New Tennessee Monkey Law!

I was commenting on what the law actually says, not on the motivations of its proponents. No, I never had any such sympathy. If you thought that, then you grossly misunderstood why I started that earlier thread. No, I have never swallowed that.

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. 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. Right, that's what I said. That's why we shouldn't care about it.

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.

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

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."
  —Bo Watson

---

sourceMaybe it's not so terrible afterall?Edited by hooah212002, : stupid fucking smiley ass face from colon next to parentheses thingy

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."

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.

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

Hi Jon 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.

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
What Is Intelligent Design? | Intelligent Design

---

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.

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

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

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. That is because it is not there. I can’t wait to read what the BIG government types have to say as they show their true colors. SSSHHHH they only pretend to be about facts, but don’t speak the truth, at least not around here.

I think you should read up on a few of these Constitutional cases:The Talk.Origins Archive: Debates, Gatherings & Court DecisionsEpperson v. Arkansas might be worth your attention. Big Government would be using the government to indoctrinate children into specific theologies. That is what we are speaking against.

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