|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New Tennessee Monkey Law! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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: I don't think its really a "Monkey Law".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But it's certainly in the same spirit as other anti science legislation.
What makes you so certain? I'm not seeing it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Here's some other relevant stuff from the news page I linked to earlier:
quote: And from the bill, the part where it sorta actually does something:
quote: 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
So what do you call reserchers, and others doing science as a profession but never pulished? A professional scientist is one that publishes original research. Amateurs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
2nd Ammendment Wrong amendment... that one's about guns.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024