Tennessee to teach the controversy

[D H]

No I don't, I have the OPPOSITE take. I believe you haven't read all of my posts and took something I said the wrong way.

In no way did I mean that you supported this nonsense. I apologize for my poor wording giving the impression that you support this bill. It's obvious from your posts in this thread and elsewhere that your leanings are 100% opposed to this.

What I referred to was this,

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 wording of the bill is on a first reading oh so benign; what's wrong with teaching students to challenge and poke into science? That's exactly what students should be taught, and that is exactly how the current education standards in Tennessee and elsewhere encourage their science teachers to teach science.You later edited that post to read

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.

So what is wrong with the bill? One part of what's wrong with it is exactly what you said: "It sounds like they want to alow teaching of non-scientific "controversies", as in BS." Another part is that it sounds like they want to ban the teaching of evolution. From the bill going to the governor, (emphasis mine)

"This section ... shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion."​

Evolution, in the minds of some, is a non-religious doctrine (strike 1). Teaching (i.e. promoting) evolution discriminates against those people's religion beliefs (strike 2) and against their very religion (strike 3). That evolution just struck out in Tennessee is how I read this bill.

 

[SixNein]

So what is wrong with the bill? One part of what's wrong with it is exactly what you said: "It sounds like they want to alow teaching of non-scientific "controversies", as in BS." Another part is that it sounds like they want to ban the teaching of evolution. From the bill going to the governor, (emphasis mine)

"This section ... shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion."​

Evolution, in the minds of some, is a non-religious doctrine (strike 1). Teaching (i.e. promoting) evolution discriminates against those people's religion beliefs (strike 2) and against their very religion (strike 3). That evolution just struck out in Tennessee is how I read this bill.

Another aspect of this bill that I was thinking about today is corporate influence. Anyone with deep enough pockets can manufacture controversy. For example, the tobacco industry had no problem finding scientists who were willing to reject the link between smoking and cancer. If you have a few of them, you can make the argument that the science is not settled (based upon the manufactured controversy).

In the link (somewhere in this thread) to the debate on the house floor, several legislators were manufacturing controversy for global warming. For example, the sponsor of the bill went on with an argument about the supposed scientific conclusion in the 70's that global cooling was occurring. (Obviously, the proposition had very little support in the scientific community.) The implication was that global warming was on very shaky ground. And it is more or less a guess.

So I think that this bill represents a complete corruption of science education. It opens the doors for religious, corporate, and political influence.

 

[Gokul43201]

I wonder if the lady in the OP might have been more effective if she did nothing more that read out this article...

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
...
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
...​

Maybe she could avoid mentioning the source until specifically asked for it: http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

 

[Bobbywhy]

What a surprise! Just during this discussion here on PF about this Tennessee bill I found this article from the LA Times about "Conservatives and frequent churchgoers" who distrust science.

“A study released Thursday in the American Sociological Review concludes that trust in science among conservatives and frequent churchgoers has declined precipitously since 1974, when a national survey first asked people how much confidence they had in the scientific community. At that time, conservatives had the highest level of trust in scientists.

Confidence in scientists has declined the most among the most educated conservatives, the peer-reviewed research paper found, concluding: "These results are quite profound because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives."

"The scientific community ... has been concerned about this growing distrust in the public with science. And what I found in the study is basically that's really not the problem. The growing distrust of science is entirely focused in two groups—conservatives and people who frequently attend church," says the study's author, University of North Carolina postdoctoral fellow Gordon Gauchat.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-conservatives-science-20120329,0,2248977.story

 

[bp_psy]

So what would be a genuine controversial scientific topic that could be thought in high-school. Most topics that actually have some controversy are highly specialized problems in current research not basic scientific facts that were established at least a century ago. This bill would be incredibly stupid even if it had no connection to creationism.

 

[OCR]

So what would be a genuine controversial scientific topic

Lol... well, you just had to ask...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science

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

OH MY!

They could discuss Gl*b*l W*rm*ng, which is so controversial that we cannot discuss it here!

PS:

[STRIKE]God[/STRIKE]Darwin... I love this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_12-571-3570

OCR...

 

[mege]

What a surprise! Just during this discussion here on PF about this Tennessee bill I found this article from the LA Times about "Conservatives and frequent churchgoers" who distrust science.

“A study released Thursday in the American Sociological Review concludes that trust in science among conservatives and frequent churchgoers has declined precipitously since 1974, when a national survey first asked people how much confidence they had in the scientific community. At that time, conservatives had the highest level of trust in scientists.

Confidence in scientists has declined the most among the most educated conservatives, the peer-reviewed research paper found, concluding: "These results are quite profound because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives."

"The scientific community ... has been concerned about this growing distrust in the public with science. And what I found in the study is basically that's really not the problem. The growing distrust of science is entirely focused in two groups—conservatives and people who frequently attend church," says the study's author, University of North Carolina postdoctoral fellow Gordon Gauchat.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-conservatives-science-20120329,0,2248977.story

A few interesting notes from the study: 1) only very recently have 'conservatives' (as a whole) been less trusting of science than moderates. 2) The 'trust' factor isn't unanamous. Less than 50% of self-ID'd liberals (according to the study's data) have absolute trust in science (compared to about 40% of Moderates and Conservatives). 3) The real take-away is the decline in trust by conservatives (where others have held relatively steady).

I generally agree with the assessment in this article. More conservatives probably reject 'climate change' science (as an example) as a basis for policy decisions because they don't want to deal with the regulatory impact it will have. Dogma is dogma weither it comes from an ancient book or a modern lab. Even if most of us put our trust in the 'lab' - that does not mean it's an ad hoc trust for everyone in the country/world/region/whatever. If science is so pure, why even have a democracy? Also, in an ironic twist the article (and paper) notes that the leftists in Europe are the generally anti-science crowd.

Regarding the Neutrality laws like in the OP - I don't think they should be rejected on the basis of some 'evolution or not' demagoguery (from either side). The laws should be rejected because education curiculums should NOT be political like this (California is the worst offender in this respect IMO - they have such a crowded curiculum it's silly, all thanks to politicians). Even as a 'fairness' law it fails. It's still putting a constraint on what should/not be taught.

 

[russ_watters]

What a surprise! Just during this discussion here on PF about this Tennessee bill I found this article from the LA Times about "Conservatives and frequent churchgoers" who distrust science.

Could you locate the actual study you are talking about please - if it is what I'm thinking of, it was very poorly done, with purposeful bias in the questions - and has been discussed here before.

 

[D H]

Could you locate the actual study you are talking about please - if it is what I'm thinking of, it was very poorly done, with purposeful bias in the questions - and has been discussed here before.

It's the General Societal Survey, which has been conducted every year / every other year since 1974. The website: http://www3.norc.org/gss+website/. The questionaires are available from the site, and the questions don't look biased at all, at least not to me.

The cited results certainly do seem consistent with what I have seen. For example, back in 1974, you would never have seen Republican presidential candidates vying to see who was most anti-intellectual. Now in 2012 it is apparently mandatory that all such candidates must reject science such as evolution if they want to have a ghost of a chance of obtaining the nomination.

 

[russ_watters]

I'll have to have a more detailed look at that when I get home this afternoon.

Your long post on the last page was great and as a moderate, not-very-religious conservative who is a big fan of science, anti-evolution crackpottery really irritates me. But I'm just not sure it is as damaging as the anti-nuclear stance that is predominantly liberal. Evolution, though, is clear-cut and easy to measure, so it is used as a benchmark. But it is dangerous to take a specific issue like that and generalize it to 'conservatives are anti-science and liberals are pro science'.

 

[bp_psy]

Lol... well, you just had to ask...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science

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

I asked for a controversial topic in science that would be appropriate for a high-school science class. I don't think anything on that list has a place in a high-school science class. I can't think of anything that could have been thought in a controversial way in my HS science classes. All We did in physics was some basic mechanics, optics, thermo , E&M and atomic and nuclear to fill 5 pages. In bio we did classifications ,cell structure and basic genetics and in chemistry we did the bare minimum inorganic solutions stuff. There was nothing controversial about any of that stuff then and I can't think of anything controversial in retrospect.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So what would be a genuine controversial scientific topic that could be thought in high-school.

It depends on how you are using the term "controversial". If you mean it in terms of a paper is published with controversial data/conclusions then probably nothing as a high school student lacks the qualifications to even begin studying the details of the controversy, also by the time the issue is simplified for teaching it is probably solved.

Socially controversial though there are many. Bioethics is a great place to start to galvanise school kids (and adults). What are the implications of genetically modified crops? Should insurance companies be allowed to ask for a DNA sequence? etc etc.

 

[russ_watters]

Socially controversial though there are many. Bioethics is a great place to start to galvanise school kids (and adults). What are the implications of genetically modified crops?

I did a debate on GM crops in an eng ethics class in college (pro side). The prof wouldn't accept the topic at first and my counterpart wasn't a good speaker, so I had to debate the con side with the prof before he would let us debate the issue with each other!

 

[Danger]

the idea that everything is created for a purpose is more commonly held then by just those who believe in religion.

That idea is religion.

The two concepts of "created" and "a purpose" both imply an intelligent creator, and are nonsense.

 

[OCR]

I asked for a controversial topic in science that would be appropriate for a high-school science class.

Hmmm, I think you asked...

So what would be a genuine controversial scientific topic that could be thought in high-school.

I sure thought about some of the stuff that's in Document 12-571-3570, way back in high school.

I wasn't always in science class, when I thought about it, either...

Lol, I'll bet you thought about that kind of stuff in grammar class... a lot.


Now, if you meant taught, I'd have a different thought about you and grammar class...

I also don't think that you could teach GW in a adequate way in a HS science class.

I probably had Document 12-571-3570 in my head when I was in acronym class, too.

What does GW mean?



Wait, wait, just thought of something... before I was even close to high school age, one time...


"I taught I taw a puddy tat"...




OCR

 

[SixNein]

I'll have to have a more detailed look at that when I get home this afternoon.

Your long post on the last page was great and as a moderate, not-very-religious conservative who is a big fan of science, anti-evolution crackpottery really irritates me. But I'm just not sure it is as damaging as the anti-nuclear stance that is predominantly liberal. Evolution, though, is clear-cut and easy to measure, so it is used as a benchmark. But it is dangerous to take a specific issue like that and generalize it to 'conservatives are anti-science and liberals are pro science'.

I don't believe conservatives are completely anti-science. In my experience, conservatives love money too much to be completely anti-science. At the same time, if they have to chose between money and science, they'll go for the money every single time.

On the other hand, liberals tend to be emotional at risk analysis. Nuclear is safer than coal, but its accidents are far more emotional. And liberals tend to reject things on those grounds.

imo anyway... So each of these groups of people have downsides from a scientific perspective.

I'd like to see a era where scientific and moral thinking rules governance.

 

[Gokul43201]

... anti-evolution crackpottery really irritates me. But I'm just not sure it is as damaging as the anti-nuclear stance that is predominantly liberal. Evolution, though, is clear-cut and easy to measure, so it is used as a benchmark. But it is dangerous to take a specific issue like that and generalize it to 'conservatives are anti-science and liberals are pro science'.

I don't think liberals deny the science behind nuclear power. I think they just have deep concerns, perhaps overblown, about safety and disposal issues.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think we should be wary about pidgeon-holing peoples political views. It rarely follows that because you take position A you also take position B, hence why there are gay conservatives and pro-nuclear liberals.

 

[SixNein]

I think we should be wary about pidgeon-holing peoples political views. It rarely follows that because you take position A you also take position B, hence why there are gay conservatives and pro-nuclear liberals.

There exists outliers, but the majority appears to be pigeons.

imo anyway

 

[CAC1001]

I'd like to see a era where scientific and moral thinking rules governance.

Both sides are anti-science in certain areas from what I've seen, it just depends on the science. With the Left, it's nuclear power and oftentimes economic science and for the far-Left, biology regarding the latter stage of a pregnancy, with the Right, it's evolution, and for the far-Right, biology regarding the early stage of a pregnancy.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think liberals deny the science behind nuclear power.

Not the operating principle [and not all liberals], but the science behind radiation exposure/danger/risk.

I think they just have deep concerns, perhaps overblown, about safety and disposal issues.

Yes.

 

[SixNein]

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) will "probably" sign a bill meant to protect teachers who allow students to question and criticize "controversial" scientific theories such as evolution, he told reporters on Monday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/bill-haslam-tennessee-evolution-bill_n_1399650.html

Well... looks like this will be the law of the land in TN.

 

[Evo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/bill-haslam-tennessee-evolution-bill_n_1399650.html

Well... looks like this will be the law of the land in TN.

When religious beliefs are allowed to replace scientific knowledge in public schools, how badly is this going to set back the knowledge of future generations? What a waste of education, even if the parent catches that their children are being taught myth as science and tells their children that what they are being taught isn't true, then what else is that teacher telling them that isn't true? How are kids supposed to trust anyone in a position like that? Not to mention the kid isn't getting a proper education.

 

[ThomasT]

I still don't see a problem with this bill, such as the contention that it might be used to teach religious myths as facts. How could it be used to do that?

Regarding controversy, anything is controversial until one learns enough about it to have a scientifically and logically defensible position wrt it.

Wrt evolution, and theories wrt how it happens, what's wrong with allowing kids who don't know anything about it to question and criticize? Then a teacher can just tell them what's known, how it's known, and what's hypothesized, and why it's hypothesized.

 

[turbo]

Wrt evolution, and theories wrt how it happens, what's wrong with allowing kids who don't know anything about it to question and criticize? Then a teacher can just tell them what's known, how it's known, and what's hypothesized, and why it's hypothesized.

The problems come when teachers with a faith-based or political ax to grind steer kids toward their own beliefs instead of teaching widely-held scientific facts. It's OK to let kids speculate and ask for clarification, but when teachers skew science with their own politics and religion, that's no longer education but indoctrination.

 

[Evo]

I still don't see a problem with this bill, such as the contention that it might be used to teach religious myths as facts. How could it be used to do that?

Apparently they tend to misuse it.

Regarding controversy, anything is controversial until one learns enough about it to have a scientifically and logically defensible position wrt it.

Wrt evolution, and theories wrt how it happens, what's wrong with allowing kids who don't know anything about it to question and criticize? Then a teacher can just tell them what's known, how it's known, and what's hypothesized, and why it's hypothesized.

The problem is that they have to be taught the science in school. Churches can teach the myth. Myths can be discussed as such, but never as science. It is not a case of creationism and evolution both being scientifically sound and it certainly should never be taught as such in a public school. If the teacher pushes creationism as the truth, what is the kid to think? Is it ok If I go to a Sunday school class and teach real science?

 

[Q_Goest]

The bill states:

(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and
(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.
...
(c) ... Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.
(d) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authrity, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

Ref: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf
The bill is suggesting that those subjects listed in (c) are controversial. So basically, this is a bill which states that teachers shall be allowed (not prohibited is the wording in the bill) to help students critique evolution and other "controversial" scientific theories.

I also watched the entire YouTube debate and vote on the bill posted in the OP which is very enlightening. The law makers made it clear that they are creationists, and this bill is intended to allow creationism a foot in the proverbial door in public schools. I think it was the lawmakers statements themselves that convinced me of the intent of this bill. It's a really sad statement about the religious beliefs so strongly held by so many people in America.

 

[ThomasT]

Apparently they tend to misuse it.

Assuming they intend to misuse it (which seems like a reasonable assumption, all things considered), I'm just wondering how it could be misused. The bill, as I recall, doesn't say anything about allowing or studying religious myth in science classes. It just says that teachers must allow questioning and criticism of scientific statements and theories, especially including popularly controversial scientific theories.

It seems to be aimed at teachers who aren't particularly religious. But it seems to me that all these teachers need to do is to explain and provide resources to the kids that make it clear how scientific observation, fact, and theory differs from religion. There doesn't appear to be anything in the bill that would prevent that.

As turbo and you mentioned, there might be teachers who tend to skew things in favor of religion, or who present religious writings as scientific facts or theories. Not a good thing of course, but I don't see how this bill has anything to do with that. Unless the purpose of the bill is to transfer the focus from the practices of the zealously religious teachers to those of the less or non religious teachers.

 

[SixNein]

When religious beliefs are allowed to replace scientific knowledge in public schools, how badly is this going to set back the knowledge of future generations? What a waste of education, even if the parent catches that their children are being taught myth as science and tells their children that what they are being taught isn't true, then what else is that teacher telling them that isn't true? How are kids supposed to trust anyone in a position like that? Not to mention the kid isn't getting a proper education.

In my opinion, the k-12 system is already set back a long way. One out of eight kids are already being taught creationism.

The majority of high-school biology teachers don't take a solid stance on evolution with their students, mostly to avoid conflicts, and fewer than 30 percent of teachers take an adamant pro-evolutionary stance on the topic, a new study finds. Also, 13 percent of these teachers advocate creationism in their classrooms.

http://www.livescience.com/11656-13-biology-teachers-advocate-creationism-class.html

So quite a lot of people are already wasting their time.

 

[SixNein]

I'm just wondering how it could be misused.

It can be misused by introducing misinformation into the classroom. While teachers are not protected on directly endorsing a creator, they can make all of the creationists arguments as long as they stop short of such endorsements. These arguments do not have to be valid from the perspective of the majority of scientists. America is already a very religious industrialized nation. Most students are going to be sold on creationism before they walk into the science classroom. So they don't honestly need to make such endorsements since everyone understands the implication. I'm not sure how this section can be interpreted:

This section ... shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

 

[SixNein]

I'm not sure how this section can be interpreted:

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with DH's take on it. I believe it is just food for the courts so that arguments based upon the establishment clause will be more difficult to make.

 

[SixNein]

Alright guys, we are starting to get into UFO's... so let's try to make the attempt to get back on track.

 

[Evo]

Clean up done. No off topic or banned topic posts please. Let's keep this only about the Tennessee law.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Tennessee’s new law (HB368) demonstrates a diversionary tactic in the anti-science movement’s strategy. In the past it tried to ban the dissemination of factual information. Now the movement in Tennessee has invented fake controversies and false equivalencies couched in terms like “teaching critical thinking”. It is a blatant attempt to create doubt and pretend that this doubt invalidates scientific consensus.

Nothing is wrong with teaching critical thinking. Students need to learn how to reexamine their ideas in light of observations and accepted scientific concepts. Modern scientific knowledge itself is the result of critical thinking applied by a long line of scientists to questions about our natural world. Skeptical scientists continually reexamine human knowledge. This is how our body of scientific knowledge is continuously validated.

But critical thinking does not mean that all criticisms are equally valid. Critical thinking has to be based on rules of reason and evidence. Discussion of critical thinking or controversies does not mean giving equal weight to ideas that lack essential supporting evidence. The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support.

The movement’s call to introduce “critical analysis” (this Tennessee amendment) into science classes disguises a broader agenda. Other attempts to introduce creationist ideas into science have used such phrases as “teach the controversy” or “present arguments for and against evolution”. Many such calls are directed specifically at attacking the teaching of evolution or other topics that some people consider controversial. In this way, they are intended to introduce creationist ideas into science classes, even though scientists have thoroughly refuted these ideas. Indeed, the application of critical thinking to the science curriculum would argue against including these ideas in science classes because they do not meet scientific standards.

There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution. In this sense the intelligent design movement’s call to “teach the controversy” is unwarranted. Of course, there remain many interesting questions about evolution, such as the evolutionary origin of sex or different mechanisms of speciation, and discussion of these questions is fully warranted in science classes. However, arguments that attempt to confuse students by suggesting that there are fundamental weaknesses in the science of evolution are unwarranted based on the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory. Creationist ideas lie outside the realm of science, and introducing them in science courses has been ruled unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court and other Federal Courts.

 

[SixNein]

Tennessee’s new law (HB368) demonstrates a diversionary tactic in the anti-science movement’s strategy. In the past it tried to ban the dissemination of factual information. Now the movement in Tennessee has invented fake controversies and false equivalencies couched in terms like “teaching critical thinking”. It is a blatant attempt to create doubt and pretend that this doubt invalidates scientific consensus.

Nothing is wrong with teaching critical thinking. Students need to learn how to reexamine their ideas in light of observations and accepted scientific concepts. Modern scientific knowledge itself is the result of critical thinking applied by a long line of scientists to questions about our natural world. Skeptical scientists continually reexamine human knowledge. This is how our body of scientific knowledge is continuously validated.

But critical thinking does not mean that all criticisms are equally valid. Critical thinking has to be based on rules of reason and evidence. Discussion of critical thinking or controversies does not mean giving equal weight to ideas that lack essential supporting evidence. The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support.

The movement’s call to introduce “critical analysis” (this Tennessee amendment) into science classes disguises a broader agenda. Other attempts to introduce creationist ideas into science have used such phrases as “teach the controversy” or “present arguments for and against evolution”. Many such calls are directed specifically at attacking the teaching of evolution or other topics that some people consider controversial. In this way, they are intended to introduce creationist ideas into science classes, even though scientists have thoroughly refuted these ideas. Indeed, the application of critical thinking to the science curriculum would argue against including these ideas in science classes because they do not meet scientific standards.

There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution. In this sense the intelligent design movement’s call to “teach the controversy” is unwarranted. Of course, there remain many interesting questions about evolution, such as the evolutionary origin of sex or different mechanisms of speciation, and discussion of these questions is fully warranted in science classes. However, arguments that attempt to confuse students by suggesting that there are fundamental weaknesses in the science of evolution are unwarranted based on the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory. Creationist ideas lie outside the realm of science, and introducing them in science courses has been ruled unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court and other Federal Courts.

The supreme court has ruled this way in the past; however, the establishment clause is the only shield science education has. Behind that shield, science education is naked. Intelligent design is essentially an abstraction of creationism designed in hopes of getting around the establishment clause. But it did not work as you pointed out.

On the other hand, the bill in question goes a step farther in abstraction. The entire section on religion was simply an effort to get around the establishment clause. Point being, I'm not sure the courts will be able to ride to the rescue. There is no constitutional protections from state meddling into the affairs of the science classroom.

So we have a situation where the spirit of the law is religiously (maybe even corporately) motivated; however, the letter of the law is not.

Do a search on spirit of law vs letter of law lol

 

[ThomasT]

It can be misused by introducing misinformation into the classroom.

How would one ascertain that something is misinformation unless one critically questioned/examined it, entailing further research to determine the sources of that information ... and the exact observations and stated or inferred rationale(s) of the information presented by those sources? Isn't that what the bill says that teachers are supposed to allow?

Let's assume that the majority of high school teachers in Tennessee are Christian zealots. (It's just an assumption which might well be wrong.) My question is: how is this particular bill going to enable them to push Christian myth and doctrine?

 

[turbo]

As turbo and you mentioned, there might be teachers who tend to skew things in favor of religion, or who present religious writings as scientific facts or theories. Not a good thing of course, but I don't see how this bill has anything to do with that. Unless the purpose of the bill is to transfer the focus from the practices of the zealously religious teachers to those of the less or non religious teachers.

Not just religious teachers, but also those with rigid political ideologies that entail the skewing or outright denial of widely-accepted science. We have another thread on this forum about how conservatives with advanced educations are becoming more distrustful of the sciences, so I won't go further down that path.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=592219

Still, that's not a path we want to put our public-school students on, if the US should ever hope to regain ascendancy in sciences and technology. Ignorance is sad, but understandable. Willful ignorance is pathetic. Willfully passing on such ignorance to young students is horrible and should be prevented. Apparently, not in TN. Students should be taught real science in school, so they have some anchor to contrast with the anti-science messages of some groups that they will be exposed to.

 

[SixNein]

How would one ascertain that something is misinformation unless one critically questioned/examined it, entailing further research to determine the sources of that information ... and the exact observations and stated or inferred rationale(s) of the information presented by those sources? Isn't that what the bill says that teachers are supposed to allow?

Let's assume that the majority of high school teachers in Tennessee are Christian zealots. (It's just an assumption which might well be wrong.) My question is: how is this particular bill going to enable them to push Christian myth and doctrine?

The teacher can be the one to inject misinformation into the classroom. High school and grade school kids do not have a college education, and they are not going to be able to separate these things on their own.

For example, let's assume a teacher presents the following argument:
The eye is to complex to have evolved and that's why people think evolution is false.

What do you expect high school students to be able to do with these arguments?

 

[SixNein]

Our dear old governor will be signing the bill into law tomorrow. Of course, there could be a surprise veto, but I don't expect it.

On a side note, npr covered the story today:

There were a few interesting comments made on the npr program.

EDIT: people can read the npr story on their own, but it contains discussions of a banned topic that we aren't going to get dragged into.

 

[lostprophets]

i think many are missing the point and taking it all as a dig at science when it may be nothing of the sort.
the point is this imo
everyone needs diplomacy.that include the option of what is what and what may be.
awareness that we MAY have been created or we may not.
evolution is real ,but is it real because of creation?
maybe, maybe not.
why can't both these options be right?
why can't both these options be a ground for diplomacy and tact of what may or may not be?
doing it this way takes the ridicule away.
on this thread many shoot down creation in a really negative way.im certain other religious forums do the same with science.
lets teach the children evolution and creation.of what may or may not be.
to have choice.creation doent mean one has to then go to church every week or at all.its the awareness of possible evolution and possible creation from day one.
we know evolution is real,but maybe just maybe it was made.

 

[lostprophets]

For example, let's assume a teacher presents the following argument:
The eye is to complex to have evolved and that's why people think evolution is false.

What do you expect high school students to be able to do with these arguments?

or they could be told, the eye evolved.
what do you expect high school students to be able to do with this argument now?

 

[D H]

or they could be told, the eye evolved.
what do you expect high school students to be able to do with this argument now?

They'll say my preacher / my sunday school teacher / my parents told me that the eye couldn't evolve. They said the eye is too complex.

Students don't live in a vacuum. There is lots and lots of disinformation out there against evolution.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

i think many are missing the point and taking it all as a dig at science when it may be nothing of the sort.
the point is this imo
everyone needs diplomacy.that include the option of what is what and what may be.
awareness that we MAY have been created or we may not.
evolution is real ,but is it real because of creation?
maybe, maybe not.
why can't both these options be right?
why can't both these options be a ground for diplomacy and tact of what may or may not be?
doing it this way takes the ridicule away.
on this thread many shoot down creation in a really negative way.im certain other religious forums do the same with science.
lets teach the children evolution and creation.of what may or may not be.
to have choice.creation doent mean one has to then go to church every week or at all.its the awareness of possible evolution and possible creation from day one.
we know evolution is real,but maybe just maybe it was made.

No, evolution and Christian creationism are diametrically opposed. There is absolutely no way they can both be right and upon examination one has mountains of evidence and one has mountains of evidence against it. Whether or not people believe it or teach it to their children is utterly irrelevent. In a science class science should be taught; science being both the method and what we have so far determined via the method. Personal beliefs have absolutely no place.

Lastly if you are going to let in unscientific dogma into science classes why stop at Christian creationism for the origin/diversity in life? Why not teach astrology in physics classes, homeopathy to our medical students, ancient astronaught intervention in history classes etc etc etc. We should teach people what has evidence gained through rational investigation and, in the case of science, gained through the scientific method. To teach belief even if it has no evidence or evidence against it (outside of religious studies) is a backwards and dangerous policy that places personal belief on the same standing as objective evidence.

 

[lostprophets]

They'll say my preacher / my sunday school teacher / my parents told me that the eye couldn't evolve. They said the eye is too complex.

Students don't live in a vacuum. There is lots and lots of disinformation out there against evolution.

so?
what your job is is to be honest.
to not say 100% that you know it is your way only.
when your honest it will come through to those listening.
when we are honest and don't put down another, but then suggest truth of what might be then there is no issue.kids are smart
hope the others do the same.
this world has to be about awareness of what might be as well as knowledge of what actually 100% known.
there is lots of disinfo in all areas and most of this info is done with no intent to deceive and some with intent for self gain and power.

 

[lostprophets]

No, evolution and Christian creationism are diametrically opposed. There is absolutely no way they can both be right and upon examination one has mountains of evidence and one has mountains of evidence against it. Whether or not people believe it or teach it to their children is utterly irrelevent. In a science class science should be taught; science being both the method and what we have so far determined via the method. Personal beliefs have absolutely no place.

Lastly if you are going to let in unscientific dogma into science classes why stop at Christian creationism for the origin/diversity in life? Why not teach astrology in physics classes, homeopathy to our medical students, ancient astronaught intervention in history classes etc etc etc. We should teach people what has evidence gained through rational investigation and, in the case of science, gained through the scientific method. To teach belief even if it has no evidence or evidence against it (outside of religious studies) is a backwards and dangerous policy that places personal belief on the same standing as objective evidence.

im not saying you shouldn't teach your way.
i think the way you explain it is a good way.
but you still don't know
and you have to offer an alternative
there has to be the class room for creation ,the class room for science and a class room for both creation and evolution in one.
i would be inclined to guess the last option would create more possitive and knowledge than the other 2. imo
people should learn about homeopathy, ancient astronaughts,quantum mechanics and standard science method.
they should be taught about it all

 

[SHISHKABOB]

im not saying you shouldn't teach your way.
i think the way you explain it is a good way.
but you still don't know
and you have to offer an alternative
there has to be the class room for creation ,the class room for science and a class room for both creation and evolution in one.
i would be inclined to guess the last option would create more possitive and knowledge than the other 2. imo
people should learn about homeopathy, ancient astronaughts,quantum mechanics and standard science method.
they should be taught about it all

the classroom for creationism is Sunday school, not a science course. If a person is interested in creationism, then he should not be going to a school classroom to study it.

 

[D H]

so?
what your job is is to be honest.
to not say 100% that you know it is your way only.
when your honest it will come through to those listening.
when we are honest and don't put down another, but then suggest truth of what might be then there is no issue.kids are smart
hope the others do the same.
this world has to be about awareness of what might be as well as knowledge of what actually 100% known.
there is lots of disinfo in all areas and most of this info is done with no intent to deceive and some with intent for self gain and power.

Being honest is not the best approach here. Being honest would require the teacher to tell the student that their beliefs are nonsense. A better approach is to diffuse the situation.

Regarding your "100% known": Beyond the very simplest and most obvious of facts, nothing is 100% known. Nothing. This is a false standard.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

im not saying you shouldn't teach your way.
i think the way you explain it is a good way.
but you still don't know
and you have to offer an alternative
there has to be the class room for creation ,the class room for science and a class room for both creation and evolution in one.
i would be inclined to guess the last option would create more possitive and knowledge than the other 2. imo
people should learn about homeopathy, ancient astronaughts,quantum mechanics and standard science method.
they should be taught about it all

I don't know what you mean by "you still don't know and have to offer an alternative". Evolution has mountains and mountains of evidence behind it. Nothing is ever absolutely known but isntead measured by the quality and quantity of evidence behind it. The only time you should offer "an alternative" is if there are competing theories to explain the same phenomenon and there is not enough evidence to determine which is correct. This has not been the case for evolution in over a century. Perhaps you should update your understanding of the subject rather than forming opinions on it.

The only place in a formal education setting that one should learn about creationism is religious studies. All forms of pseudo-science such as homeopathy, astrology should only ever be taught as examples of how science is done badly. Quantum mechanics is part of physics so I have no idea why you are invoking it in this context.

Your opinion is incorrect. The idea that you can mix one of the strongest, well tested and evidenced theories in the history of science that is one of the foundations of modern biology with bronze age myth perpetuated as pseudo-science for political reasons and end up with "more possitive and knowledge" is ridiculous. You might as well suggest that we'd have better surgeons if we trained them half in modern medical science and half in Aztec magic.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

people should learn about homeopathy

Ask Steve Jobs how he feels about homeopathy

 

[lostprophets]

Being honest is not the best approach here. Being honest would require the teacher to tell the student that their beliefs are nonsense. A better approach is to diffuse the situation.

.

why does it have to mean your beliefs are nonsense?
thats a cop out.
it restricts the mind
i love science and evolution
i love the possibility of creation also.
does the thought of being created worry me. no
does the thought of coming from nothing by accident bother me. no
all thing interest me.
it allows me to explore all avenues .
the gift we have of awareness is not something to be pushed away in a box.
the very fact I am here typing on a computer knowing there's a big universe out there and that I am alive ,it just blows my mind.im in ore of science and creation. we are creators.
i ask the question.
when we find a planet that we can live on what would we do?
would we play the creator and put life on it.
plants ,we can do that
food,we can do that
animals,we can do that,
humans? we can do that.
we can do all that then play the creator.
then in time would those humans believe in creation or evolution?
or both?
we could be those humans now having that conversation on that planet now.with you telling me evolution did it.
you may be right but because of what we can do now why can i not think that we are on that planet now from creation.
all things are possible