Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial

Reuters ^ | April 13, 2012 | By Deborah Zabarenko

[Oldeconomybuyer]

(Reuters) - A new Tennessee law protects teachers who explore the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of evolution and climate change, a move science education advocates say could make it easier for creationism and global warming denial to enter U.S. classrooms.

The measure, which became law Tuesday, made Tennessee the second state, after Louisiana, to enable teachers to more easily teach alternative theories to the widely accepted scientific concepts of evolution and human-caused climate change. At least five other states considered similar legislation this year.

The heart of the law is protection for teachers who "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."

Science education advocates say this leaves latitude for teachers to bring in material on creationism or climate change denial, which they consider unsound science.

The law was billed as a triumph of academic freedom by proponents of creationism or intelligent design, who reject the concept that human beings and other life forms evolved through random mutation and natural selection.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

[P.O.E.]

[freedumb2003]

>> move science education advocates say could make it easier for creationism and global warming denial to enter U.S. classrooms.<<

The two are not analogous. TToE is a Scientific Theory. AGW is not (it meets exactly zero Scientific Theory criteria).

Just to make it clear, there are rigorous definitions of what a Scientific Theory is. The AGW “scientists” ignored all of them when labeling it a Scientific Theory. They were more interested in the politics and the money. Lots and lots and lots of money, just for cherry-picking data to produce the desire result.

And, no, a Theory is NOT a “grown up guess.” It is a scientific explanation of a large body of data and, as I said, has a series of rigorous tests (all of which TToE meets).

Beyond that, unless someone wants more information about how real science works, I sayeth nothing more.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

The Tennessee law means that actual science will be taught in science classes. Prohibiting discussion about alternative theories -- even distinctly "unscientific" theories, is the antithesis of science.

[muawiyah]

AGW, so far, has yet to predict known conditions in the near past (over the last 1000 years). It currently continues to fail to predict the cessation of Global Warning that occurred coincident with the use of satellites to determine global temperatures.

It's not a good theory at all and it's models are quite defective.

Then, there's "evolution" and that's been hit with a number of blows over the years. First was the discovery of DNA. That forced some serious re-considerations of a great number of evolutionary shibboleths. Later (actually quite recently) scientists discovered the existence of epigenetics ~ worth reading about if you haven't had the chance ~ and this is forcing yet another revision of evolutionary shibboleths.

Just this year scientists demonstrated that rice (among others) produces bits of messenger RNA that can get through your gut into your blood stream and finally into your brain ~ and they tell you to "eat more rice". Traditional evolutionary shibboleths really aren't up to dealing with that one.

Just yesterday we discovered that baboons can read! Well, sure, you have to teach them words, but baboons can learn words, and what they mean!

Going through all the stories about that study I really had to ask myself what evolutionary force had worked through what processes of "natural selection" to give us baboons who could read BEFORE they could speak!

Frankly, it's more like DNA is one of these super duper chemicals that unfolds over time and self-assembles in stupendous ways ~ and it might be more appropriate to approach biological change over time as a function of self-assembly, and not of selection.

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "Prohibiting discussion about alternative theories -- even distinctly "unscientific" theories, is the antithesis of science."

You are exactly right.

I didn't know it was against the law to teach science in the US. Are they saying science is ONLY taught in Tennessee and no place else in the US?

[BfloGuy]

And, no, a Theory is NOT a “grown up guess.” It is a scientific explanation of a large body of data and, as I said, has a series of rigorous tests (all of which TToE meets).

I don't mind Creationism being presented to students as a reaction against the inability to prove TToE (as you term it,) but would you agree that it should not be taught as science?

[Persevero]

Good.

[freedumb2003]

>> being presented to students as a reaction against the inability to prove TToE<<

I said I would on respond about science. Your thesis is incorrect: Scientific Theories are not “proven.” They are adjusted, discarded and are, as in the case of TToE, enhanced by additional data in the physical universe.

Just as people confuse the Observation of Gravity (which some people call a “Fact”) with the Theory of Gravity (which tries to explain the WHY of Gravity), they also continue on the completely scientifically incorrect “A Theory is a grown-up guess” track, which is what your statement implies.

[trebb]

Yep - educators are supposed to educate, not indoctrinate. keeping other theories/ideas off the table only insure the are exposed to the “approved opinion” which all to often has nothing to do with fact.

[Uncle Slayton]

Make it Parental Option and have parents decide if they want their kids to be taught Evolution or Creationism in school.

[muawiyah]

Teaching the kids about how baboons can learn to read makes much more sense, then there's that messenger RNA from rice ~ makes you want to eat it!

I think they can figure it out from there.