Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The devil has left Dover, and was last spotted in Nashville


At Religion Dispatches, Laurie “Devil in Dover” Lebo reports, “Anti-Science Bill Passes Tennessee House”:

The bill, which has yet to pass the Senate, would require teachers to be helped “to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies.” It also says that teachers may not be prohibited from “helping 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.”Those “controversial” theories would include, “Biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

Sources say that many educrats prefer that none of these topics, nor any others that they may from time to time propose, be treated as in any way controversial – and certainly not by parents or taxpayers.

Here is another view:

Late last week, the lower chamber of the Tennessee General Assembly passed a bill preventing public school administrators from obstructing the efforts of any teacher 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, such as evolution and global warming.

The bill, HB 386, alternatively styled the Tennessee Academic Freedom Bill and the Critical Thinking Bill, was passed by a significant majority of the Tennessee House in a vote of 70-23. The measure was sent to the State Senate on Thursday of last week, where it will be debated by the Senate Education Committee.

The bill’s chief sponsor in the House, Representative Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville), said the purpose is to promote “critical thinking” in science classes. Predictably, opponents of the proposed law insist that it is merely “a backdoor means of teaching creationism….”

Dunn continued the defense of his proposal, explaining that, “Some of the best teachable moments are when you’re discussing things, and when there’s some give and take with the students.”

Controversies are growing around who guides the instruction of kids.

Well, I can certainly understand why Lauri Lebo is upset. If we start allowing allegedly 'scientific theories' to be subjected to scrutiny and criticism, how will poor little neo-darwinism survive?!?!?! What next??? Allowing people to believe Darwin wasn't a god but a fallible human being?!?! Madness I say, madness! Blue_Savannah
BREAKING: The collapse of MG's claims on CSI, Dembski, Durston's FSC and the Orgel-Wicken definition of CSI and FSCI kairosfocus
You know your position is nonsense when it cannot handle being critically analyzed. I have a blog titled "No Need To Teach Intlligent Design"- I said: That's right, I said there is no need to teach intelligent design. All that needs to happen is to stop telling students that our existence is an accident, ie living organisms spontaneously arose from non-living matter, and stop telling them that all genetic changes are errors/ mistakes/ accidents. IOW stop the lying bullshit. Tell them the truth- tell them we don't know. When pressed provide valid options and tell them that one of the basic questions science asks is "how did it come to be this way?" Then you have a discussion using the evidence and data to try to determine which option is the best fit for that. Then you devise ways to test your inference. You can even discuss what options are valid and why they are valid. Even discuss why some alleged options are not valid, ie not an option. Get down to cause and effect relationships- (get down on it- get down on it)- given this effect can you determine the cause. Tell them why not every death is considered a homicide nor every rock considered an artifact. IOW stop with the indoctrination and teach science, not materialism. Joseph

Leave a Reply