Thread: Tennessee: Nearly as stupid today as in 1925

With apologies to the six or seven intelligent people of that state.


Tennessee Bill Would Allow Creationism in the Classroom

A lot has changed in the 87 years since the Scopes Monkey Trial, the landmark case that drew national attention to the creation-evolution controversy. In that trial, a Tennessee jury found schoolteacher John Scopes guilty of teaching evolution in a state-funded school. Teaching evolution is perfectly acceptable practice today, but lawmakers in Tennessee are again wading into the debate between science and religion.

[See the latest political cartoons.]

On Tuesday, Tennessee governor Bill Haslam said that he would allow a bill protecting teachers who criticize evolution to become law. The bill, which seeks to "[help] students to understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories" passed in the state Senate in March. Haslam announced that he will let it take effect on April 20 without his signature.

The bill is sponsored by Republican state Sen. Bo Watson. He argues that the legislation is not intended to upend the state's science curriculum, but rather it seeks to inform and encourage a debate about the merits of current scientific thought and theory. He also notes that the bill specifically prohibits teachers from commenting on their own religious beliefs.

[Read Robert Schlesinger: Bad Idea Legislation.]

Groups like the ACLU see the bill as an attempt to provide cover for teachers who wish to call evolution into question. Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, told the AP that terms such as "strengths and weaknesses" and even "critical thinking" are used subversively to inject non-scientific theories like creationism into the classroom.

Some worry that the new bill will bring unwanted attention back to Tennessee, as it did with Scopes's trial back in 1925. Tennessee state Sen. Andy Berke, an opponent of the bill, explained, "We're simply dredging up the problems of our past with this bill that will affect our future."

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...-the-classroom

In other news DBT and Company are as dumb as ever...


Conservatives' Trust of Science Hits All Time Low
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...-all-time-low-

You guys will feel really smart up until the second you realise you are morons.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

You guys will feel really smart up until the second you realise you are morons.

Beats feeling like a moron all the time.

What was it Dorothy Parker said when asked to use the word horticulture in a sentence ?

"You can take a whore to culture but you can't make her think". Seemed appropriate here for some reason.

I went to Parochial School, call me a moran if you wish I don't know too much about this evolution thing but from what i've been told man evolved from apes, right?

Big deal, teach creationism, so what.

Originally Posted by Bunion

Big deal, teach creationism, so what.

Maybe we can also waste kids/teachers time by teaching Aztec too?

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Maybe we can also waste kids/teachers time by teaching Aztec too?

And Keynsian econonics!

Originally Posted by jimmy

I went to Parochial School, call me a moran if you wish I don't know too much about this evolution thing but from what i've been told man evolved from apes, right?

Okay, you are a moran. More accurately you are ignorant, likely from a parochial school education. Yes we evolved from a common primate ancestor, not from an ape. Any more then chimps evolved from apes.

Originally Posted by Bunion

Big deal, teach creationism, so what.

I have no problem teaching creationism, just keep it out of the science class room. Teach it with fairy tales were it belongs. Jimmy's post above is a perfect example of why this is an issue.

There is NO scientific evidence of any worth to validate creationism. Until there is, it does not belong in the science classroom.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

And Keynsian econonics!

Nah,

The gold standard would be more apropos since we're talking fictions and obsolete stuff.

Originally Posted by hutash

Okay, you are a moran. More accurately you are ignorant, likely from a parochial school education. Yes we evolved from a common primate ancestor, not from an ape. Any more then chimps evolved from apes.



I have no problem teaching creationism, just keep it out of the science class room. Teach it with fairy tales were it belongs. Jimmy's post above is a perfect example of why this is an issue.

There is NO scientific evidence of any worth to validate creationism. Until there is, it does not belong in the science classroom.

Don't they offer some kind comparative religion classes that study world religions? I don't have a problem with something like that. Why the christian nuts want to inject it into a science class makes no sense.

"The bill is sponsored by Republican state Sen. Bo Watson. He argues that the legislation is not intended to upend the state's science curriculum, but rather it seeks to inform and encourage a debate about the merits of current scientific thought and theory. He also notes that the bill specifically prohibits teachers from commenting on their own religious beliefs."

What is the harm in presenting an alternate belief?

I agree that Creationism would be better served as being presented as a part of a comparative religion curriculum but what Hutstash and others seem to forget is that a good number of our population do believe in this particular faerie tale and want their children exposed to it.

These people do pay taxes and WTF, one mans Faerie Tale is as good as another so why the hell not.

^^^Because it is not science. Should we teach flat earth geography because enough stupid state senators got elected that want it?

Creationism has not been validated in anyway, nor has the turtle version. They are not alternate viewpoints, they a fallacies.

Originally Posted by Bunion

What is the harm in presenting an alternate belief?

like 2+2 = 5?

Originally Posted by Moeghoul

Don't they offer some kind comparative religion classes that study world religions? I don't have a problem with something like that. Why the christian nuts want to inject it into a science class makes no sense.

I doubt they do in Tennessee, since there is only one true religion.

The reason they want to inject it is because they truly believe it, which is all the more reason it does not belong in a science class. It is not science. I don't care how many people believe it, even if the next occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave believes (dog helps us if he gets elected) it is still not science. If the creationist could come up with some really data to support their ideas, and had a valid argument then it would be fine. Science functions, in fact thrives on challenge, but there is no challenge in creationism or ID, or what ever you want to call it. ID tried that approach and got thoroughly shot down. I did have a small amount of respect for that movement because guys like Bebe actually tried to use science to make their points. They were just wrong.

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

like 2+2 = 5?

Flat earth navigation needs 2+2 to equal 5, otherwise you would sail of the edge of the earth.

Originally Posted by hutash

If the creationist could come up with some really data to support their ideas, and had a valid argument then it would be fine.

No - it still should not be taught. Especially in something like a high school science class (which is what this bill is aimed at), there's a shitload of ground to cover in a relatively short period of time. There's plenty of theories out there that have some limited basis in fact and may bear some rational discussion within the scientific community. Even if creationism / ID was one of those theories (which it is not), it still doesn't bear discussion in a class that only covers the basics of any given scientific field.

If stupid people want to teach their stupid kids some sort of stupid "theory" they can do it on their own time and not drag the rest of the population down with them.

Originally Posted by Bunion

What is the harm in presenting an alternate belief?
...
These people do pay taxes and WTF, one mans Faerie Tale is as good as another so why the hell not.

What? You equate Science with Religion/"Faerie Tales?" You think the Theory of Evolution is a "belief?"

Originally Posted by hutash

Okay, you are a moran. More accurately you are ignorant, likely from a parochial school education. Yes we evolved from a common primate ancestor, not from an ape. Any more then chimps evolved from apes.

I have no problem teaching creationism, just keep it out of the science class room. Teach it with fairy tales were it belongs. Jimmy's post above is a perfect example of why this is an issue.

There is NO scientific evidence of any worth to validate creationism. Until there is, it does not belong in the science classroom.

Whew thanks Hutash that clears some stuff up for me. I couldn't figure out why if we evolved from apes there were still apes. So the apes and the chimps and the humans all evolved from the same ancestor? I'm OK with that I guess but what about sasquatch?

^^^All very true, but "valid" alternates do need to be presented, but not dwelled on. If an idea is dismissed until it is absolutely proven science would come to halt. I am not saying creationism belongs in this category, it doesn't, but I think about something like continental drift. It was thought impossible by most except a few fringe thinkers who good but not definitive data. Had people presented it as an option and been more open minded it would have become accepted much sooner.

I am all for teaching alternatives, but the alternative have to have some reasonable validity.

Edit: the ^^^ refers to Toast's post a couple up.

Originally Posted by jimmy

Whew thanks Hutash... but what about sasquatch?

That's just Blurred without a shirt on.

Glad I could clear up these little details for you.

Originally Posted by hutash

continental drift.

Tectonics?

It is most gratifying that your enthusiasm for our planet continues unabated. And so, we would like to assure you that the guided missiles currently converging with your ship are part of a special service we extend to all of our most enthusiastic clients, and the fully-armed nuclear warheads are of course merely a courtesy detail. We look forward to your custom in future lives.

Originally Posted by Tippster

What? You equate Science with Religion/"Faerie Tales?" You think the Theory of Evolution is a "belief?"

Do I?

Actually no, I am comfortable with the "THEORY" of evolution.

the·o·ry
   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

Even though just like others here may say when it comes to Creationism, there is no real, 100% incontrovertible proof.

From accompanying article bolded for context;

The Tennessee Senate approved a bill Monday that would encourage teachers and students to debate evolution in the classroom, setting aside complaints that the measure would drag the state back onto the battleground over the teaching of creationism.

Senators voted 24-8 to pass a bill that says schoolteachers cannot be punished for “helping students to understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories” taught in public schools.

The measure has drawn strong opposition from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Center for Science Education and the American Civil Liberties Union, which said it is cover for teachers who want to teach creationism or intelligent design. Supporters said the measure would give teachers more guidance to answer students’ questions about science.

If Evolution is such solidly settled science, why are you so threatened by discussion and debate?

You sound like the same TEA party freaks that cause you so much heartburn.

Would you suggest then that a bill be passed to encourage the teaching of alternatives to ... let's say gravity, or electromagnetism?