Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Tennessee Monkey Law!
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 126 (658951)
04-11-2012 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dwise1
04-11-2012 3:09 AM


Why don't you guys ever post the actual verbiage from the legislation?
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf
Here's an interesting part:
quote:
(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not
be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination
for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination
for or against religion or non-religion.
It doesn't look too bad to me. And it doesn't really do anything. It just prevents the prohibition of teachers from helping students. BFD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dwise1, posted 04-11-2012 3:09 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 04-11-2012 10:57 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 04-11-2012 12:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 22 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 3:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 126 (658959)
04-11-2012 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by nwr
04-11-2012 10:57 AM


It also looks okay to me.
I take it to mean that science teachers should point out that Genesis 1 is describing naive pre-scientific ideas, and in light of what is known to science, can be seen to be nonsense.
I take the law to imply that religion is no longer protected from criticism, at least on questions of science. If religion spouts scientific nonsense, then the facts should be presented to show that religion is wrong.
Yeah. One of the ways you can get a sense of the intentions of the legislation is to look to the sponsor of the bill. In this case its Bo Watson.
From a different news article, I found this:
quote:
"Let me say what this bill does not do ... as may have been mischaracterized by many," Watson said. "This bill does not endorse, promote or allow the teaching of any nonscientific, nonconventional theories in the scientific classroom."
I don't think its really a "Monkey Law".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 04-11-2012 10:57 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 04-11-2012 11:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 126 (658962)
04-11-2012 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by subbie
04-11-2012 11:16 AM


But it's certainly in the same spirit as other anti science legislation.
What makes you so certain? I'm not seeing it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 04-11-2012 11:16 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by hooah212002, posted 04-11-2012 11:45 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 04-11-2012 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 17 of 126 (658974)
04-11-2012 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by dwise1
04-11-2012 12:03 PM


Creationists have been lying to us non-stop since the 1970's and even before then, so whyever do you assume that they have suddenly switched to being truthful?
A better question is whyever do you assume the sponsors are creationists?
Bo Watson's wiki page says he's Methodist and I'm pretty sure they accept evolution. Bill Dunn has a Master of Science degree.
Derek Fowler, the author of the bill, was on Which Way, LA? (link in the OP) last night. Of course, he kept emphasizing that it had nothing to do with promoting religion. And he even tried to provide sources to support his claim. Well, only one source: The Discovery Institute.
'Nough said?
I dunno... considering the part of the bill I quoted, it seems to explicitly deny the ability to bring religion into the science classroom.
So even if i grant you that that actually was the intention of the author, it still can't lead to it from the actual legislation, itself.
It serves no real purpose.
Right, that's what I said. That's why we shouldn't care about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 04-11-2012 12:03 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by hooah212002, posted 04-11-2012 1:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 28 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-11-2012 5:34 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 18 of 126 (658975)
04-11-2012 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by hooah212002
04-11-2012 11:45 AM


I would say that it's the fact that it's about "teaching the controversy" and it's aimed at middle/high school. It's bound to confuse.
"Ok kids, we're discussing evolution. I am obligated to tell you that it is controversial. Not within the scientific community, mind you, but with a number of religious people. But, as per the law, I have to inform you that you will see controversy over evolution"
Did you read the legislation? Where does it say that they "have to inform you that you will see controversy over evolution"?
A better argument is the one from WK; that the bill comes from a model bill from the DI. I haven't gotten too deep into it yet so I don't know about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by hooah212002, posted 04-11-2012 11:45 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by hooah212002, posted 04-11-2012 1:47 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 126 (658982)
04-11-2012 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by hooah212002
04-11-2012 1:53 PM


Here's some other relevant stuff from the news page I linked to earlier:
quote:
Sen. Rusty Crowe, R-Johnson City, said teachers have outlined concerns to him about questions they get from students on evolution, saying, "Wait a minute, this doesn't mesh with what I learned in Sunday school." He said teachers "aren't sure how to respond."
Watson said one thing the bill does is ask the State Board of Education and local school administrators to "find effective ways to present the curriculum" under state standards.
Berke said "I believe deeply in my faith," but he doesn't want teachers answering those types of questions. They should direct the students to their parents or "appropriate people within my faith."
Watson replied that provisions of the proposed law say it "shall not be constructed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."
The issue, he argued, "is to help teachers as well as students, but really to help teachers to frame the dialogue within the construct of the curriculum established by the State Board of Education."
And from the bill, the part where it sorta actually does something:
quote:
(d) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary
school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any
public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any
teacher in a public school system of this state 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.
Basically, it stops the prevention of teachers from helping students. And actually, I think it might be better for those on the evolutions side:
Student: "I learned in Sunday school that Genesis is right and evolution is wrong."
Teacher: "That's stupid, here's all the scientific reasons that show that Genesis is wrong"
Student: "Waah, I'm telling on you."
Teacher: "Pfft, whatever, they can't stop me from doing this."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by hooah212002, posted 04-11-2012 1:53 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 126 (658988)
04-11-2012 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Taq
04-11-2012 3:24 PM


It is the same verbage that the Discovery Institute uses to describe ID.
Yeah, that's what WK was getting at. Do you have a link or something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 3:24 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 3:44 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 75 of 126 (659784)
04-18-2012 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Artemis Entreri
04-18-2012 4:13 PM


Re: TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-18-2012 4:13 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 92 of 126 (660070)
04-20-2012 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Artemis Entreri
04-20-2012 2:35 PM


I wonder if Catholic Scientist has a PHD? if not does that mean he is not really a scientist?
I gotta a PHD.... a pretty huge dick! but seriously, I only have a Bach. of Science.
A professional scientist is one that publishes original research. I use the term more loosely. But I do wear a lab coat and work in a lab (we were going to publish one of research projects but never got around to it). We're just in it to make money tho, whatever we gotta do to sell more of our shit, ya know? Too, a lot of the data we gather is just for technical purposes - supporting data for product claims n'stuff.
I picked the term for my name based on the following clip:
quote:
Janitor?
--What is it, Scientist?
quote:
Hey, I know this isn't your responsibility... but mop the rest of this shit up, I'll be right back

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-20-2012 2:35 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Buzsaw, posted 04-20-2012 9:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 104 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-23-2012 1:33 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 126 (660098)
04-20-2012 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Buzsaw
04-20-2012 9:15 PM


Re: Re Who Are Scientists?
CS writes:
A professional scientist is one that publishes original research.
So what do you call reserchers, and others doing science as a profession but never pulished?
Amateurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Buzsaw, posted 04-20-2012 9:15 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 126 (660423)
04-25-2012 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Taq
04-25-2012 11:50 AM


Re: staying on topic
2nd Ammendment
Wrong amendment... that one's about guns.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Taq, posted 04-25-2012 11:50 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by hooah212002, posted 04-25-2012 2:18 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 04-26-2012 11:36 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024