Tennessee Evolution Bill Becomes Law

[Moonbeam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul98
Every question you have has already been answered. You aren't special, the questions you have, have already been gone over many many times before. Try to understand them, get to the point where there are actual scientific debate.

Then there should be no problem with this Tennessee evolution law.

And I seriously doubt every question has already been answered. Just a few weeks ago scientist found a new species of early humanoids. Were does that species fit into the established roadmap of evolution?

You have to understand that your brain does not work correctly. You are not capable of logical thinking. You have conservative brain disease. So remember, as I try to explain how you have gone off the rails, it will not actually do any good. You do not want to see this so you wont:

What Paul98 said is that you are not special, that all your questions have been ask and answered before. This is so because you can't see the answers because of your brain defect, you and the rest of your conservative friends. So when this information reaches you it does not penetrate, you can't see the implications. All of your questions have been asked and answered before, you have no new questions, so the two new questions you asked when presented with this fact, have also been asked and answered before.

This is how the brain in denial works in an argument. You present argument A, an old argument that has been asked before and answered, and then, on hearing the answer you jump to argument B, which has also been asked and answered before, so you go to C and so on because you do not want to see. This is the condition of the conservative deaf dumb blind disease. Your question, if questions have been asked and answered before then what's the problem with questioning is quite simple. This question has been asked and answered a million times. It isn't a valid question, it is a question full of fail that is intended, only to protect you from seeing.

Where new scientific discoveries fit in is not a new question or valid question. It has been asked and answered before.

For you to understand this issue you are going to have to learn to think and you do not want to. Now whatever questions and doubts you may have about this have all been asked and answered before. Questions in science are only questions when they are asked scientifically. Scientists ask questions they want to answer. Conservatives ask questions to confuse themselves and keep them from seeing.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with you that you are defective. Everybody is defective when there is a truth about them they don't want to see. We were made to be this way to survive. Your parents would permit no heresy. This is why a real truth seeker has to be very serious, willing to destroy everything he believes if that's what the truth demands.

 

[child of wonder]

I had teachers that taught me the "wrinkled apple skin" theory of geology before plate tectonics became the accepted (at this moment in time) theory.
Big deal. I'm surprised the people up in arms about this law haven't petitioned the moderators here at ATP&N from limiting discussions and debates they find distasteful.
Maybe after this little anger fest you guys can run out and burn books you disagree with so no one will ever read such lies.

Was the teaching of the "Wrinkled Apple Skin" theory religiously driven?

In the case of creationism versus evolution, we have one as a scientifically accepted fact and another as a religious fairy tale with no evidence to support it at all.

If there is a major scientific dispute about plate tectonics, evolution, etc. I have no issue with "teaching the controversy." However, when it comes to creationism versus evolution there is NO CONTROVERSY TO TEACH. There is the science of evolution and the myth of creationism. We wouldn't teach it to students alongside evolution any more than we'd teach kids that Zeus creates lightning as we teach them how clouds work.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I'm a christian and I think it should be kept out of schools ONLY because if it's allowed, then it sets the precedent to allow other religions in as well. The school can teach my kids science, history, math, etc. and I'll indoctrinate them on my own.

 

[umbrella39]

Somehow I do not find this surprising. 😉

I'm finding it rather Riprorin!

 

[Moonbeam]

Something to keep in mind about your devout belief in the infallability of government...

Except I would bet that his statement that all religious dogma is fiction can be scientifically found to be not factual.

 

[jhbball]

When it comes to evolution, so called "facts" are always changing.

Only in Texas.

 

[Moonbeam]

Do you seriously not understand that by limiting what trained and credentialed educators can teach in a classroom you are being the type of angry reactionaries that you all seem to abhor?

No, I'm fine with teaching creationism in the class room. The kids will grow up ignorant and poor, unqualified for the kinds of technical jobs that pay, the kids will at least go to heaven, but I will demand that the University of California be shut down. That place teaches ungodliness and treason and all the righteous wrath of heaven needs to be thrown at them.

 

[Ausm]

Something to keep in mind about your devout belief in the infallability of government...

I am not afraid of Gubermint nor do I abuse their services if that's what you are driving at. 😉

 

[woolfe9999]

I think the reason why they don't explicitly permit teaching ID in science class is due to Kitzmiller v. Dover which basically banned intelligent design entirely as a form of dressed up creationism. If you've never read the Dover opinion it's pretty entertaining. My favorite part was when the judge cited expert testimony stating that the required disclaimer made kids "stupid".

Sometimes I wonder just how much time was spent by lawyers and legislators in order to draft legislation that would dance around court precedent and still somehow allow the teaching of creationism.

Right, what they're trying to do is style it as a "critique" of evolution rather than as the teaching of ID. In theory, I suppose you could allow teaching the pseudo-scientific criticisms of evolution which are typically proffered by creationists without mentioning ID. The Establishment Clause does not bar the teaching of pseudo-scientific criticisms of established scientific theories, per se. However, the courts are usually savvy about attempts to accomplish something expressly prohibited by some other means.

What is more generally disturbing about this is the broader implication which may not be barred by the Establishment Clause: schools are expressly prohibited from interfering with any teacher's practice of pseudoscience in the classroom. Global warming denial, anti-vax, flat earth, homeopathic medicine, cold fusion, phrenology, astrology, whatever. Those things do not implicate the Establishment Clause. What this does, essentially, is prevent schools from enforcing academic standards in science classes. If a teacher wants to teach any kind of bullshit in the classroom and style it as a "critique" of mainstream science, the school can do nothing about it.

What a horrible piece of legislation.

 

[Paul98]

Migration to north america
Communication between pacific islands and south america
Interbreeding of early human species
With DNA, whole theories on human migration are being called into question
Where did the human species originate from?

What were the facts that changed? An opinion isn't a fact.

 

[werepossum]

Thanks for posting the text. Who knows what the hell it even means. I fail to see the point of passing legislation this vague.

Have to agree. Presumably this bill was passed to fill a need, but it's hard to see what it's intended to do from what it says.

 

[busydude]

Theory of Evolution is considered a controversial topic? Lulz at comparing that with global warming.

 

[Paul98]

Then there should be no problem with this Tennessee evolution law.

And I seriously doubt every question has already been answered. Just a few weeks ago scientist found a new species of early humanoids. Were does that species fit into the established roadmap of evolution?

exactly where it should fit. Do we know everything that happened from the first life to what we have today? Of course not, finding new things just gives us a better picture of what happened. But that is just looking at how evolution worked in specific cases. These more things that come to light just strengthen evolution. But this doesn't change anything about the facts of evolution. Like passing on gene's, mutations,...

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I do not understand what the big deal is with this law?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/tennessee-evolution-bill-haslam_n_1416015.html



Why should schools be allowed to force feed students information? Isn't the purpose of schools to foster the ability of free and abstract thought?

When a scientist publishes a study, other scientist are free to criticize the results of the study. So why aren't students allowed the same freedoms?

Why is there a fear of students asking questions?

The answer to me anyway, is that the education system does not want students asking questions. The education system as a whole wants to be able to force feed students information, and the students not have the ability to question anything.

Because education should be about facts, not myths.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

When it comes to evolution, so called "facts" are always changing.

That's the thing about science. When new evidence is presented, Open minded people re-evaluate the information and postulate new theories and adapt/adjust. Creationist, Inteligent Design believers just keeps saying "God works in mysterious ways".

 

[child of wonder]

That's the thing about science. When new evidence is presented, Open minded people re-evaluate the information and postulate new theories and adapt/adjust. Creationist, Inteligent Design believers just keeps saying "God works in mysterious ways".

Science: "Here is the data. What conclusion can we draw from it?"

Religion: "Here is the conclusion. What data can we find to support it?"

 

[dainthomas]

lolsouth

 

[theeedude]

Sucks to be Tennessee students. College admission boards are going to look more skeptically on those As in biology.

 

[Ns1]

YES!!! WE CAN NOW TEACH STUDENTS ABOUT THE GLORIOUSNESS OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!!!

pastafarian fo lief!

 

[shadow9d9]

I understand that science is always changing. What the scientific community rejects today, might be accepted as fact tomorrow.

Since the scientific community is always changing, why shouldn't students be allowed to ask questions?

Why should the scientific community be allowed to force feed our education system, and we blindly accept what we are told?

You shouldn't take medications, go to doctors, or use technology... because science is always changing. You shouldn't have to learn about it and for the exact same reason, you shouldn't trust it enough to use it.

 

[Lemon law]

Science: "Here is the data. What conclusion can we draw from it?"

Religion: "Here is the conclusion. What data can we find to support it?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe Child of Wonder has unwittingly put his finger on the reason.

Science is built on evidence that can be demonstrated as true by experiments we can all replicate. The more we learn, the more new questions we have that present added contradictions and new questions. And even if we don't know everything yet and never will, its an ongoing process that leads ever onward.

Religion is built on only blind faith, makes no predictions, and can't be in any way be verified.

Therefore religious questions don't belong anywhere in publicly funded science classes. Especially in the USA that was founded by the principles of separation between church and State.

 

[Sunburn74]

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY. The Ptolemaic system was good enough for 1,500 years until the libruls tossed Jesus out of the solar system and instituted their government indoctrination plans for the sun being the center of the universe for some reason.

If it worked for almost 2,000 years, it clearly is a valid alternative theory. I hope that teachers will not be punished for trying to tell their students that the Earth is the center of the universe.

This is moronic.
1) there is no controversy.


Creationists (the guys who drummed up the phrase "teach the controversy") use dumbass principles like "irreducible complexity" to prove their points. Their basic point (in scientific terms) is that unknown forces of unknown number with unknown powers have done unknown things to create all life for unknown reasons. They claim they can tell all this because there are certain thing in life that are way too complex to have risen naturally* according to them, such as an eyeball or the brain. That is the so called controversy.

2) Galileo used math to prove the earth moves around the sun. He proved it. He didn't just suggest it. He proved it. Period. Proving something with facts that are repeatable and demonstrable is science.

*despite living in a universe that is way more complex and diverse in itself than life on earth is...

 

[Atomic Playboy]

This is moronic.
1) there is no controversy.


Creationists (the guys who drummed up the phrase "teach the controversy") use dumbass principles like "irreducible complexity" to prove their points. Their basic point (in scientific terms) is that unknown forces of unknown number with unknown powers have done unknown things to create all life for unknown reasons. We can tell all this because there are certain thing in life that are way too complex to have risen naturally*, such as an eyeball or the brain. That is the so called controversy.

2) Galileo used math to prove the earth moves around the sun. He proved it. He didn't just suggest it. He proved it. Period. Proving something with facts that are repeatable and demonstrable is science.

*despite living in a solar system that has, oh for example, a sun that is essentially a constant nuclear explosion over billions of years or gamma ray bursts that annihilate planets without warning, or black holes, etc

He was being sarcastic...

 

[yllus]

Do you think that the whole of evolutionary science is devoted to answering the question "Where did Americans come from?"

I laughed. 🙂 That was very good.

 

[surfsatwerk]

He was being sarcastic...

Wait, is that another theory we have to teach?