|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New Tennessee Monkey Law! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Wounded King writes:
I was commenting on what the law actually says, not on the motivations of its proponents.
Yeah, because that is so what the Discovery Institute and 'Focus on the Family' are all about, the science. Wounded King writes:
No, I never had any such sympathy. If you thought that, then you grossly misunderstood why I started that earlier thread.
Then again NWR you yourself used to have, and still may have, some sympathy for that attitude ... Wounded King writes:
No, I have never swallowed that...., you've swallowed the DI's nonsense (or Behe's at least) before after all. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Good point. Here is an (alleged) quote from Watson: (bolding mine)
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Yeah, that's what WK was getting at. Do you have a link or something? Here you go:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4256 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
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 can’t 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 don’t speak the truth, at least not around here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
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: The Talk.Origins Archive: Debates, Gatherings &
Court Decisions Epperson v. Arkansas might be worth your attention.
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. Big Government would be using the government to indoctrinate children into specific theologies. That is what we are speaking against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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. JonLove your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024