A friend advises, re the dangers of teaching non-crackpot science …

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 11, 2011

science education}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It looks like New Mexico is next up for the scientific controversies wars. A new bill has been introduced that would allow teachers to inform students of controversies with respect to science, and specifically would prohibit them from being punished for doing so. The bill states ” A teacher who chooses to provide such information shall be protected from reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so.”

Entire bill (less than 1 page), here. This should bring the science tax burden mediocrities out in force.

We can’t stress enough how New Mexicans need to be protected from any suggestion that the Beard or some other nabob might not know all the answers.

Comments

"Scientific information" may include information that coincides or harmonizes with religious tenets, but does not include information derived from religious writings, beliefs or doctrines." Therein lies the problem. As we all know from Dover, the plaintiffs were highly successful in convincing the court that ID was inextricably linked to religious belief. Any teacher who is: "informing students about relevant scientific information regarding ... scientific weaknesses pertaining to that topic." is going to have to prove that the introduction of such material was not religiously motivated. Post-Dover, I can't imagine any school board touching this.NormO_{February 11, 2011
February
02
Feb
11
11
2011
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

DM: If they cannot be trusted to be truthful or fair-minded, they plainly ought not to be trusted with power. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 11, 2011
February
02
Feb
11
11
2011
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Its already being criticized as anti-science, pro-fundamentalism, etc etc, ad nauseum. Rep. Thomas Anderson, the New Mexico state legislator who proposed the bill in the first place, was asked just this week about his "anti evolution" bill. He firmly, but politely replied that he didn't have any "anti-evolution" bill in the hopper. Here's but one example of how the rabid anti-ID crowd is talking about this simple bill in the blogosphere.DonaldM_{February 11, 2011
February
02
Feb
11
11
2011
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

The bill is perfect. I don't see how anyone could object to it with a straight face. It'll be interesting to see if the ACLU (an organization which I wholeheartedly support on every issue but this one, by the way) will weigh in on it.Bruce David_{February 11, 2011
February
02
Feb
11
11
2011
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

OT; Ms. O'Leary, I thought you might like a heads up on this soon to be released book: The Dark Side of Charles Darwin by Jerry Bergman http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Charles-Darwin/dp/0890516057/ref=sr_1_13?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1297446723&sr=1-13 Jerry Bergman is also author of 'Slaughter of Dissidents' which goes much further than EXPELLED did in documenting the systematic abuse by Darwinists of whomever dares disagree with them in academia; Slaughter of The Dissidents http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405 EXPELLED - the movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4bornagain77_{February 11, 2011
February
02
Feb
11
11
2011
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

I dunno about "the Beard" moniker Denyse, does that mean we won't get to see you use "old Brit toff" anymore? Now, that really would be a shame. Maybe you could somehow combine the two?NormO_{February 11, 2011
February
02
Feb
11
11
2011
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply