Tennessee’s Anti-Science Bill Becomes Law

[Yarn]

The new Tennessee law does not ban the teaching of evolution as the old law had. Its supporters contend that it will allow the expansion of scientific views in the classroom. What it does do is allow doubt to be injected into areas of science in which scientists say there really isn’t any. It allows creationism and evolution to be debated side by side in a science classroom, which is just plain wrong, even if the Tennessee legislature thinks otherwise.

Anti-evolution bills have been introduced this year in at least six states. The continued assault on science in some state legislatures only makes it harder for young Americans to learn about their world.

The law encourages teachers to “present the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.” But, as noted by the nonprofit National Center for Science Education, the only examples given in the bill of “controversial” theories are “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

The legislation, passed by the Tennessee House and Senate, became law when Gov. Bill Haslam decided — for the first time in his nearly 15-month administration — not to sign the bill nor to veto it, according to The Commercial Appeal . Thus, by default, despite the fact that science educators called it anti-scientific, the legislation became law.

In a statement absent of any sense of leadership, Haslam said:

“I have reviewed the final language of HB 368/SB 893 and assessed the legislation’s impact. I have also evaluated the concerns that have been raised by the bill. I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers. However, I also don’t believe that it accomplishes anything that isn’t already acceptable in our schools. The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion. My concern is that this bill has not met this objective. For that reason, I will not sign the bill but will allow it to become law without my signature.”

The bill offers protections for teachers who help students critique “scientific weaknesses” of certain theories. Critics argued that this is code for attacks on evolution and other theories, which encourages critical thinking by protecting teachers from discipline if they help students critique “scientific weaknesses.”

The problem is that there is no important “scientific weakness” in the theory of evolution that could scientifically undermine its essential truth. Scientists agree that it is the animating principle of modern biology. Scientists also agree on the reality of climate change.

Tennessee's Anti-Science Bill Becomes Law | Wired Science | Wired.com

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public."[45]

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:


(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[13]

The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation".[14] Anderegg et al. replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study’s framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.[15] The Anderegg et al. study was also criticized by Roger A. Pielke,[16] Pat Michaels, Roger Pielke, Jr., and John Christy.[17] Pielke Jr. commented that "this paper simply reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science in policy debate." [17]

[edit] Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[18][19]

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, those who support laws like the Tennessee one are once again threatening to make the US the laughing stock of the first world by having science teachers teach wishful thinking and politics rather than science that has any signficant backing by real practicing scientists. Instead of teaching real science, our students are to waste time learning the rationalizations of theists and pundits rather than about the real consistent findings of more than 2 centuries worth of biology and 3 decades worth of climatology.

[gallo]

We are apparently still a nation of idiots for the most part. Several states elect morons who are motivated by mindless faith placed in the mythology of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen. Thus, we see the continued efforts of these idiots to introduce their faith in mythology into our science classrooms as science. They demonstrate their abject stupidity by including language that encourages and protects teachers who “present the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.” Two problems with that:

1. That attitude is already encouraged by any qualified teacher of biology (or any science for that matter). It has historically been the mindless creationists who have tried to suppress the teaching of any science that conflicts with their understanding of their mythology.

2. Creationism is not by any stretch of the imagination a weakness in any scientific theory. There is absolutely no evidence to support creationism in any form. What the legislators don't realize is that the law actually encourages teachers to show how stupid creationism actually is.

[Jack]

My compliments to the Christian propaganda machine. They ought to be proud.

Except that enshrining ignorance into the law is nothing to be proud of.

[Zeebadee]

On the other hand, this may just spur some students to more fully investigate and learn that evolution is an accepted scientific theory.

[ruksak]

This isn't an assault on science. It's an assault on common sense.

What it does do is allow doubt to be injected into areas of science in which scientists say there really isn’t any. It allows creationism and evolution to be debated side by side in a science classroom

Here's my question; How is this possible when teachers are forbidden to discuss religion in a literal manner?

As explained here per Anti-Defamation League

The Bible may be taught in a school, but only for its historical, cultural or literary value and never in a devotional, celebratory or doctrinal manner, or in such a way that encourages acceptance of the Bible as a religious document.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Honestly, I don't have too much of a problem with the bill - although I feel it doesn't really do anything, either. So a teacher can use class time to talk about the "problems," they think evolutionary theory has - I'd be shocked if teachers aren't already doing this in Tennessee, for one; second, it's equally valid, then, for a teacher to talk about the obvious gaping holes in the intelligent design hypothesis. Either way, it doesn't actually compel teachers to do so in any case - it only say they can, if they want to - and those that want to probably already are.

It's junk legislation - a bill that does absolutely nothing.

[Yarn]

Either way, it doesn't actually compel teachers to do so in any case - it only say they can, if they want to - and those that want to probably already are.

It doesn't shield them from pressure and prejudice either. If a school board so decides, it can introduce various incentive schemes that in effect require teachers to teach what the politicians want them to. If the teachers or students lack to ability to sue in response, there is nothing to prevent mandatory deviations from science to politically or religiously motivated fantasy.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

True, but I don't think that this bill - at least as it's described in the OP - really provides a legal shelter that will make school boards or the legislature any more (or less) able to mandate what teachers teach. In other words, to mandate the teaching of intelligent design over evolution, for example, would require additional legislation - and that legislation would be able to be questioned, politically and legally, on its own. This particular bill doesn't really do anything.

[Yarn]

Additional legislation would be required to legally mandate it, but if you control a school's administration you don't need a legal mandate because you control who gets hired, who gets fired, and what their orders are.

[grandpa]

Additional legislation would be required to legally mandate it, but
if you control a school's administration you don't need a
legal mandate because you control who gets hired, who gets
fired, and what their orders are.

In many ways, religion has tended to put people at risk.
If the religious had their way back in the day (and, to some extent, even now), we'd think someone who prays keeps getting healthier, while the less faithful only get sicker.

More to the point, I don't want promotion of religion to be funded by taxpayer money, no more than a religious person wants anti-religious views promoted by government.

Keep in mind also that a skeptic often hasn't been safe. It's not just that atheism could have gotten him fired. He may have actually been burned at the stake.

Grandpa h.

[Yarn]

Keep in mind also that a skeptic often hasn't been safe. It's not just that atheism could have gotten him fired. He may have actually been burned at the stake.

You're starting to sound like Stephen Pinker.

[ironeagle]

I see no reaon why this bill is a problem it protects other views of creation which would be unfairly excluded by ant-religious zealots who's only goal is to discredit something which cannot be discredited, evelotuion has absolutley NO proof, any more or any less than creationism, and even if creationism did in fact happen, then it doesn't mean that eveloution cannot take place also and vice versa. Very little to no signiffigant evidence can be presented to prove evolution theory. Why should science nerds be allowed to cram a evidenceless theory down our children's throats? Why shouldn't a student be able to expose nay flaw or weakness in any theory? OSunds to me like a bunch of whinning anti-religion babies to me.