Tennessee Evolution Bill Becomes Law

[Carmen813]

Since we are always learning and new information is being discovered, should anything be taught in schools? Besides math that is.

For example - science barely understands how viruses like HIV work, so should schools teach students about HIV?

Science is still discovering new forms of pre-humans. Since we do not have a clear picture of evolution, should evolution be taught in school?

Shouldn't students be allowed to question what science perceives as "fact"?

Look at what happened with the discovery of java man. The scientific community rejected java man for 20+ years?

If the scientific community can reject discoveries, why shouldn't students be allowed to question current theories?

Of course students should be allowed to question scientific theories when taking a class in science. Creationism is not based in science, but on faith. If you want to allow students to debate and learn about creationism, than teach it in a religious studies course. Stop conflating faith with science. That is both an injustice to students and, in my view, disrespectful to people of faith.

 

[dmcowen674]

4-12-2012

http://news.yahoo.com/tennessee-opens-door-creationism-schools-091858484.html

Tennessee opens door to creationism in schools


In recent days the governor had received a petition signed by more than 3,000 people urging him to block the bill, but its conservative backers had enough support to override a veto with a simple majority.

Critics have labeled the legislation the "Monkey Bill" in reference to the highly publicized 1925 "Scopes Monkey Trial" in which Tennessee charged high school science teacher John Scopes with violating a state law against teaching "that man has descended from a lower order of animals."

The latest controversy is part of a long-running battle between advocates of secular public schooling and conservative Christians who accuse authorities of infringing on their freedom by keeping religion out of the public sphere.

Scientific evidence shows that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors over a period of roughly six million years.


In 1968 that the US Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional, based on the separation of church and state, to ban the teaching of evolution.

A Gallup poll in December 2010 found that four in 10 Americans believe God created humans in their present form some 10,000 years ago.

 

[cybrsage]

Sorry more specifically ALL RELIGIOUS Dogma is Fiction. 😉

Can you support this with anything other than opinion?

 

[cybrsage]

The scientific community doesn't have any solid evidence whatsoever on gods. Therefore gods should not be taught in schools at all.

It can be taught in a class on religion, no problem there.

Creationism should not be taught in schools (except in a class on religion) - that is obviously religious.

Intelligent Design should be taught in science class - since it does not require religion (the designers can be space aliens). BUT it should be taught as an example of what is NOT a proper scientific theory...due to being unfalsifiable. String Theory can be taught as well, but it is a far harder one to explain, so would be less effective.

 

[actuarial]

It can be taught in a class on religion, no problem there.

Creationism should not be taught in schools (except in a class on religion) - that is obviously religious.

Intelligent Design should be taught in science class - since it does not require religion (the designers can be space aliens). BUT it should be taught as an example of what is NOT a proper scientific theory...due to being unfalsifiable. String Theory can be taught as well, but it is a far harder one to explain, so would be less effective.

Intelligent design should not be taught in science class. Just because something is free from religious requirements does not mean it is science. Creationism also does not require religion (it could be a higher order alien who created our universe 3,000 years ago).

 

[Moonbeam]

Can you support this with anything other than opinion?

It would be a fools errand. He would have to disprove every piece of dogma that exists and the other side of the case would only need to find one piece of dogma that is true. But I don't know any dogma so it's not a job for me.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That was my thought as well. The language basically spells out how science and science education work. You question scientific ideas on a scientific basis, and you can openly and freely discuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of various science concepts.

But you have to consider the big picture, which involves who supports this bill and where the bill was passed. We're not exactly talking about the faculty of Johns Hopkins supporting a science education bill in Maryland. More or less, we're talking about a bill supported by and intended to defend people who think you "question" science by ensuring every random opinion is given equal weight, regardless of their scientific backing.

"Fair and Balanced" science, brought to you by Fox News*.

So can anyone explain why this bill was necessary?

*) Fox News is an entertainment company, not a news organization nor a scientific journal.

 

[Mxylplyx]

So should all science be presented as opinion that is open for ideological debate in our schools? Hasn't history shown that Christian institutions had beliefs based on layers upon layers of dogma that science has stripped away one layer at a time? People used to be labeled heretics for having the audacity to defy the church and state things that we now accept as scientific fact. At what point do people stop holding onto blind ignorance as a matter of faith?

 

[cybrsage]

Intelligent design should not be taught in science class. Just because something is free from religious requirements does not mean it is science.

You missed what I said. Not surprising, as it is an unusual view. I want it taught as an example of what a bad theory is...due to being unfalsifiably. They should also include string theory as another example of what a bad theory is due to being unfalsifiable.

Creationism also does not require religion (it could be a higher order alien who created our universe 3,000 years ago).

Creationism is the view that God created the world. God is needed.

 

[cybrsage]

So can anyone explain why this bill was necessary?

It was not, but many laws are created to say people must follow other laws. It gives the politicians something to do...and I would rather they pass laws saying people have to follow other laws than create even more laws for people to follow.

 

[cybrsage]

It would be a fools errand. He would have to disprove every piece of dogma that exists and the other side of the case would only need to find one piece of dogma that is true. But I don't know any dogma so it's not a job for me.

That is would be...and errand only a fool would undertake. 🙂

I once heard someone say that his Karma was going to run over the other guy's Dogma if he was not careful with his actions. I had to laugh...thought it was well played.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It was not, but many laws are created to say people must follow other laws.

The fact that the first law is a law implies that people must follow it.

It gives the politicians something to do...

Apparently the conservatives in Tennessee don't have enough to keep them busy. It was their bill, after all.

...and I would rather they pass laws saying people have to follow other laws than create even more laws for people to follow.

You would rather politicians pass more laws than to pass more laws. Yeah, sounds like you'll fit right in amongst those backwater hicks.

 

[SirStev0]

I have stop caring about this country.
Let the fucking idiots teach their fucking idiot kids what ever bullshit they want.

There are too many people the way it is. Not like they were going to make a contribution to society anyways, other than spitting out a bunch of equally ignorant and uneducated kids at 16 because that abstinence only thing didn't quite work out the way it was supposedda.
Gotta keep producing those uneducated Christian breeders.

 

[NeoV]

I'm embarrassed to live in the country where stuff like this takes place.

 

[dmcowen674]

I have stop caring about this country.
Let the fucking idiots teach their fucking idiot kids what ever bullshit they want.

There are too many people the way it is. Not like they were going to make a contribution to society anyways, other than spitting out a bunch of equally ignorant and uneducated kids at 16 because that abstinence only thing didn't quite work out the way it was supposedda.
Gotta keep producing those uneducated Christian breeders.

Why would you want to give up and let the Republicans win like that?

 

[dmcowen674]

Intelligent Design should be taught in science class

So you if you went to Kentucky to that radical religious right museum that has a display showing Eve riding a Dinosaur and it says 6,000 years ago, you actually believe that?

Edit: Corrected that is is Eve riding the Dino not Jesus.

Point still stands

 

[actuarial]

You missed what I said. Not surprising, as it is an unusual view. I want it taught as an example of what a bad theory is...due to being unfalsifiably. They should also include string theory as another example of what a bad theory is due to being unfalsifiable.

There are infinite number of other things that can be taught as bad theory as well. Why not just make up some other horse shit like evolution is caused when a being is born with excess midi-chlorians? Pseudo-science, especially things that people are actively trying to shove down our throat as legitimate science, should be kept the hell out of science class.

Creationism is the view that God created the world. God is needed.

Intelligent design as it's generally referenced uses God as the designer. If you are going to say the IDer could be an alien, I can just as easily say for Creationism that an alien could be the creator. Both 'theories' involve the same amount of science: none.

 

[Darwin333]

If its always changing, then we should not accept what we are told as fact, but rather as an opinion.

It is not opinion.

It is an intelligent and thought out scientific theory based on the evidence available today. Note the "based on evidence available today" which doesn't make it a scientific law (or absolute fact) but it is most definitely not someones opinion either. As new evidence is discovered the theory can, and most definitely should, be modified. That is exactly how science works and how it should work, why do you have a problem with this?

What makes one opinion more credible then another?

That would be that evidence thing that I spoke about above.

 

[Darwin333]

It can be taught in a class on religion, no problem there.

Creationism should not be taught in schools (except in a class on religion) - that is obviously religious.

Intelligent Design should be taught in science class - since it does not require religion (the designers can be space aliens). BUT it should be taught as an example of what is NOT a proper scientific theory...due to being unfalsifiable. String Theory can be taught as well, but it is a far harder one to explain, so would be less effective.

I don't necessarily disagree on where you are going with this but I do disagree with using ID as an example. We all know with 100% certainty that the only reason ID is spoken of is because of religion. The only people pushing for ID to be taught believe that the "designer" is the god that they pray to. ID was in fact created to push a religious agenda and for that reason alone should be kept out of the science classroom even if its only intended to show what a non-scientific theory is.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't necessarily disagree on where you are going with this but I do disagree with using ID as an example. We all know with 100% certainty that the only reason ID is spoken of is because of religion. The only people pushing for ID to be taught believe that the "designer" is the god that they pray to. ID was in fact created to push a religious agenda and for that reason alone should be kept out of the science classroom even if its only intended to show what a non-scientific theory is.

ID has also specifically been ruled by the courts as 1.) not science and 2.) inseparable from creationism.

It will never be taught in schools.

 

[child of wonder]

It is not opinion.

It is an intelligent and thought out scientific theory based on the evidence available today. Note the "based on evidence available today" which doesn't make it a scientific law (or absolute fact) but it is most definitely not someones opinion either. As new evidence is discovered the theory can, and most definitely should, be modified. That is exactly how science works and how it should work, why do you have a problem with this?

No, you're wrong. I think Texashiker is onto something here.

In fact, just the other day I was troubleshooting a computer problem. I would run tests to determine what was wrong then attempt a fix. When that didn't work I had to think things over again, try more tests, and try new solutions.

What a waste! My theory on what was wrong just kept changing and changing all the time! Hell, the next day I could think something completely different was wrong!

Now I'll just throw my arms up and realize that the troubleshooting process is just an opinion and can't be trusted since it's constantly changing. When someone comes to me with a computer problem, I'll just say "God did it."

 

[mephiston5]

Creationism is not science. Intelligent design is simply creationism re-branded.

It is depressing and sad that such large swaths of humanity regard superstition and magic in the same or similar light to rigorous scientific research.

 

[Ausm]

Its only after the increase in non-believers that things went to hell.

Don't worry there are plenty of non-critical thinking people who will prevent this from happening. 😉

 

[kami333]

So you if you went to Kentucky to that radical religious right museum that has a display showing Jesus riding a Dinosaur and it says 6,000 years ago, you actually believe that?

The Creation Museum doesn't have a display of Jesus riding a dinosaur. They have ones of children riding/playing with dinosaurs, even one Eve (I think, been a couple years) but no Jesus. Maybe they thought some of their more fundamentalist visitors would consider it blasphemy or something.

The way they apply science is quite interesting, ie using wrong analysis techniques, taking things out of context, non-nonsensical arguments, gross misinterpretation of the scientific method and the meaning of "theory", etc. It's really interesting what some people consider to be "good" science.

 

[mephiston5]

"Originally Posted by Texashiker


Its only after the increase in non-believers that things went to hell."

Yeah, and the dark ages were just wonderful.