Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 9:28 PM
267 online now:
Tanypteryx (1 member, 266 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,319 Year: 15,142/29,783 Month: 1,086/1,502 Week: 84/492 Day: 47/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   New Tennessee Monkey Law!
nwr
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 16 of 126 (658973)
04-11-2012 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Wounded King
04-11-2012 11:44 AM


Wounded King writes:
Yeah, because that is so what the Discovery Institute and 'Focus on the Family' are all about, the science.

I was commenting on what the law actually says, not on the motivations of its proponents.

Wounded King writes:
Then again NWR you yourself used to have, and still may have, some sympathy for that attitude ...

No, I never had any such sympathy. If you thought that, then you grossly misunderstood why I started that earlier thread.

Wounded King writes:
..., you've swallowed the DI's nonsense (or Behe's at least) before after all.

No, I have never swallowed that.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Wounded King, posted 04-11-2012 11:44 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
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 yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by hooah212002, posted 04-11-2012 1:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 28 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-11-2012 5:34 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by hooah212002, posted 04-11-2012 1:47 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 19 of 126 (658980)
04-11-2012 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2012 12:33 PM


Where does it say that they "have to inform you that you will see controversy over evolution"?

You're right. I misread a portion of it.


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 12:33 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 20 of 126 (658981)
04-11-2012 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2012 12:30 PM


Good point. Here is an (alleged) quote from Watson: (bolding mine)

quote:
Senate sponsor Bo Watson acknowledged creationism and intelligent design are not part of the state's curriculum, but he said questions about them create a "teachable moment."

"If a student asks a question about it, the teacher should feel comfortable in using that ... to say here's the difference between science and creationism, the difference between evolution and creationism," Watson said. "And here's why evolution is science's best explanation and creationism is not."


source

Maybe it's not so terrible afterall?

Edited by hooah212002, : stupid fucking smiley ass face from colon next to parentheses thingy


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 12:30 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 2:25 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
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 acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7572
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 22 of 126 (658987)
04-11-2012 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2012 10:23 AM


It doesn't look too bad to me.

It is the same verbage that the Discovery Institute uses to describe ID.

All we need to do now is wait for a teacher to teach creationism in class and the subsequent law suit. If they didn't learn their lesson in Dover perhaps they will learn it this time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 10:23 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 3:26 PM Taq has responded

  
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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 3:44 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 24 of 126 (658993)
04-11-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jon
04-11-2012 10:20 AM


Re: teachers
Hi Jon

I almost wonder, though, how many biology teachers there are out there that desperately want to teach anti-evolution nonsense ...

In my experience, high school and lower grades teachers are educated with a general education, and then are assigned to teach various classes based as much on seniority as on knowledge. You can have biology taught by the same teacher that does phys ed or home economics.

When we lived in Mississippi our son had an english teacher that said ain't regular like.

And I don't think many teachers are well equipped to teach science.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 04-11-2012 10:20 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 04-11-2012 6:55 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7572
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 25 of 126 (658994)
04-11-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2012 3:26 PM


Yeah, that's what WK was getting at. Do you have a link or something?

Here you go:

quote:
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
emphasis mine
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php


They continually strive to separate themselves from religious claims. I would check out the entire page that I cite above. They make themselves look as scientific as possible while pushing aside references to the supernatural. As far as I can tell, teachers could use this as shelter for presenting ID in science class.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 3:26 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 26 of 126 (658996)
04-11-2012 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2012 11:23 AM


The text of the law can be found here. It says, among other things:

The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy;

and

The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help 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.

and

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.

There is no scientific controversy about evolution. There is no scientific controversy about human cloning. There is no scientific controvery about "the chemical origins of human life," although it is as of now an unanswered question. The combination of right wing hot button issues together with calls for teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories is not a coincidence. Futher, given that there is nothing in any laws now that prevents any science teacher from discussing actual scientific controversy and strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, the only rational conclusion is that this is nothing more than another thinly veiled attempt to pander to religious conservatives and other religious people who, by virtue of years of creationist lies and publicity, believe that there is actually some scientific controversy in these areas.

Further, I am not the least bit mollified by the language claiming that the statute

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

because there are so many illinformed and dishonest cdesign proponentists who argue that ID and creationism are not religious beliefs, and there are so many parents who buy that bullshit that there will be calls to have them included as part of the curriculum.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 11:23 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17736
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 27 of 126 (658998)
04-11-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Wounded King
04-11-2012 11:44 AM


Wounded King writes:

Anyone who thinks this is good legislation not intended simply to offer an opening for the DI's infamous wedge is monumentally naive.

Exactly! Adding a bit to what you said, it's an opening for teachers sympathetic to creationism to tell students that there's a controversy within science about evolution.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Wounded King, posted 04-11-2012 11:44 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2147 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 28 of 126 (659007)
04-11-2012 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2012 12:30 PM


BEWARE: you are entering a truth free non liberty zone
Catholic Scientist writes:

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:

Mainly it is because they are extremely biased, dishonest, and untrustworthy. They are Authoritarians, who are against liberty and states rights.

Have you not been on this board for years? The evidence of this is everywhere.

This is just another case of these unethical liars around here misrepresenting things and regurgitating the liberal kool-aid they drink every day.

Catholic Scientist writes:

What makes you so certain? I'm not seeing it...

That is because it is not there. I cant wait to read what the BIG government types have to say as they show their true colors.

Catholic Scientist writes:

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.

SSSHHHH they only pretend to be about facts, but dont speak the truth, at least not around here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 12:30 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 04-11-2012 5:42 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7572
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 29 of 126 (659011)
04-11-2012 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Artemis Entreri
04-11-2012 5:34 PM


Re: BEWARE: you are entering a truth free non liberty zone
Mainly it is because they are extremely biased, dishonest, and untrustworthy. They are Authoritarians, who are against liberty and states rights.

I think you should read up on a few of these Constitutional cases:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html#court

Epperson v. Arkansas might be worth your attention.

That is because it is not there. I cant wait to read what the BIG government types have to say as they show their true colors.

Big Government would be using the government to indoctrinate children into specific theologies. That is what we are speaking against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-11-2012 5:34 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-13-2012 6:25 PM Taq has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 126 (659015)
04-11-2012 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
04-11-2012 3:37 PM


Re: teachers
In my experience, high school and lower grades teachers are educated with a general education, and then are assigned to teach various classes based as much on seniority as on knowledge. You can have biology taught by the same teacher that does phys ed or home economics.

I guess it must be location, then. The highschool I went to had a very knowledgeable set of teachers, with the older ones generally having a better grasp on their subject matter. My chemistry teacher, for example, really did know chemistry and I honestly cannot see how anyone could have taught the material he taught without knowing it at a rather deep level. Not all my teachers were as bright, and some were more knowledgeable in certain aspects of their subject matter than in others. On the whole, however, it was very clear that the teachers in my school weren't placed based on seniority or any other ass-kissing system.

So I guess my opinion was biased.

When we lived in Mississippi our son had an english teacher that said ain't regular like.

Well, 'ain't' is a word, and English is capitalized.

And I don't think many teachers are well equipped to teach science.

I'm sorry you've had this experience (if you have). My experience has been quite different, though. Actually, funny story. When I was in 10th grade, my family took a trip to California. While there, we met a gal in a waiting room who was working on her homework. She said she was in 12th grade; she was doing 'social studies' using the same book my brother and I had used... when we were in 9th grade!

So yeah... I can totally see there being big differences depending on where you live.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2012 3:37 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 04-12-2012 4:09 AM Jon has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018