Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Imaginarynumber1

Tenn. thinks creationism is science

26 posts in this topic

Activists were waging a last-minute battle Thursday to scuttle a bill that they say would gut science education in Tennessee by allowing public schools to cast doubt on widely-accepted scientific principles, including biological evolution and climate change."What it does is bring the political controversy into the classroom, where there is no scientific controversy," said Larisa DeSantis, who teaches in the Department of Earth and Environment at Vanderbilt University."It’s scary, as a parent and as an educator.arrow3.gifRead more...
-sigh- Will it never end with these stupid politicians?

I will say it only once for clarity;

THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY OVER EVOLUTION IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say dubbing this new legislation as "the monkey bill" has me rotflmao.:w00t: um, for reasons that fundamental creationists (who think it is a subject for the science room) would probably frown upon :innocent: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But global warming is only a theory. There have been ice ages and long very cold spells in the UK that seem semi-random. We only see the 4 seasons, but what happens if there are longer ones we have fallen out of touch with. And the whole carbon dating of fossils seems a little bit dodgy. Like, if one rock was in a cave and one on a hill in the sun 12 hours a day then they give of the same carbon print?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-sigh- Will it never end with these stupid politicians?

I will say it only once for clarity;

THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY OVER EVOLUTION IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

It is my understanding that this would only allow students to question the teachers about the conflict between evolution and creationism. When I was in school, studying evolution, our teachers were not allowed to answer questions of a religious nature at all. They informed us that it was something we would have to consult our parents or clergy about. This seems to enable a more open dialogue which they could talk more freely about in the classroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I stopped paying attention as soon as I read the word "activists"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that this would only allow students to question the teachers about the conflict between evolution and creationism. When I was in school, studying evolution, our teachers were not allowed to answer questions of a religious nature at all. They informed us that it was something we would have to consult our parents or clergy about. This seems to enable a more open dialogue which they could talk more freely about in the classroom.

even in a Catholic school where we do teach evolution in the science lessons we don't touch upon creationism in science, that's fodder for Religious Education. We're actually told to say things like "we'll talk about that later" and keep on the subject at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But global warming is only a theory. There have been ice ages and long very cold spells in the UK that seem semi-random. We only see the 4 seasons, but what happens if there are longer ones we have fallen out of touch with. And the whole carbon dating of fossils seems a little bit dodgy. Like, if one rock was in a cave and one on a hill in the sun 12 hours a day then they give of the same carbon print?!?!

Carbon 14 doesn't date rock. :no:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that this would only allow students to question the teachers about the conflict between evolution and creationism. When I was in school, studying evolution, our teachers were not allowed to answer questions of a religious nature at all. They informed us that it was something we would have to consult our parents or clergy about. This seems to enable a more open dialogue which they could talk more freely about in the classroom.

Its a stealth creationist bill meant to encourage and protect creationist teachers trying to pass off creationism as science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even in a Catholic school where we do teach evolution in the science lessons we don't touch upon creationism in science, that's fodder for Religious Education. We're actually told to say things like "we'll talk about that later" and keep on the subject at hand.

Technically Vatican believes in evolution and not on creationnism, methink it was the dude before Jeanpolski who passed the law, not the one that died within weeks but the one before that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I'm not entirely convinced that evolution as it is thought today is entirely true, I don't believe at all in creationism. First there are two different version of creation. In the first, Adam and Lilith were created at the same time but Lilith didn't want to lay below Adam and rebelled, she was casted out of Eden and become the bride of God before rebelling against God also and becoming a beast of some sort. Second we have the story everyone knows Eve created out of a rib.

In evolution theory, we see cavemen learning over the past 10 000 years struggling over a fire and killing beast, then built some pyramids, and learn the use of metal etc... to end with a speed of light technological advances we see today. At the same time as machines advances humanity is "devolving" as a whole. In hellenic times human were remembering entire books by rote now we google and wikipidia things instead of remembering. How many of you can still built a home (current knowledge 150 years ago) built a chair or even simply kill an animaml and skin him? In advance technological society, education becomes on sided. If you're a computer analyst you prolly won't have to learn who was Socrates or John Marshall (OK it's some form of extreme when it comes to Socrates).

What I am trying to say is that society is closer to "Idiocracy" than we thing and if a manmade or natural desaster would occur our civilisation would be send back to the Stoneage in no time flat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Paracelse, there are hundreds of creation stories, if youre going to talk about one in a classroom you have to talk about them all. The sun god laying an egg which hatched the world is equally as valid as six days and adam and eve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that this would only allow students to question the teachers about the conflict between evolution and creationism. When I was in school, studying evolution, our teachers were not allowed to answer questions of a religious nature at all. They informed us that it was something we would have to consult our parents or clergy about. This seems to enable a more open dialogue which they could talk more freely about in the classroom.

Disclaimer: I'm drunk.

This is my point. THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE AND CREATIONISM. They are not even comparable. One is an accepted scientific fact with only the finer mechanisms being debated, while the other is a religious interpretation of how things came to be. If they want to teach creationism in school, fine. Whatever. But teach it in a comparative religion class where it belongs, not in a science class. Do they teach Norse creation myth in science? Egyptian? Native American? Shinto? Hindu? Ect. If you want to teach Christian creation myth (as we all know creationism is) as science you have to teach them all. Seeing as not one of them is science, however, YOU CANNOT TEACH IT AS SCIENCE. End of story.

That would be the same as the government (publicly funded schools) endorsing one religion over another. There is an...ummm...amendment? I think.... to the....... constitution? (I think that's what they call it.) And this amendment doesn't allow the government to endorse one religion over another. Hmmm... Looks like the federal government prevents the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools. What does that mean? It means, NO CREATIONISM IN SCIENCE CLASSES YOU #$%^ING IDIOTS!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Paracelse, there are hundreds of creation stories, if youre going to talk about one in a classroom you have to talk about them all. The sun god laying an egg which hatched the world is equally as valid as six days and adam and eve.

I knew about the others but in Tennessee there can be only one :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is science. Religious teachings are religious teachings. They are two completely different concepts that can not be reasonably merged. Some people know this, others do not.

I tend to agree with what Copasetic said:

Its a stealth creationist bill meant to encourage and protect creationist teachers trying to pass off creationism as science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that this would only allow students to question the teachers about the conflict between evolution and creationism. When I was in school, studying evolution, our teachers were not allowed to answer questions of a religious nature at all. They informed us that it was something we would have to consult our parents or clergy about. This seems to enable a more open dialogue which they could talk more freely about in the classroom.

Anything supernatural is outside of what science deals with. Other than saying science studies the natural world and since supernatural things are by definition outside of the natural world, nothing else should be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But global warming is only a theory.

So is evolution, gravity and the idea that bacteria cause disease.

A scientific theory is an explanation for how something works. The theory of evolution explains how changes in genetic composition leads to the development of new species. The theory of gravity explains how matter can attract other matter. Cell theory explains how the cells in the human body work.

For something to be called a theory, it has to be proven that this is indeed how it works, otherwise, it's just a hypothesis.

Scientists would not call something a theory if there was not SERIOUS evidence backing it up and no scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with the idea that man-made global warming is happening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, there are actually people on this planet who believe that you can remain the most powerful nation on earth while dumbing down science. Great job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the State of Tennessee should be allowed to do as they damn well please with the education of their children. It won't be the first, or last, time they've been laughed at for being backward. But if they truly believe in creationism and want to spread that belief in their children, who has the right to tell them they cannot? And who does it really harm as long as the children are being taught the acceptable science needed for life in a modern world? Why the problem at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I said what I did was because I was thinking about when we were learning about evolution. A lot of kids had only been taught creationism and it did cause a conflict with them...so naturally they had questions. Sometimes it was more distracting to try and avoid them than it would have been just to answer the questions. They may not have liked the answers, but it would have put a period in the discussion.

I don't think there are a lot of science teachers out there, after all science is their major, that are out to push creationism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the State of Tennessee should be allowed to do as they damn well please with the education of their children. It won't be the first, or last, time they've been laughed at for being backward. But if they truly believe in creationism and want to spread that belief in their children, who has the right to tell them they cannot? And who does it really harm as long as the children are being taught the acceptable science needed for life in a modern world? Why the problem at all?

Our country, plain and simple. Teaching creationism requires you mislead children about what science is and how it is done--Thus you fundamentally must not teach them how science works and is "needed for life in the modern world". Even big wig proponents of ID (stealth creationism) such as Behe admit this; such as in the Dover trial where he admitted his "definition" of science would include things like alchemy, astrology, etc. The danger comes then, from having a populace that is ignorant of science, critical thinking and technology.

How does that affect our country? Numerous, very numerous ways. People are more likely to make uninformed health choices, which ultimately means more days off work, more being sick, higher healthcare costs. People make uninformed voting decisions and vote for politicians that would misuse science. Etc. There are literally hundreds of ways having a scientifically ignorant population is a bad thing--Whether we're talking about economics or quality of life.

I don't think there are a lot of science teachers out there, after all science is their major, that are out to push creationism.

You'd be surprised, there are lots of science teachers that are creationists in our part of the country Michelle. Lots of them were not science majors, lots of them were education majors that end up teaching science when they themselves don't understand it. Which as you can probably guess, creates a pretty ugly self-perpetuating cycle of ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, they aren't talking about teaching creationism. They are leaving it open for kids to be able to ask questions, where they can expect to get an answer instead of being brushed off. Isn't that exactly how you teach them to think critically? Without it what do you have? The student going home and telling their ultra-religious parents that they are being taught evolution in school. The parents tell their child it is all a lie and not to believe a word of it. There will be no discussion, that's it...nada.

If that is the case then I would rather have an impartial teacher answering questions. Going by my own experience, I found that the majority of my teachers were just that...impartial and fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

But, they aren't talking about teaching creationism.

Not directly, because a legal precedent has already been set. What the bill does though is allow creationist teachers to promote and teach creationist ideas through the "teach the controversy" strategy formulated by the Discovery Institute.

They are leaving it open for kids to be able to ask questions, where they can expect to get an answer instead of being brushed off.

No they really aren't. The hope is teachers with creationist leanings will forward ideas found at places like AiG and IRC that show "holes" in evolution. Of course these holes don't actually exist and there isn't a controversy about biological evolution in science--Which is exactly why they have to introduce legislation like this to protect creationist teachers.

The other thing it does, is cost you money Michelle. Because you better believe it, that this will get taken to court and if it gets defended will cost the tax-payers of TN money. And we know it will loose because again, the legal precedent has already been set for this kind of legislation. I suspect this is why your governor, Haslam, has made the comments he has about not signing it--A more "publicly appropriate way" of shooting it down (along with his claim that its not the legislatures job to legislate science education--rather the board of education and scientists who aid in science policy).

Isn't that exactly how you teach them to think critically?

No, you teach critical thinking skills by teaching critical thinking skills and science. Done right then, students easily find why creationism and ID are junk-pseudoscience. Some of the best "debunkings" and most ruffled I've ever seen the DI stooges is at the hands of high school students who've been taught critical thinking and the scientific method well.

Without it what do you have? The student going home and telling their ultra-religious parents that they are being taught evolution in school. The parents tell their child it is all a lie and not to believe a word of it. There will be no discussion, that's it...nada.

The parents who are "against" teaching evolution are going to say that either way. The best thing you can hope for is that the school teaches their children those critical thinking and science skills to understand why their parents are wrong, breaking the cycle of ignorance.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we know it will loose because again, the legal precedent has already been set for this kind of legislation. I suspect this is why your governor, Haslam, has made the comments he has about not signing it--A more "publicly appropriate way" of shooting it down (along with his claim that its not the legislatures job to legislate science education--rather the board of education and scientists who aid in science policy).

These things always get shot down and it's always in the news as if it has a chance of being passed. All it does is get people's tongues wagging.

I'm just glad I don't have kids to have to worry about what is going on in schools these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not directly, because a legal precedent has already been set. What the bill does though is allow creationist teachers to promote and teach creationist ideas through the "teach the controversy" strategy formulated by the Discovery Institute.

No they really aren't. The hope is teachers with creationist leanings will forward ideas found at places like AiG and IRC that show "holes" in evolution. Of course these holes don't actually exist and there isn't a controversy about biological evolution in science--Which is exactly why they have to introduce legislation like this to protect creationist teachers.

The other thing it does, is cost you money Michelle. Because you better believe it, that this will get taken to court and if it gets defended will cost the tax-payers of TN money. And we know it will loose because again, the legal precedent has already been set for this kind of legislation. I suspect this is why your governor, Haslam, has made the comments he has about not signing it--A more "publicly appropriate way" of shooting it down (along with his claim that its not the legislatures job to legislate science education--rather the board of education and scientists who aid in science policy).

No, you teach critical thinking skills by teaching critical thinking skills and science. Done right then, students easily find why creationism and ID are junk-pseudoscience. Some of the best "debunkings" and most ruffled I've ever seen the DI stooges is at the hands of high school students who've been taught critical thinking and the scientific method well.

The parents who are "against" teaching evolution are going to say that either way. The best thing you can hope for is that the school teaches their children those critical thinking and science skills to understand why their parents are wrong, breaking the cycle of ignorance.

Speaking for myself, as someone who lives in Tennessee, I for one have no interest in paying for someone elses wilfull ignorance. Creationism isn't science nor should it be represented or taught as such.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Did any of you actually read the bill? If you read it, thee law will allow open discussion between teachers and students when creationism versus evolution is questioned or any potentially controversial subject for that matter. It is freedom of speech at it's best, this allows students and teachers to openly discuss matters without repercussion. Also, nowhere in the bill does it state that it will allow teachers to promote any idea. It only allows free discussion of ideas.

Also the reason that it is being dubbed the Monkey Bill because of the "Scopes Monkey Trial" in Dayton, TN.

Edited by Volatile32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.