|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| Catholic Scientist, CoolBeans, DrJones*, foreveryoung, hooah212002, jar, letchimWOD, ooh-child, Percy (Admin), Tangle (10 members, 101 visitors)
| ||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| Porosity | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: New Tennessee Monkey Law! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dwise1 Member  Posts: 1936 Joined: Member Rating: 9.0 |
What? Nobody was monitoring this one? The Governor ignored this one and it automatically became a law. "Monkey bill" enacted in Tennessee quote: This is the first bill in the Governor's 15 months in office that he allowed to be passed by being ignored. KCRW (a Santa Monica, CA, affiliate of NPR) carried a program tonight interviewing several people, including the former state senator who had authored the bill, but so far it is not up on their site: http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/ww The bill ... er, law, purports to defend a teacher from repercussions for presenting negative evidence of certain scientific ideas. The bill ... er, law, only specifies science classes to be subject to this law, not other classes. The law specifically targets evolution, climate change, and human cloning. The sponsor of the bill, the aforementioned former state senator, works for a very specifically religious organization. Furthermore, the only "negative evidence of said scientific ideas" can be found amongst creationists and IDists. And a scientist and wife of a high school science teacher interviewed on the afore-linked-to NPR program, "Which Way, LA?", pointed out that teachers have always been allowed to present opposing scientific ideas into their classrooms, so that law is totally unnecessary. The only purpose that the law could possibly serve would be to allow teachers to bring in religious creationist materials. Of course, in my perversity, I want to imagine at least one teacher who uses this law for good, instead of the evil that its backers intend: And so on.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admin Director  Posts: 11271 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 9.6 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
subbie Member  Posts: 3243 Joined: Member Rating: 9.6
|
Haslam didn't ignore it. He was well aware of it, having received thousands of protests from scientists, students and other concerned citizens. Instead, he chose to allow it to become law without his signature. He claimed he didn't think the bill was necessary. In essence, he wanted to go down on record as being against it, but he didn't want to actually do anything that would slow it down. In the final analysis, there probably wasn't anything he could have done about it. Vetos in Tennessee can be overridden by a simply majority, and this piece of crap passed both houses by a wide majority, so it was going to become law regardless of anything Haslam did. But hey, at least he said he didn't like it. 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
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jon Member  Posts: 3708 From: Minnesota, U.S.A. Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
In practice, few alternatives are ever taught through highschool. There simply is not enough time in the day nor money in the school budget to allow teachers to elaborate on all the different scientific opinions regarding every matter they teach. My guess is that even with this law in place there still won't be enough such time. Either nothing will change, or good science will get pushed out in favor of crackpot creationism. So, I agree with you: this law can have no purpose other than to promote the advancement of religion in the public schools. I almost wonder, though, how many biology teachers there are out there that desperately want to teach anti-evolution nonsense. I would think there wouldn't be too many; I mean, evolution is such a central part of biological studies, it is difficult to see how anyone so opposed to it could find themselves teaching biology; it'd be like an Amish person teaching computer science. And how many of those are there? Jon Love your enemies!
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Catholic Scientist Member  Posts: 7980 From: near St. Louis Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nwr Member  Posts: 4991 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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. Jesus was a liberal hippie
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Catholic Scientist Member Posts: 7980 From: near St. Louis Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
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".
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
subbie Member Posts: 3243 Joined: Member Rating: 9.6 |
It's not exactly a Monkey Law. That's really the press having a bit of fun with an anti science type law coming out of the state that hosted the Monkey Trial. But it's certainly in the same spirit as other anti science legislation. 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
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Catholic Scientist Member Posts: 7980 From: near St. Louis Joined: Member Rating: 9.7 |
What makes you so certain? I'm not seeing it...
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wounded King Member (Idle past 69 days)  Posts: 4149 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Joined:
|
Yeah, because that is so what the Discovery Institute and 'Focus on the Family' are all about, the science. The legislation was drafted by Derek Fowler who heads up a non-profit lobbying organisation called Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACT) started up by Focus on the Family ministries. Fowler was helped in drawing it up by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute (Source). Anyone who thinks this is good legislation not intended simply to offer an opening for the DI's infamous wedge is monumentally naive. An example of some of the material FACT promotes as part of the Truth Project DVDs it distributes ...
Then again NWR you yourself used to have, and still may have, some sympathy for that attitude so maybe you do consider the source of this legislation to be reliable, you've swallowed the DI's nonsense (or Behe's at least) before after all. TTFN, WK
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
hooah212002 Member  Posts: 2929 Joined: Member Rating: 9.5 |
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" "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dwise1 Member Posts: 1936 Joined: Member Rating: 9.0 |
While there are many good science teachers out there, the sad fact is that many science classes are taught by teachers with little or no science background. Especially in the smaller school districts, you teach what you are assigned to teach. When I was stationed in North Dakota, the first town we lived in (Hatton, population at that time: 888) had a high school. If you taught there, you not only taught whatever subject they gave you, but you also had to coach one of the teams. The Will Schuster (Glee) example of somebody who doesn't know anything about Spanish being the Spanish teacher is alive and doing quite well, unfortunately. The school has to offer certain classes and it has a limited pool of teachers to draw from, so the short straw gets the job. In Orange County (ie, hardly in the boonies like Hatton), when my son was in middle school, his science class (mainly biology) was taught by the home-ec teacher. The other students used to always come to him with their questions, because he knew more than the teacher did, or at least could explain it better than she could. Fortunately, his physical science teacher the next year knew the subject matter. One creationist court case was in 1980's Orange County: John Peloza. His BA was in Physical Education and his MS was in Education with his thesis being about coaching softball. As a fellow teacher described him, Peloza had taken the absolute minimum biology classes. But on Santa Catalina Island he wound up teaching biology, thanks, I'm sure, to the "Hatton Effect". He continued to teach biology when he moved to the Capistrano School District until his injection of creationism into the class and telling Jewish students they were going to Hell surfaced. I heard him speak at that time and everything he said about science was straight from the ICR. While there are undoubtedly many biology teachers out there who are qualified in biology, there are also many who are not. And among those, there are many who do indeed want to teach anti-evolution nonsense.
As I understand, there are quite a few tech-savvy Amish, especially among the young going to town on their smartphones. And, no, "Super Bad" is not my source on that.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Modulous Member  Posts: 5955 From: Manchester, UK Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
That's kind of what we do in the UK: quote: From here Kind of like that. quote: I don't see the need to put this in there, if the intentions really are secular. I think they've quit trying to convince the courts that ID is science and are gearing up to promote something like 'irreducible complexity' or 'specified complexity' as if they were scientific objections to evolution. If they did, I hope the objectors will point out that biochemical irreducible complexity is a prediction of evolution, not an objection. (The prediction was made in the twenties I think, and again in the fifties)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dwise1 Member Posts: 1936 Joined: Member Rating: 9.0 |
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? It serves no real purpose. Science teachers have always been free to present opposing scientific ideas, so there's no need for this law to protect them. What teachers are not allowed to do is to teach religion and the only "evidence against evolution" that's out there comes from "creation science", which is pure religion, and "intelligent design", which has become a thinly veiled disguise for "creation science." It specifically targets science and further specifically targets three subjects: evolution, global warming, and human cloning. Why? To "promote the teaching of critical thinking"? So why not promote that in English class? Or social studies? Why only target science? And why only target those three subjects specifically? You know, they're still lying to us. Even though we feel that creationists refuse to learn anything, they are not dumb and they do indeed learn. They learn that their creationist laws fail and they are able to figure out why. So they learn to be increasingly clever and deceptive about the wording of their laws. They learn to be better at lying to us. But that does not mean that they have stopped lying to us. 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?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dwise1 Member Posts: 1936 Joined: Member Rating: 9.0 |
True. The Monkey Laws specifically forbade the teaching of evolution in the public schools or even the mention of that "e-word". I'm not sure about the Tennessee Monkey Law, but the Arkansas law required that the teacher not only be fired, but also barred from ever teaching again (which is why, when Susan Epperson's school administrators required her to use the BSCS textbook in which evolution was the central unifying theme, she had to sue the state, which led to the striking down of the monkey laws). Rather, this law is intended to provide a back-door to bring creationism into the classroom. "We only want to be able to present the evidence against evolution" is just a ruse; creationism is practically nothing but "evidences against evolution".
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright 2001-2013 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2013
(1)