Tenn. Governor 'probably' Will Sign Evolution Bill

[JamesTW]

I teach Grade 9 Science in Small Town, BC. Reproduction is the Biology topic at this level... Sexual / Asexual Reproduction, Mitosis, Meiosis, the Cell Cycle. Every semester, the topic of Evolution vs. Creation comes up in my class. I have to explain to the kids that, regardless of my personal views and values, I am teaching Evolution as a "theory" only ( ) and if Creation is raised as an alternate theory, our class will discuss it as such. I then explain that our Government requires us to teach the "Theory of Evolution" and that this is what we will discuss from here on in.

I have never had a student refuse to study Evolution as a "theory".

[Mr. Ambien]

I see no intrinsic issue with criticizing scientific theories, especially the issue of embellished anthropogenic climate change and faulty climate models, but uhm, science classes in the US certainly allow for criticism and discussion of evolution. Any teacher that religiously preaches evolution should be called out and fired, the point of teaching evolution isn't merely to suggest evolution but prove it through a series of topics. That's a good thing. Scepticism and repeatedly making one prove things is what increases the probability of truth. But given where this comes from and the usual focus on science education, I'm sure it's more about being able to institute religion in public schools than further science by rightful scepticism. Gotta love the geniuses in power in the bible belt that need to toy around with their Christian puppet citizens dangling the puppet strings and reminding them to stay polarized. If only Christians knew how much this is really an attempt to manipulate their beliefs and steer their vote choice in the bigger picture rather than give their beliefs a voice in a science class.

[MadMonk]

I see no intrinsic issue with criticizing scientific theories, especially the issue of embellished anthropogenic climate change and faulty climate models, but uhm, science classes in the US certainly allow for criticism and discussion of evolution... Scepticism and repeatedly making one prove things is what increases the probability of truth.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Tennessee’s Anti-Science Bill Becomes Law

By John Timmer, Ars Technica

After the US Supreme Court’s 1987 decision forbidding the teaching of creationism in science classes, those who objected to the teaching of evolution modified their ideas slightly. They relabeled these ideas “Intelligent Design.” In the wake of that tactic’s defeat in the courts, the opponents of science education retooled again.

This time, they targeted a number of state legislatures with two categories of bills that shared nearly identical wording. This tactic saw success in Louisiana, although a number of similar bills were considered in other states. They’ve now achieved their second success — the passage of a law in Tennessee.

One approach to diluting science education was a series of bills that allowed schools to use supplementary materials in science classes; conveniently, the anti-evolution Discovery Institute published a supplementary text at about the same time.

An alternate approach has appeared in a number of bills (again, all with nearly identical language) that would protect teachers who present the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories, although the bills single out evolution, climate change, and a couple of topics that aren’t even theories. Again, the goal seems to be to use neutral language that will allow teachers to reiterate many of the spurious arguments against the widely accepted scientific understandings. Tennessee’s House and Senate hadpassed a bill that took precisely this approach.

The state’s governor, saying the bill doesn’t “bring clarity,” has decided not to sign it. But he’s decided not to veto it either, which will allow it to become law.

Although a detailed discussion of open issues within all scientific theories might make some pedagogic sense, the bill will undoubtedly function as its designers intended. Teachers with a strong agenda will be able to bring up discredited arguments against the mainstream scientific understanding. And, should they ever do that in front of a student from a family with equally strong views, the result will inevitably be a lawsuit that will hold the local school district responsible.

http://www.wired.com...ntiscience-law/