http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/04/11/tennessee_evolution_law_allows_creationism_intelligent_design_in_the_classroom.html?from=rss/&wpisrc=newsletter_slatest (http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/04/11/tennessee_evolution_law_allows_creationism_intelligent_design_in_the_classroom.html?from=rss/&wpisrc=newsletter_slatest)
QuotePaging the ghosts of Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan: Tennessee has a new law on the books that allows teachers to discuss alternatives to mainstream scientific theories in the classroom, including intelligent design.
Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam allowed the bill—which easily passed the state's House and Senate—to become law on Tuesday by neither signing nor vetoing it, the Memphis Commercial Appeal reports.
The new law bars schools and administrators from prohibiting teachers 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." But, as the effort's critics have been quick to point out, the only examples the legislation gives of "controversial" theories are "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
The law does not allow teachers to present the alternative theories on their own, as Reuters notes, but they must discuss them if mentioned. Critics of the law dubbed it the "monkey bill," after the 1925 prosecution in Tennessee of John Scopes, a science teacher who broke state law at the time by teaching evolution.
The law's supporters, including the Knoxville-based Center for Faith and Science International, argue that it promotes critical thinking skills. But opponents, who include the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Tennessee Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Association of Biology Teachers, argue that the new rules are essentially allowing teachers to depict evolution and global warming as scientifically controversial subjects, when the actual controversy surrounding them comes from the political and religious spheres, not from scientists.
As Nature notes, the separation of church and state bars school from promoting religion in the classroom, which generally keeps creationism and intelligent design on the sidelines of biology classes. But the Tennessee law represents a victory for a strategy to circumvent that limitation. Groups like the Discovery Institute, who advocate for the teaching of intelligent design, have depicted evolution as a scientifically controversial topic in order to make space for alternative theories in the classroom.
In 2008, Louisiana passed a similar law that provides even more leeway for teachers to bring nonscientific alternative theories into the classroom. As the Christian Science Monitor explains, Louisiana's Science Education Act allows teachers to bring in supplemental materials in addition to science curriculum textbooks while discussing subjects "including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning."
What do you think of this? Assuming that the teachers are honest science teachers who are actually presenting help analyzing and critiquing the theories using valid scientific thought and logic, I don't have a problem with it. What I worry about is the fact that it's Tennessee, and that even the science teachers may present the info in a way that is skewed by their religion, rather than using the scientific method.
Quote from: The Ali on April 12, 2012, 08:17:17 PM
What I worry about is the fact that it's Tennessee, and that even the science teachers may present the info in a way that is skewed by their religion, rather than using the scientific method.
Ye-aahhhhhh. This.
Excellent! Another nail in the coffin of American science education! Go Europe!!!
That was a joke.
Take out the Excellent! and Go Europe!!! and it's no longer a joke.
Quote from: The Ali on April 12, 2012, 08:17:17 PM
What do you think of this? Assuming that the teachers are honest science teachers who are actually presenting help analyzing and critiquing the theories using valid scientific thought and logic, I don't have a problem with it. What I worry about is the fact that it's Tennessee, and that even the science teachers may present the info in a way that is skewed by their religion, rather than using the scientific method.
If you'll pardon my french, that's a big f**king if!
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 12, 2012, 10:00:29 PM
Quote from: The Ali on April 12, 2012, 08:17:17 PM
What do you think of this? Assuming that the teachers are honest science teachers who are actually presenting help analyzing and critiquing the theories using valid scientific thought and logic, I don't have a problem with it. What I worry about is the fact that it's Tennessee, and that even the science teachers may present the info in a way that is skewed by their religion, rather than using the scientific method.
If you'll pardon my french, that's a big f**king if!
Well it's hard, because you don't want to make it so that students/teachers can't analyze and question current scientific theories and findings. That goes against the very idea of science! It's just a question of how you make sure that science teachers are actually using the scientific method to go about it.
Quote from: The Ali on April 12, 2012, 10:15:34 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 12, 2012, 10:00:29 PM
Quote from: The Ali on April 12, 2012, 08:17:17 PM
What do you think of this? Assuming that the teachers are honest science teachers who are actually presenting help analyzing and critiquing the theories using valid scientific thought and logic, I don't have a problem with it. What I worry about is the fact that it's Tennessee, and that even the science teachers may present the info in a way that is skewed by their religion, rather than using the scientific method.
If you'll pardon my french, that's a big f**king if!
Well it's hard, because you don't want to make it so that students/teachers can't analyze and question current scientific theories and findings. That goes against the very idea of science! It's just a question of how you make sure that science teachers are actually using the scientific method to go about it.
Or that they have an even rudimentary understanding of what the scientific method
is.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 12, 2012, 11:45:47 PM
Quote from: The Ali on April 12, 2012, 10:15:34 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 12, 2012, 10:00:29 PM
Quote from: The Ali on April 12, 2012, 08:17:17 PM
What do you think of this? Assuming that the teachers are honest science teachers who are actually presenting help analyzing and critiquing the theories using valid scientific thought and logic, I don't have a problem with it. What I worry about is the fact that it's Tennessee, and that even the science teachers may present the info in a way that is skewed by their religion, rather than using the scientific method.
If you'll pardon my french, that's a big f**king if!
Well it's hard, because you don't want to make it so that students/teachers can't analyze and question current scientific theories and findings. That goes against the very idea of science! It's just a question of how you make sure that science teachers are actually using the scientific method to go about it.
Or that they have an even rudimentary understanding of what the scientific method is.
I agree, this comes first.
If they do, and they know evolutionary theory beyond high school level well enough, Tennessee should have nothing to fear. ID is a weak idea and will not stand to scrutiny.
But of course they're going for the schools, it's where the most vulnerable and impressionable are. ::)
Quote from: The Ali on April 12, 2012, 08:17:17 PM
What do you think of this?
I think if I were raising kids, I'd feel compelled to home-school them.
Unbelievable.
I wonder if Tennessee science teachers will be encouraging students to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of gravity. Perhaps an undetectable intelligent designer is using undetectable, super-strong strings to keep everything attached to the earth's surface. That's my unfalsifiable, completely unscientific "theory" that I would like given equal time in the science classroom.
The theory of evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that the theory of gravity is "just a theory." There is no competing scientific explanation.
Quote from: Anne D. on April 13, 2012, 02:29:45 AM
Unbelievable.
I wonder if Tennessee science teachers will be encouraging students to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of gravity. Perhaps an undetectable intelligent designer is using undetectable, super-strong strings to keep everything attached to the earth's surface. That's my unfalsifiable, completely unscientific "theory" that I would like given equal time in the science classroom.
The theory of evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that the theory of gravity is "just a theory." There is no competing scientific explanation.
Well yeah, that's pretty much string theory, isn't it? ::)
Set myself up for that one :)
hehe...
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 13, 2012, 02:37:59 AM
Quote from: Anne D. on April 13, 2012, 02:29:45 AM
Unbelievable.
I wonder if Tennessee science teachers will be encouraging students to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of gravity. Perhaps an undetectable intelligent designer is using undetectable, super-strong strings to keep everything attached to the earth's surface. That's my unfalsifiable, completely unscientific "theory" that I would like given equal time in the science classroom.
The theory of evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that the theory of gravity is "just a theory." There is no competing scientific explanation.
Well yeah, that's pretty much string theory, isn't it? ::)
Saw that one coming....
OMFSM, what a disaster. It was designed to be misused, not to foster any thinking skills.
The distance between the two groups in the US is getting terrifyingly wide and deep. Don't forget, Americans, that it took decades to reach the breaking point in 1861 and many believed, right up to the end, that war would not happen. I hope the liberal faction is savvy enough to jump on anything that looks like military preparations, before they can happen.
EDIT: joeactor just posted this one in the Image Dump. Hope you don't mind my using it, joe...
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.babble.com%2Fstrollerderby%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F07%2Fagnostic-atheism-bible-school.jpg&hash=93d2bcb07850a94d64a22c7955e86aa162138825)
Quoteallows teachers to discuss alternatives to mainstream scientific theories in the classroom, including intelligent design.
That. Right there.
It's okay for teachers to say that there are alternative ideasg. It's okay for teachers to encourage independent researching of these ideas and even provide starting points where one could find info on them. But this.....
Now where's that video about that teacher who teaches creationism/ID in biology class. This law is tailored for that guy....
At this rate, they'll start questioning whether the Earth is round or not again. =|
Needless to say that, as an atheist, I'd rather that the world dispensed with religion. But I'm not overly troubled by those liberal forms that can embrace science and free thought. And I'm fascinated that there are scientists who manage to maintain a belief in God. I understand that such scientists are in the minority. But do we know that a belief in God necessarily leads to inferior science? Put another way, can a fundamentalist Christian do first-rate science?
Quote from: Invictus on April 14, 2012, 06:06:54 PM
Put another way, can a fundamentalist Christian do first-rate science?
Depends. If they start with the conclusion that a god exists and then go looking for evidence to prove that, then no. That is contrary to the scientific method. If they don't do that (and it may well depend on what area of science they are studying, such as drug testing or some other less controversial area of science) then I don't see why a belief in god should necessarily get in the way.
Regardless of the law, I doubt the quality of scientific education will decrease too greatly in Tenn.
If the teachers already don't believe certain scientific theories, I doubt they do a very good job teaching them as is. The alternative, non-scientific theories should not be taught in a science class, but I just don't think it will really affect the classes with good teachers. And the ones with teachers who believe in ID are likely already doing a terrible job.
It's obviously yet another B.S. law though.
Quote from: Invictus on April 14, 2012, 06:06:54 PM
Put another way, can a fundamentalist Christian do first-rate science?
I guess it depends on how much his congitive dissonance gets in the way...
I don't see why someone specialised in...computer science for instance shouldn't do a good job if he's competent. As for others such as biology, geology, astronomy etc, I'm not too sure. He'll have a lot of crossroads to deal with.
Quote from: Invictus on April 14, 2012, 06:06:54 PM
Put another way, can a fundamentalist Christian do first-rate science?
Charles Darwin did and looked what happened to him ;D
Your referring to Darwin's near universal aclaim for figuring out one of the great mysteries of biology and famously and forever earning himself the mantel of one of the west's greatest intellects?
Not to forget having a fish named after him too!
Quote from: technolud on April 17, 2012, 02:56:56 AM
Your referring to Darwin's near universal aclaim for figuring out one of the great mysteries of biology and famously and forever earning himself the mantel of one of the west's greatest intellects?
Yes. He was born into a Christian family and at one time seriously considered and ecclesiastical career. He grew up a creationist but over years of study in geology and observing the natural world he realised that natural selection shaped life, not mythology. I grew up 5 miles from Downe house where Darwin wrote Origin of Species and have visited it a few times. And the village church he attended up until the death of Ann, is eldest daughter.
For me part of the strength of his ideas came from the fact that in some ways I think he hated what he had discovered. He knew full well that his work would effectively render an interventionist god irrelevant to reality. I think it is possible he would never have published if not pushed to it by the parallel work of Russell Wallace. But Russell also knew he lacked the research to back up his ideas. The very research that Darwin sat on because he realised the impact it would have. I think one of Darwin's worries would be the impact publication
could have on his family and his relationship with his wife, always a devout Christian.
As long as the scientific method is correctly understood and honestly applied I don't see a problem with the theistic beliefs, or not, of a scientist. Humans have the ability to compartmentalise. Scientific study has often been seen as 'revealing God's work' and thus may not conflict with a person's belief/faith.
Makes you respect Darwin all the more.
I don't understand how, but it seems altogether possible that a person can posses realistic, scientific logic and faith too. Faith I respect. Religion is something else altogether.
Quote from: technolud on April 17, 2012, 11:15:08 AM
Makes you respect Darwin all the more.
I think so to. He looked at the real world, and went against his culture and up bringing and bravely interpreted what he saw.
Quote from: technolud on April 17, 2012, 11:15:08 AM
I don't understand how, but it seems altogether possible that a person can posses realistic, scientific logic and faith too.
Well until recently one had to be able to hold at least two nominally contradictory views.
Quote from: technolud on April 17, 2012, 11:15:08 AM
Faith I respect. Religion is something else altogether.
Not sure I understand this as I tend to see Faith as unthinking adherence to a view at the potential denial of evidence. Many 'faithful' cling to their Faith in their religion irrespective of the evidence for or against it. I personally don't see a benefit in that type of behaviour.
Quote from: technolud on April 17, 2012, 11:15:08 AMI don't understand how, but it seems altogether possible that a person can posses realistic, scientific logic and faith too. Faith I respect. Religion is something else altogether.
I'm kinda with Tank on this, though I would say that I have nothing against believing something or even in something, but blind faith and religions are out of the window before you can say "theology". There is hair thin difference between there...somewhere....
You've all read about the "god spot" in peoples brains. A center stroked by the thought of "faith" or "god" or "religion". I believe this exists, just like some people need sex or power or love. But still, the "faith" can lead some people to do some really good stuff. People are complicated. And in my expierence at least, not fully rational. But we all have to live together.