Tennessee Antievolution Bill
- Thread starter bhavv
- Start date
Here are easier accessible sources that don't require a 37 minute video:
http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-tennessee-progresses-006545
http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-tennessee-006485
http://www.dailytech.com/Tennessee+...guard+AntiEvolution+Teachers/article21279.htm
These bill rarely if ever actually get passed into law, even in Tennessee which is infamous for trying to do so....I think this is the 6th attempt so far.
A similar Bill in New Mexico failed recently having progressed further than the Tennessee bill.
It is time that the Federal Government set stricter restrictions on high school education curriculum's in my opinion to stop this kind of nonsense progressing at all.
http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-tennessee-progresses-006545
http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-tennessee-006485
http://www.dailytech.com/Tennessee+...guard+AntiEvolution+Teachers/article21279.htm
These bill rarely if ever actually get passed into law, even in Tennessee which is infamous for trying to do so....I think this is the 6th attempt so far.
A similar Bill in New Mexico failed recently having progressed further than the Tennessee bill.
It is time that the Federal Government set stricter restrictions on high school education curriculum's in my opinion to stop this kind of nonsense progressing at all.
Intelligent design as a theory comes before the evidence, that is not scientific and as such has no place in a science class. That's without figuring in the fact that most of the 'evidence' has already been rebutted by the scientific community. On top of the fact that evolution does not disprove the existence 'god' per say. There are many evolutionary biologists with religious beliefs, they seem to find it acceptable that a 'god' could have created the 'rules' that have been observed and then used to support the theory of evolution. It is just a shame that the politicians and pressure groups don't seem to grasp the fundamentals of science in any way and then make themselves look foolish.
Bill co-sponsor Sen. Bo Watson (R-Hixson) said:
It does not meet the scientific standard, and as such literally has no place in a science class. It is not off-putting to a student to state that a belief or theory is irrelevant to the evidence based study at hand. Why should a teacher trained in instructing scientific study suddenly have to deal with a subject OUTSIDE of their field of study. It is ridiculous.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 1,135
- Location
- England
American legislatures have crazy bills submitted all the time. They only rarely pass into law.
Cant quite believe some of the things said in that video to be fair. Love the way they try and discredit a professor in a scientific field just to say "its your opinion only, no facts" when she quite clearly knows more than anyone sat on that panel. I did think the guy who spoke after her actually spoke very well and put the viewpoint of a typical middle class american parent across, yet he kinda missed the point in relation to how the subjects would actually be taught. Teaching say biology with religious education mixed in would be just weird.
How would you learn about the medical uses of e.coli bacteria for example with genetic engineering (secreting human hormones for example) when 2 of them didn't exist in the time noah and his ark did...
How would you learn about the medical uses of e.coli bacteria for example with genetic engineering (secreting human hormones for example) when 2 of them didn't exist in the time noah and his ark did...
Submitting one is fair enough, passing one though with overwhelming favour is just retarded.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 1,135
- Location
- England
It hasn't passed into law. It has simply gone to the next stage of Tennessee's legislative process.
My god my ears from their accents.
Plus idiots especially the one who argued saying offensive etc trying to say its opinion when most or all things that are taught are facts and proven.
And the next speaker saying you cant question scientific theory's etc or proven stuff is daft. Learn what has been studied and know all about science then you can decide to do research into whatever you like and once you have a good theory or prove something then you can challenge existing theory's or proven things. But at the schools they should be taught what is known first then question things and any good scientist has the drive of questioning everything thats what being a scientist is, isnt it?
Imo of course.
Plus idiots especially the one who argued saying offensive etc trying to say its opinion when most or all things that are taught are facts and proven.
And the next speaker saying you cant question scientific theory's etc or proven stuff is daft. Learn what has been studied and know all about science then you can decide to do research into whatever you like and once you have a good theory or prove something then you can challenge existing theory's or proven things. But at the schools they should be taught what is known first then question things and any good scientist has the drive of questioning everything thats what being a scientist is, isnt it?
Imo of course.
Last edited:
It has ony passed preliminary hearings, these things fail overwhelmingly when they go before the full house, as was seen recently in New Mexico.
There isn't really much of a story here beyond how fundamentalist Christian ideas are endemic in some (mainly southern) States in the US.
The bigger concern is that schools are employing Science Teachers who are obviously not qualified if they are teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design in lieu of Evolution. It's a good idea however to teach children what a Theory is though, but that should be applied to all subjects including religion.
That applies to the UK as well.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
While I'm not particularly in favour of it being taught in a science classroom it might not be the worst thing in the World for it to be brought up briefly and shown that it doesn't meet the basic criteria to be a scientific theory. Good teachers can often compare and contrast even with areas outwith their core field of study and that can make for more interesting lessons.
My understanding is this is about equivalent to a private members bill in the UK which gives it a miniscule chance of actually getting anywhere - that and the fact that it has been submitted 6 times gives me hope that we don't need to worry too much about it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 4,473
- Location
- South West
"assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers 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."
I know! Imagine getting people to validate things for themselves, I mean what is the world coming to?
Both should be covered in schools and let people make their own mind up - one side finds evolution offensive while the other finds ID offensive...... surely compromise and choice are the best options?
Not in a science class where one is obvious bunkum. The problem with the bill is that it would allow the emphasis to shift from Evolution to Creationism depending on the beliefs of the science teacher. Which in some Tennessee schools would mean the teaching of Creationism as the dominant theory at the same time as emphasising Evolution as theoretical rather than the accepted consensus.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 4,473
- Location
- South West
Having been involved in many a discussion on evolution and not willing to go into it again here, I agree, one is bunkum
but that is the whole point isn't it? Many people believe different things and surely the most common beliefs are Creationism and Evolution so they should both be taught to enable others to decide for themselves.I do not agree with teachers pushing their own personal views on others (whether they are Creationism or Evolution) as that starts erroding free will in my view.
Remove choice and we end up just being spoonfed and unwilling to think for ourselves.
He may very well be, but he would be the last person to encourage evidential based knowledge to be superseded by philosophical conjecture as the primary source of education.
Which is what this bill would allow some teachers to do.
That was my point. Augustine, if paraphrased, said that where faith and reason (read science for this point) are in conflict, then your understanding of the faith is errant, as the reason side of things can be proven and demonstrated while the faith side can not.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
On a sight tangent, I like that so many members of the public can voice their opinion in such an official manner. Whilst what some of the people said (especially that black guy who was on the panel) really annoyed me, I liked that it was a very open and accessible discussion.
Having been involved in many a discussion on evolution and not willing to go into it again here, I agree, one is bunkum
I do not agree with teachers pushing their own personal views on others (whether they are Creationism or Evolution) as that starts erroding free will in my view.
Remove choice and we end up just being spoonfed and unwilling to think for ourselves.
The issue is not the teaching of comparison between Evolution and Creationism objectively, but using the proposed legislation to supplant Evolution as the scientifically accepted consensus in favour of Creationist ideas, which is what this bill seeks to actually do.
Hiding it in moderate language doesn't detract from the fact that if enacted Creationism and other alternate theories to accepted scientific consensus would gain primacy in some schools, and a child's education would be reliant upon the religious beliefs and philosophical position of the Teacher rather than that of accepted scientific understanding.