Tennessee Passes Bill That Allows "Teaching the Controversy" of Evolution 1108
Layzej writes "The Tennessee Senate has passed a bill that allows teachers to 'teach the controversy' on evolution, global warming and other scientific subjects. Critics have called it a 'monkey bill' that promotes creationism in classrooms. In a statement sent to legislators, eight members of the National Academy of Science said that, in practice, the bill will likely lead to 'scientifically unwarranted criticisms of evolution.' and that 'By undermining the teaching of evolution in Tennessee's public schools, HB368 and SB893 would miseducate students, harm the state's national reputation, and weaken its efforts to compete in a science-driven global economy.'"
There's Your Problem Right There (Score:5, Interesting)
The Senate approved a bill Monday evening that deals with teaching of evolution and other scientific theories ...
Well, there's your problem, right there. The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory. Surely even the staunchest of Creationists must acknowledge the so called "short-term" evolution that gives us the ability to manipulate plants or breed wolves into dogs.
Yes, as with most fields, a long time ago there were sets of theories. Like prior to Watson and Crick, back when you had Darwinian Evolution, Larmarckian Evolution, etc. Not anymore though. You might have theories about very specific things in the field that might be impossible to prove -- like, say, what the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA) looked like -- but Evolution is no longer a theory. The field moves forward while Tennessee makes themselves look like idiots from some forgotten era.
Science should be taught in science class. (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple solution... (Score:4, Interesting)
...require any science taught in schools to have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis.
Evolution qualifies, creationism doesn't.
Astronomy qualifies, astrology doesn't.
Oh, and FWIW, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming *doesn't* qualify, unless of course some brave soul would like to make a clear falsifiable hypothesis statement for it :)
Re:There's Your Problem Right There (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. A friend of mine went to high school in Georgia. The biology teacher was legally required to teach evolution. Here's how she taught it.
"Today, I'm legally required to teach evolution. We all believe in Jesus, right? OK, next topic."
I doubt the Tenesee law will change much in the classroom, merely decriminalize common behavior.
Re:The Tyranny of the (Localized) Majority (Score:4, Interesting)
In retrospect, can't we give them the option of succession? The new state of Northern Mexico would admittedly, increase border problems, but think of the tax savings! (http://www.flapolitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3311)
Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature (Score:5, Interesting)
Because all those scientist are elitist.
If, "I have mountains of observational evidence for a well considered theory, you have magic stories, therefore we should not teach your silliness in a classroom as if it resembles science.", is elitist... then at least it's well founded elitism.
Here's to hoping that this absurd bit of legislation opens the door for good teachers to finally, openly hammer these ridiculous superstitions in the classroom, without fear of reprisal.
You wanted your batshit theories in the classroom, and went as far as to use government intervention to get it there? Fine. Now you have to deal with having its long list of scientific inadequacies laid bare before your children.
Obviously it was designed for state sanctioned religious indoctrination in our schools, but it just might have a silver lining.
Re:There's Your Problem Right There (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps creationism has a place in a course on logic (eg. ontological, prime mover etc). I think to ensure freedom of religion or at least to keep the schools free from a biased view of religion it needs to be not only from the christian standpoint and more of an academic course rather than just a "we are a christian society and this is what christian's should believe" kind of course. I see nothing wrong with teaching religion as part of history, logic/philosophy, etc. It is a massive part of society. Even atheists often point to religious objects (churches, vatican, paintings etc) as being some of the finest works of art. It would be a shame to ignore the background of everything and just look at the paintings as pretty pictures. So much of the field was controlled by the church funding it, people's rather dreary look at the human state etc that the (mostly Catholic) church instilled in people in the 14-19th centuries. Similarly with science: we can't ignore the fact that these ideas had huge impact as to how people view themselves in relation to the universe and that there are still a large number of people that reject the ideas outright, or would modify them to include that God controls evolution to serve His purpose.
Separating the church from the state doesn't necessarily everyone in the state needs to remain ignorant of things religious just that the state shouldn't be controlled by the church(shrine, temple, insert whatever name you use for whatever building you consider sacred). I think the state has no place to say which religion is right but teaching facts about a religion and its place in history and culture? No problem there IMHO.
The only "controversy" in any of this .. (Score:5, Interesting)
is manufactured. It's that some religious extremists in this country can't deal with the fact that the reality that hard science is discovering and exploring doesn't exactly match their creation myth of choice, and keep stirring the s*** because they're still trying to stuff that genie back in the bottle long after it's way too late.
There's only a "controversy" because they keep insisting it's "controversial" as a pretext to keep their foot in the door. And the fact is, creationism is not science, at best it's Bible-flavored pseudoscience that's already decided its conclusions and merely cherry-picks data to support those conclusions .. which is actually the opposite of science ..
Time To End The Union? (Score:2, Interesting)
Considering the vast political and ideological decide between States like California, New York, Washington vs Georgia, Texas and Mississippi, wouldn't we be better off ending the Union of States and allowing like minded States to refactor into new Unions with new Constitutions? It seems our entire political system is at a partisan standstill with both sides stonewalling the other and a government that has racked up a debt unequaled in even recent history.
If States like Texas, Tennassee and Georgia want to live like wealth worshipping Taliban, let them. I for one think we'd be better off reevaluating the Union and it's effect on the population in general. At the rate were going, Civil War is not all that unlikely as the media continues to drive politics to further extremes. So perhaps a good look now and willingness to let go of the Union and getting a fresh political perspective could prevent our Nation's situation from getting worse. Besides, the Coastal and Northern Union would still maintain the largest GDP in the world without having to pay for the welfare of the barely literate parochial types in the Confederacy.
Re:There's Your Problem Right There (Score:5, Interesting)
I am still stunned that people think this way...
You (not you, they) believe in the bible and Jesus and invisible friends in the sky, great. That in no way interferes with the proven fact that organisms evolve based on their surroundings.
Even if you want to completely dismiss that humans evolved, you should still (as an educator, no matter how dumb) desire to pass on knowledge.
Re:There's Your Problem Right There (Score:5, Interesting)
on the absurd idea that the bible is literal in on all counts, infallible on all counts (usually specifically the KJV translation),
What makes it especially absurd is that KJV version differs the most from all the ancient sources used to translate from.
Fundamentalists like it better because the KJV altered the original text to avoid certain contradictions (like the fact that the source texts mention contradicting sources about who killed Goliath- KJV conveniently "corrects" what the source says to make it sound better - when mankind has to "correct" the source how can it be infallible?).
Re:There's Your Problem Right There (Score:4, Interesting)
Chances are the biology teacher didn't have a degree in anything resembling biology. Schools figure that they can take anyone with an education degree and make them teach anything.
Re:There's Your Problem Right There (Score:5, Interesting)
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26
Clearly Pi = 3
Sinners.
4 legs, 6 limbs (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure they have 4 legs. And 2 arms!
A better way to get a fundamentalist confused is to ask them "Who was created first, Adam and Eve or the animals?"
Tell them to check both the first and second chapter of Genesis. If they stop after the first, they will only have one answer. It cannot have hapened both ways, it must be one or the other (or neither), so therefore the Bible is not 100% true. At minimum one chapter or the other must be false. It could be that both are false, but they might burn you at the stake for saying that.
If you don't know the answer, it only takes a few minutes to read both chapters. Then follow up and ask 'Was Adam or Eve created first? Or, were they created at the same time?" (the answer is both. Adam was created first and they were created at exactly the same time).
Self consistency is not a strong point in the Bible. That is very strange because any scientist will tell you that the universe is amazingly self consistent. Any seeming paradoxes are usually signs that our understanding and knowledge is lacking. If Both the universe and the bible are both from the same author, you would think that they would show the same level of self consistency.
How do I know the Bible isn't 100% true? Because my Bible tells me so.
The only thing I can see in Genesis that is an absolute truth is near the start of chapter 2. The bit about the harvest being ready and not a man to be found. Any woman will confirm that when there is work to be done there is never a Man around :)
The scientist's side got it wrong, too, though! (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA:
In a statement sent to legislators, eight members of the National Academy of Science said that, in practice, the bill will likely [...] harm the state's national reputation[...]
The scientists got it wrong as well - thanks to blogging, like the publication here on Slashdot, the bill harms the state's INTERnational reputation... ;-)
Re:There's Your Problem Right There (Score:2, Interesting)
That's quite the word salad to dodge a simple point: that the Bible lays out Pi in a clear cut (but false) fashion that presents a bit of a problem for those who insist that the book is the Literal Gospel Truth.
Re:There's Your Problem Right There (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not evolution (or to clarify, "macroevolution"). That's natural selection, which I have often stated is not denied except by the truly obstinate.
I'm glad your clarified from something that is unequivocally wrong -- a single species undergoing changes in allele frequency is indeed evolution -- to a mere red herring.
Okay, so if what you'd call "microevolution" is something not denied except by the truly obstinate, and you are not such, then let me show you why you also should not deny "macroevolution".
You have a species. It can undergo "microevolution". This species is by twist of fate split into two separate populations that are unable to interbreed due to for example geographical barriers. Each of these two populations undergo their own "microevolution", but since they do not interbreed the changes are not shared with the other population. Over time, these two populations would diverge to the point where were they to be brought back together they would be incapable of interbreeding. They are now different species.
That's "macroevolution", done with nothing but the mechanism of "microevolution" which of course you're not so obstinate as to deny. But you can't deny one without denying the other, because they're the same thing. You're trying to drive a wedge into a gap that doesn't exist.