The definition is very informative. Then submit his name for membership in the club mentioned in this thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=589039
With apologies, I still don't know how to make a link inside a text.

 

[Borg]

That's just sick. As for my opinion of Santorum, though, Google him. The definition is very informative. Then submit his name for membership in the club mentioned in this thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=589039
With apologies, I still don't know how to make a link inside a text.

Are you sure that your alcohol consumption isn't causing you to cross-post?

 

[Evo]

Whether it's because of the vast amounts of alcohol that I've ingested today, or the fact that I'm still not entirely fluent in "Yank-speak", I actually cannot find anything wrong with the proposal as written. In fact, I rather admire it. It should, once and for all, relegate the Jesus freaks to the cellar where they belong.
As for that woman in the video... How can anyone who is so horrendously and embarrassingly useless at public speaking be a professor?! Don't they have to communicate with their students?

The propsoal as written has nothing to do with the "interpretation" given in the video.

Yes, that woman was an embarrassment to the academic sector, which is why I had to stop watching it and missed the rest of the BS. I guess just watch the video to see the psycho way they intend to use the bill. Although I don't see how can twist that bill to their purpose unless the entire schoolboard are a bunch of crooks. IMO to all above.

 

[SixNein]

The proposal as written has nothing to do with the "interpretation" given in the video.

Yes, that woman was an embarrassment to the academic sector, which is why I had to stop watching it and missed the rest of the BS. I guess just watch the video to see the psycho way they intend to use the bill. Although I don't see how they can twist that bill to their purpose unless the entire schoolboard are a bunch of crooks. IMO to all above.

So you agree with: crackpot link deleted

 

[Danger]

I had to stop watching it and missed the rest of the BS.

I didn't actually catch any of the BS in that "speech" either, so I don't know what the outcome was. I watched her for about a minute and a half, maybe two, and then had to shut it off for the sake of my own sanity. I was so far behind that if I had left it on I would still be trying to figure it out next week. She was so abjectly incoherent that when she finished one sentence I was still trying to decipher what she had said 2 sentences back. Unfortunately, that was a logarithmic scale. In another few seconds, I would have been 2 paragraphs behind. A couple more and it would have been pages. That discourages me greatly, because she was introduced as being a scientist.

 

[Evo]

I didn't actually catch any of the BS in that "speech" either, so I don't know what the outcome was. I watched her for about a minute and a half, maybe two, and then had to shut it off for the sake of my own sanity. I was so far behind that if I had left it on I would still be trying to figure it out next week. She was so abjectly incoherent that when she finished one sentence I was still trying to decipher what she had said 2 sentences back. Unfortunately, that was a logarithmic scale. In another few seconds, I would have been 2 paragraphs behind. A couple more and it would have been pages. That discourages me greatly, because she was introduced as being a scientist.

It was embarrassing. The academic side should have picked a better speaker, because this is too important of an issue to let someone incapable of public speaking to present the cause for scientific reality.

 

[Danger]

I'm saying that the law "as it's written" does not match what the crank board of education thinks it means.

That's the beauty of it; after it's passed, they're screwed.

 

[Evo]

So you agree with: crackpot link deleted

Sorry, but that's a crackpot site. No, I'm saying that the law "as it's written" does not match what the crank board of education thinks it means.

If you read the actual copy of the law that I posted, it doesn't support their intended use. But if it the board of education thinks it does, there is an even more serious problem. Ever heard the term "kangaroo court"?

A kangaroo court is "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted".

IMO to above.

 

[Danger]

Are you sure that your alcohol consumption isn't causing you to cross-post?

It's not cross-posting—merely correlation. By definition, santorum and spunk are different only due to the presence or lack thereof of certain chemical and biological byproducts. Either way, it smells the same.

Ever heard the term "kangaroo court"?

Are you telling me that I unjustly executed that kangaroo that I had for lunch?! That does it! I'm going to move to Florida, where you can kill a kangaroo for having dark fur and hopping away from you. :grumpy:

 

[SixNein]

I didn't actually catch any of the BS in that "speech" either, so I don't know what the outcome was. I watched her for about a minute and a half, maybe two, and then had to shut it off for the sake of my own sanity. I was so far behind that if I had left it on I would still be trying to figure it out next week. She was so abjectly incoherent that when she finished one sentence I was still trying to decipher what she had said 2 sentences back. Unfortunately, that was a logarithmic scale. In another few seconds, I would have been 2 paragraphs behind. A couple more and it would have been pages. That discourages me greatly, because she was introduced as being a scientist.

I confess that I actually skipped past her after a few moments myself. In addition, I don't understand why she was picked. Maybe she was just very nervous?

At any rate, you can also watch the following:
http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=196&clip_id=3989&meta_id=73331

It covers the debate leading up to the vote.

 

[SixNein]

Sorry, but that's a crackpot site. No, I'm saying that the law "as it's written" does not match what the crank board of education thinks it means.

If you read the actual copy of the law that I posted, it doesn't support their intended use. But if it the board of education thinks it does, there is an even more serious problem. Ever heard the term "kangaroo court"?

IMO to above.

I'm not sure I agree. The language of the law was written very very carefully to allow this sort of abuse while also attempting to pass muster by the courts. In the link to the house video I just posted, the sponsor said that "They can't teach creationism from a to z." In other words, they have to stop short of saying creator. If they don't, the courts are sure to knock it down.

In addition, many of their arguments seem to come from the discovery institute. What we call scientific fact isn't what they call scientific fact. They made that point many times on the floor. We have an opinion on what is scientific facts, but they have their own opinion on scientific facts. IE: The controversy is our facts vs their facts.

I would also point out that they changed tenure recently in Tennessee. And teachers will be undergoing evaluations before being granted tenure. I wonder if how they teach science will be a factor.

The centerpiece of the new governor's education agenda, the bill extends the probationary period for new teachers from the current three years to five before tenure can be awarded. It also requires probationary teachers to place in the top two tiers of a new five-tier evaluation system in both their fourth and fifth years of teaching to win tenure.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/mar/31/tennessee-legislature-agrees-tougher-tenure-requir/

 

[Danger]

69... you are starting to scare me, dude.
I'm really glad that I don't live in your country, but every day I get more nervous about living beside it.

 

[Evo]

69... you are starting to scare me, dude.
I'm really glad that I don't live in your country, but every day I get more nervous about living beside it.

Danger, I might be coming to live with you.

 

[Danger]

Danger, I might be coming to live with you.

Please! :tongue2:
I'll send the doggie suit to the cleaners in anticipation of your arrival.

 

[Evo]

Please! :tongue2:
I'll send the doggie suit to the cleaners in anticipation of your arrival.

Ooooh, I forgot about the doggie suit!

 

[Bobbywhy]

This new law (HB368) in Tennessee shows a change in the anti-science movement’s strategy.
In the past it tried to ban the dissemination of factual information.
Now the movement has invented fake controversies and false equivalencies.
It is a blatant attempt to create doubt and pretend that this doubt invalidates scientific consensus.
This new law would elevate creationist theories about human evolution to the same status accorded by most educators to Darwin's research.
This is incompatible with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.
If this law is allowed to remain in effect the result will be to confuse students.
From the national and the international scientific community’s perspective it is a complete embarrassment.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think there's a big underlying problem here - that there are seemingly a large number of high school teachers that would like to (and I think I'm putting this mildly) teach alternative "theories" to evolution and want students to be exposed to "both sides" of the story. As long as there are unqualified teachers, you're not going to get quality teaching. And forcing the teachers to teach stuff they they disbelieve isn't going to make things much better.