John Creighto said:
I read the bill. I haven’t watched the video. There seems to be nothing wrong with the bill. I think there is a way to approach the topic of intelligent design from a historical perspective. This would be beyond the scope of a science course but the idea that everything is created for a purpose is more commonly held then by just those who believe in religion.
Evo has the same take.
IMO, both of you are wrong. You aren't reading between the lines, or reading the history. This is the fourth wave of the religious right's battle against evolution. The first wave, centered not so surprisingly also in Tennessee, attempted to ban the teaching of evolution. This worked for a long time. The Butler Act that was at the root of the 1925 Scopes trial wasn't repealed until 1967.
The second wave was to teach creationism. Unconstitutional. The third wave was to hide creationism in the term "intelligent design". Also unconstitutional. The religious right is getting ever smarter and ever sneakier as its strategy evolves. Now the strategy is to "teach the controversy," even if there is controversy.
This particular front of the battle between evolution and biblical creationism started in 2000 with the Santorum Amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act, written by the high level staff at the Discovery Institute. This amendment proposed that
- good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and
- where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.
The first item was a red herring intended to deflect attention from the real meat, which is the second item. What controversy? Evolution is a fact. There is no controversy. This bill existed for one reason: To teach that "evolution is only a theory."
The 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case drove a slight wedge into, but not through, the wedge strategy. A couple of noteworthy items about this case: (1) The Discovery Institute attempted to and largely succeeded sabotage the defense. They managed to convince all the key expert witnesses but Behe to withdraw from testifying. (2) The case (intentionally) was not appealed. It is not quite the law of the land. It is the law of the middle district of Pennsylvania. The Discovery Institute did not want this case to become a wedge through their wedge strategy.
The reason for the sabotage and lack of appeal is that the wedge strategy is much sneakier than the Dover school board's blatant attempt to teach intelligent design as a stand-in for creationism. The goal is to first weaken the teaching of evolution, and only after accomplishing this will the movement show its true colors. The first post-Kitzmiller success was in Louisiana, which now has it's so called "Louisiana Science Education Act" http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=482728 . Here's a snippet:
to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.
Note the remarkable similarity to the Tennessee bill. More importantly, note the increased sneakiness here. The Santorum Amendment focused solely on evolution, which was a huge red flag to scientists and to aware members of the public. Evolution is a fact. There is no controversy. The newest incarnation adds the origin of life, global warming, and human cloning (WTF?) to the list. The latter is science fiction for now, and if it does become possible, it will be an issue of biomedical ethics, not a scientific controversy. Abiogenesis, the origin of life, is something for which science does not yet have a solid answer. That doesn't mean it won't. Finally, the reason to add global warming was to legitimize this concept of controversial topics in science. In fact, discussions of global warming are verboten at physicsforums.com. It's too controversial.
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?
