anti-Evolution legislation

[Morm]

http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-tennessee-006485

The bill, if enacted, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers 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." The only examples provided of "controversial" theories are "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

So basically all the things a republican disagrees with for who knows what reason. I have a slightly better, more cutting edge idea for these states (kansas I'm looking in your direction): Why don't we teach science in science class and stop with this nonsense? I keep referring to America as regressive and this is why.

The sole sponsor of HB 368 is Bill Dunn (R-District 16), who, according to Project Vote Smart, answered yes to the question “Should Tennessee require its public schools to teach evolution as theory rather than scientific fact?” in 1996 — the same year in which the Tennessee legislature considered a bill (SB 3229/HB 2972) that would have provided for the suspension or dismissal of any teacher or administrator who taught evolution as a fact rather than a theory.

Yes, it's a theory and no it's not a fact. However, that is a gross abuse of the term theory by people who clearly don't even understand how this shit works. Speaking of gross abuse, they actually considered a bill that would allow the suspension or dismissal of a teacher teaching science in a science class? If a science teacher calls evolution fact they are wrong and that's something not to be happy about but in this case I think they mean they want the power of this theory to be undermined by misusing the word theory to make it appear as if it's some arm waving hypothesis.

What ever happened to freedom from religion and state? It's pretty clear that this is a religiously motivated act, considering that science universally accepts evolution as the best (and only) reasonable theory.

 

[mixmaster.mewthree]

@

 

[Fatecrashers]

do you not believe in evolution? because you're the only ten i see!

 

[WaterBomb]

*shrug* I think it's a pretty stupid idea as well. It's not explicitly said that this is religious based, but it's sure implied. I think this act is WAY too extreme to pass, and it should be denied. I think that it's good for people to understand that evolution is a theory and not a fact, but this is certainly not the way to educate people. It would be far easier and less crusade-y to just include a blurb in the science class syllabus that states "Evolution, as taught in this class, is a scientific theory and not fact".

Furthermore, I think everyone SHOULD be educated on this theory. Whether you agree with it or oppose it, it's vitally important to have the knowledge. Even for those who disagree with it, how can you argue against it without first knowing the topic? Students should all be taught it in science class, and let their own religious backgrounds determine what they do with the knowledge. Removing it completely from schools or something along those lines is just promoting ignorance, and is a disgrace to religion.

 

[a fairy]

Lol @ fate.

I don't beleive in evolution either.

WB said everyting I want to, so...

can go to hell

 

[WaterBomb]

it should be known that Jynx, the "Humanshape" pokemon, does not evolve.

 

[a fairy]

Yeah, but something evolves into it.

 

[Not Scicky]

I started looking into these groups in America, campaigns groups who want to put stickers on the front of all school science text books saying that Evolution is only one possible theory of life on earth. Now, although this seems like a stupid idea at first, second, and thirty ninth glance, look at it once more. Give it that fortieth view. Because it's brilliant. Let's have stickers on the front of all books! Slap one on the front of the Bible saying "Of course this could all be bullsh*t. Maybe he never died! Perhaps he opened a donkey sanctuary. He had a clear bond with donkeys." Or slap one on the Theory of Gravity! "Look, thats just one man's opinion. Maybe we could all fly! R. Kelly believed it so. Why would he lie to us? What does he possibly stand to gain?"

*contributes nothing of value to the thread and leaves*

 

[Morm]

how can you argue against it without first knowing the topic? Students should all be taught it in science class, and let their own religious backgrounds determine what they do with the knowledge.

Because, for some reason, it's seen as a threat that some parents don't want their kids exposed to.

It's not explicitly said that this is religious based, but it's sure implied

Name anti evolution rhetoric that isn't religiously motivated

I think if they are going to be making that specific difference between fact and theory that they need to be teaching that a theory isn't something like on CSI where you get a hunch or whatever, it's a very powerful idea in science backed by leagues of evidence. It's not "just" a theory at all, that's such a silly thing to say.

 

[lati0s]

It would be far easier and less crusade-y to just include a blurb in the science class syllabus that states "Evolution, as taught in this class, is a scientific theory and not fact".

that would be every bit as stupid as doing the same thing for gravity, atomic theory, germ theory or anything else in science. We may not be able to know with certainty that these things are true but we can know with a probability so close to one that it is perfectly rational to treat them as facts. A lot of people have the ridiculous delusion that because evolution is not absolutely certain that that somehow makes their fairytales plausible, it doesn't.

 

[cookie]

typical misunderstanding of science: religious people scared of theories that might oh my god conflict with their stupid beliefs set up strawmen saying that evolution is purpoted as a fact even though it already is a goddamn theory and think that theories are useless things because they aren't certain. nothing in the world is certain. theories are 'best guess', and the good ones are what correlate well with existing data and make useful predictions. it's pretty damn easy to discredit something that isn't certain by claiming that people claim it is.

people who rubbish evolution in this manner can burn in hell, for fuck sake

 

[Aku]

"gravity is a theory"

 

[Eggbert]

Have kids accept that god exists but restrain from teaching evolution because it's not a certain fact.

Wait a minute.

 

[vonFiedler]

I don't think Blizzard games actually exists.

I mean some aspects of Diablo's design were randomly generated. Think about it.


Maybe if both Christians and Atheists accepted that evolution has nothing to do with religion, this stuff wouldn't happen.

 

[Morm]

Maybe if both Christians and Atheists accepted that evolution has nothing to do with religion, this stuff wouldn't happen.

The only reason atheists even give a shit about religion is bullshit like this bill. It's sticking your dick in our fucking pudding and that's just wrong.

 

[cookie]

also, what is this bullshit, "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." ? high school students do not have the expertise to go around critiquing well-established scientific theories. what are they going to do, come up with an alternative?

i have little problem with people believing that some dude with a beard created everyone and everything, if that's as far as it goes. scientific theories have a purpose and utility, and branding intelligent design or creationism as an 'alternative theory' is completely unwarranted because neither of those makes any useful predictions and adopting them would hinder science. the fact that there are people making decisions to treat them as such displays a horriffic lack of understand of scientific knowledge, and anyone who is this ignorant is unqualified in their job.

 

[Morm]

In states like Tennessee, if a would be senator or governor claims atheism they won't get elected. Many people LITERALLY vote based on the faith (not platform) of candidates there and especially in more southern places like Alabama. I mean it's pretty obvious that the majority of people in these states are religious, so you likely end up with religious people making decisions on science education from a standpoint of ignorance.

You're absolutely right cookie, good catch. It is completely a smokescreen and how that SHOULD be read is "We will give kids the tools to pick our beliefs after downplaying evolution"

 

[Mike B]

Then students will blame God on not getting an A if they pray every night, and suspensions due to poor grades would be a religious hate crime since God was supposed to help ..... FUck.

 

[sonickid01]

scientific controversy http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jan-feb/03/?searchterm=kin selection

not scientific controversy http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100207081701AApVC3o
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardi
http://fractogene.com/full_genome/r_evolution.html

also teach the controversy - i've been discriminated against and branded a heretic for my whole life http://www.buzzle.com/articles/hindu-creation-myths.html

 

[Morm]

scientific controversy http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jan...in selection

Actually I have one of the textbooks where E.O. Wilson talks about the alturist gene in ants. It actually makes sense, considering their sisters have 75% (as opposed to 50% in a kid) of their genetics which is more than their kids ever could have (It's a fucked up haplo-diplodic system) so they are quite literally protecting their own genes in a much stronger way than a mother protecting an infant. In terms of a superorganism, altruism makes perfect sense. In ants, If something like 15% of members in a colony don't have an altruist gene functioning, the remaining 85% of the ants will turn on them AND the queen for having faulty genetics, thusly committing suicide of the colony. Group selection is a powerful thing and works on an entire population at once in this case, purging hampering genetics at the colony level. Eusociality really is something of great interest to me, it literally is the step of organisation above organism...hence the name.

I don't see the problem here, it's just that one author weighted the dice in favor of single selection and the other (Wilson) points out why it's wrong using discrete examples. If there is controversy it's because of dogma within science, something I did a 400 level presentation on in my last year.

I don't think the controversy should be taught. It's a science class, not some religious ejecta fallout crap.

 

[Firestorm]

I like how a question that impacts the law misuses the word theory and fact.

1. No such thing as a scientific fact
2. A scientific theory is what we normally accept as facts

I wonder if this would apply to gravity or the many other theories we learned about in school.

 

[Deck Knight]

Another government making dumb laws based on faulty information. This is a clear indication we need less government in our schools.

My work is done.

 

[mattj]

How many of you guys actually read that article?

(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and 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.

I know it's fun to beat up on the religious conservatives and whatnot, but I fail to see the controversy surrounding this Bill.

Incase you live under a rock, people in general do consider

...biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning [etc]...

to be controversial topics. The point of this bill is to let teachers know that they can cover any and all prevalent theories concerning the subject that they happen to be teaching without worrying about getting in trouble.

When you say that only your views can be discussed in public schools, you're no better than the average religious bigot.

 

[Lanturn314]

Another government making dumb laws based on faulty information. This is a clear indication we need less government in our schools.

My work is done.

You think the individual schools in Tennessee would be any better? After all, they're the ones who elected these idiots on the basis of their faith in the first place.

Just saying.

 

[Deck Knight]

You think the individual schools in Tennessee would be any better? After all, they're the ones who elected these idiots on the basis of their faith in the first place.

Just saying.

"You get the leaders you deserve" is a universal maxim, sadly. Especially when they are democratically elected.

Though yes, less (federal and state) government in schools would objectively make schools better on its own. Local control is critical to an effective, responsive education system.