Tennessee to teach the controversy

[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

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

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

Are you saying that your personal feelings and personal beliefs should be taught on a global scale in academic institutions? Why yours and not mine, why mine and not Ryans? Do you see the problem here? Science is about facts, evidence and real application. I'm sorry, but we won't be curing cancer with your spirituality.

 

[lostprophets]

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.

?
why would i think modern surgeons would be better if trained that way?
you are suggesting things that i am not...you have said those words not i.
good try though ;)
quantum physics is part of everything not just physics.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

?
why would i think modern surgeons would be better if trained that way?
you are suggesting things that i am not...you have said those words not i.
good try though ;)

Why would you think that teaching creation and evolution would lead to more knowledge? The point is analogous.

quantum physics is part of everything not just physics.

Physics is the study of the laws of the universe. Quantum physics is part of that. The study may appear in other interdiciplinary areas of science but it is a scientific topic and not a pseudo-scientific one. My objection was that you conflated the two by listing it with homeopathy and ancient astronaughts.

 

[lostprophets]

Are you saying that your personal feelings and personal beliefs should be taught on a global scale in academic institutions? Why yours and not mine, why mine and not Ryans? Do you see the problem here? Science is about facts, evidence and real application. I'm sorry, but we won't be curing cancer with your spirituality.

thats correct. science will cure cancer just as i believe it will.well pointed out
i have no personal beliefs in anything that control one belif or the other
you seem to be speaking in a manner that seems to imply that i suggested do not ever use science and disregard it completely. why? when that is CLEARLY not the case

 

[lostprophets]

Ask Steve Jobs how he feels about homeopathy

?

what has that to do with it. science never kept him alive either

 

[thorium1010]

?

what has that to do with it. science never kept him alive either

Science is not a thing that does something for someone. Science builds knowledge through evidence and experimentation.And application of that knowledge gives us a chance to solve problems. Homeopathy (also naturopathy) is a claim of something miraculous (like a cure) without any evidence to support it.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I think they should teach the controversy. When they teach students about disease causing bacteria, they should spend just as much time teaching disease causing witchcraft.
"You see, students, some believe disease are caused by microorganisms, but on the other hand, some believe that witches cast spells on people and make them ill. It's up to you to decide which one you want to believe."

 

[SixNein]

How can the governor have his cake and eat it too??...

Gov. Bill Haslam said Tuesday that he will allow House Bill 368/Senate Bill 893 to become law without his signature, a symbolic move that signals his opposition but allows the measure to be added to the state code.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120410/NEWS0201/304100065/Haslam-allows-evolution-bill-become-law?odyssey=nav|head

*SixNine puts on his party hat to celebrate the new law

 

[Danger]

*SixNine puts on his party hat to celebrate the new law

How could that guy have possibly sustained a campaign for Governor when he doesn't even have the balls to shoot down ******** like this? He doesn't deserve to hold office.

 

[SixNein]

How could that guy have possibly sustained a campaign for Governor when he doesn't even have the balls to shoot down ******** like this? He doesn't deserve to hold office.

On the bright side, TN just got published in nature:
http://www.nature.com/news/tennessee-monkey-bill-becomes-law-1.10423

 

[ThomasT]

I've asked, several times, exactly how this bill might be misused. What might this bill enable that isn't already being done? No replies to that question yet.

“I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers,” Haslam said in a written statement explaining his equivocal stance. “However, I also don’t believe that it accomplishes anything that isn’t already acceptable in our schools.”

I agree with the governor's statement. The bill is unimportant. In fact, it's a non sequitur. There's nothing in it, that I see, that can be used to promote the promulgation of religious myth as truth. So, I'm wondering, what's the problem? Of course I'm also wondering why the need for such legislation?

Maybe I'm missing something. If this bill can be legally misused (to promote religion), then, please, somebody, tell me how. So far I've noted a few posts against this legislation, but nobody has addressed my question.

So, ok, maybe it's just another bit of nonessential legislation -- the sort of thing that elected officials sometimes engage as opposed to addressing the really difficult social issues.

But opponents say that the real goal of the bill is apparent from the list of subjects it singles out. “HB 368 and other bills like it are a permission slip for teachers to bring creationism, climate-change denial and other non-science into science classrooms,” says Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, California.

But all of this was possible, and apparently done, before and without this legislation. The bill in question says nothing about this stuff. So, I wonder, what's the point? If it can, and is intended to be, misused (to promote religious views), then exactly how can it be used that way?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I've asked, several times, exactly how this bill might be misused. What might this bill enable that isn't already being done? No replies to that question yet.

PZ Myers has on his blog an open letter from students at the University of Tennessee that aptly points out some of the biggest flaws:

Dear Governor Haslam,

We are writing to you regarding HB368/SB893. As graduate students at the University of Tennessee, we strongly believe that this Bill represents a step backward for Tennessee and our state’s ascending recognition for Science and STEM education. We are specifically writing to address the nature of the Bill itself, which we feel was not adequately discussed during either the House or Senate hearings and misrepresents the undivided consensus among anthropologists, biochemists, biologists, ecologists, evolutionary biologists, genome scientists, geographers, and molecular biologists.

If given a cursory reading, this Bill appears to advocate for intellectual freedom in the classroom and hence would seem prudent. However, it is abundantly clear from both a careful reading and from the testimony at hearings that the intent of this Bill is to encourage teachers to call into question universally accepted scientific principles.

In Section 1(a)(2) of SB893, the generally assembly states “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;”

We agree. However, this “controversy” is not scientific. The controversy to which the Bill alludes is the reluctance of non-scientists to accept these principles due to certain religious and political beliefs. This can be the only explanation for the inclusion of human cloning in the Bill. Human cloning is solely an ethical issue. There is no scientific debate on how to clone an organism or whether genetic clones can be created. It is a fact that humans can create genetic clones. Only the ethics of the issue is at stake.

Scientific evidence supporting the occurrence of biological evolution, global climate change, and the chemical origin of life are not controversial among scientists. Scientists universally accept these principles based on their predictability and the overwhelming evidence supporting them. Among scientists, the controversy exists in the details such as how changes in temperatures will affect biodiversity or what evolutionary forces
regulate the speciation process. This type of discussion is due to the very nature of science, which requires the constant acquisition and analysis of data.

However, this is not the controversy to which the Bill speaks. The bill later states, in section 1(c), that “The state board of education . . . shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies.” This wording seems to imply that the controversy for these aforementioned subjects lies in the scientific realm where in reality they lie only in the political and religious ones.

We fear that this bill only ostensibly supports “critical thinking” in Tennessee’s classrooms. Instead, by implying that subjects such as evolution and global warming are “debatable”, this bill achieves the exact opposite of its purported goal. This is tantamount to encouraging educators to suggest students in science classes disregard the very nature of the scientific process and ignore factual data in favor of the beliefs of some individuals. Scientists cannot ignore data in favor of personal biases. If they did, they would be discredited as non-objective.

This Bill is a step backwards and would do irreparable harm to the development of STEM education in this state. As university educators, we continually face the challenge of losing students’ interests in science courses when they arrive at The University of Tennessee because they are frustrated by their lack of sufficient preparation. Many of them know very little about evolution by natural selection or the mechanisms of global climate change. We hope that you see that as with the legislatures who passed this bill, we too are concerned about the education of children in Tennessee.

This passage of this Bill has the potential to cost the state dearly in terms of lost revenue, a poorly trained scientific workforce, and an exodus of scientists and educators who do not wish to have their discipline diluted with non-scientific biases. We fear that calling into question scientific support of foundations to biological theory will cripple the ability of Tennessee’s students to become functional scientists, doctors, professionals, and contributing members of many growing fields.

We ask that you please thoughtfully consider our position, and veto this bill. Thank you for your time.

Signed,
Graduate Researchers in Ecology, Behavior, and Evolutionary Biology (G.R.E.B.E)
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

[56 grad students from EEB and other departments signed the petition]

The problem is that the bill pushes for/allows science classes to teach the social controversies behind various scientific disciplines but does not have any provision to make it clear that these will purely be taught in a social sense with strong emphasis on the scientific validity.

 

[daveb]

The problem is that the bill pushes for/allows science classes to teach the social controversies behind various scientific disciplines but does not have any provision to make it clear that these will purely be taught in a social sense with strong emphasis on the scientific validity.

This is the crux of the matter - it's OK to teach the controversies as a social controversies - just not scientific ones. I couldn't find any acacdemic content standard that mentions controveries in the Tennessee content standards. Ohio used to have an academic content standard that specifically addressed this (something along the lines of "learn how scientific advances can create social and political controversies"), but they recently changed that content standard - I have to wonder if perhaps Ohio is caving into the creationists as well.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think it's very important for social and political consequences of science to be taught so long as it is taught purely in that context and hand-in-hand with teaching why the science is valid. It is also important to teach controversies within science but to make sure that the difference between this and the former is crystal clear. This bill makes no provision for that and given the suspect way it is worded and the history of the creationist movement in Tennessee I can't see this as any more than another wedge strategy.

 

[SixNein]

I think it's very important for social and political consequences of science to be taught so long as it is taught purely in that context and hand-in-hand with teaching why the science is valid. It is also important to teach controversies within science but to make sure that the difference between this and the former is crystal clear. This bill makes no provision for that and given the suspect way it is worded and the history of the creationist movement in Tennessee I can't see this as any more than another wedge strategy.

I think we lost quite a lot of ground in Tennessee. The bill was written very carefully to avoid the establishment clause based upon recent court rulings on the matter. If this is indeed the case, it can only be challenged on a case by case basis. I could be wrong, and the courts could see through this device and strike it down, but I think it is improbable. They put some extra subjects like human cloning in it so that it wouldn't look like it was focused on evolution (I think it was dover that brought that up), and they put in several religious clauses.

So your left with political controversies = scientific controversies.

 

[ThomasT]

The problem is that the bill pushes for/allows science classes to teach the social controversies behind various scientific disciplines ...

Where does it do that? (The bill is reproduced below for easy reference.)

What I take from it is that it says that the teaching of some scientific subjects can cause controversy (not surprising in a Bible Belt state such as Tennessee), that some teachers might not be sure of how to handle that (due to real or imagined threats from the disciples of Jehovah/Yahweh??), and that the governing authorities will help teachers to conduct unbiased presentations of scientific material, teach the scientific method, and reply to obviously social or religious based criticism of scientific theories, hypotheses, and statements of fact in a reasonable and respectful manner.

Some have a different take on the bill. But, just looking at the literal content of the bill, I don't see how it could possibly be used to promote opinions based on religious orientation over opinions based on scientific research.

-------------------------------------------

(a) The general assembly finds that:
(1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about
scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary
to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens;
(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.

(b) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school
governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public
elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create
an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages
students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical
thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about
controversial issues.

(c) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school
governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public
elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist
teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses
scientific controversies. 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 authority, 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.

(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and 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]

Where does it do that? (The bill is reproduced below for easy reference.)

What I take from it is that it says that the teaching of some scientific subjects can cause controversy (not surprising in a Bible Belt state such as Tennessee), that some teachers might not be sure of how to handle that (due to real or imagined threats from the disciples of Jehovah/Yahweh??), and that the governing authorities will help teachers to conduct unbiased presentations of scientific material, teach the scientific method, and reply to obviously social or religious based criticism of scientific theories, hypotheses, and statements of fact in a reasonable and respectful manner.

You are making assumptions about the meaning of controversy.

If a teacher finds the subject controversial for religious or political reasons, what does the bill authorize the teacher to do?

 

[ThomasT]

You are making assumptions about the meaning of controversy.

I don't know what you mean.

If a teacher finds the subject controversial for religious or political reasons, what does the bill authorize the teacher to do?

" ... 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."

 

[SixNein]

I don't know what you mean.

" ... 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."

You are assuming the teacher wishes to defend any particular science.

 

[ThomasT]

You are assuming the teacher wishes to defend any particular science.

I'm just asking exactly how the bill might be used to promote religious opinions over scientific ones. So far nobody's answered, or even addressed, that question.