Tennessee: Creationism rides again

[Berzerker]

the creationists aint even using a logical interpretation of Genesis and they call it intelligent design?

I'll bet thats the 1st time Tennessee passed a law to protect teachers challenging the establishment, their last law made it illegal.

[Heraclitus]

dem white sutherners . . . . .

Its not a race thing friend. Just turn that into Southerners. A greater % if Black rural Southerners belive in creationism than White rural Southerners.

[SpencerH]

No


Says nothing about teachers questioning things only that students are encouraged to have a questioning attitude while remaining civil towards opposing viewpoints.


Seems rather benign despite the hyperbole in the article that this is intended as a sop towards itelligent design. Personally I am more offended that this took time up in the state legislature at all. Talk about waste.

This is what happens when one reads the law rather than just providing yet another knee-jerk reaction to what passes as "news". Another for Ogie.

OTOH, it probably is a step toward teaching ID in science class. Personally, I dont care about it. Teaching ID will no more convince secular kids of its veracity than Darwinism will convince the religious kids. If the question is whether ID is science? Probably not, since it is inherently unprovable, but it's not really any worse for the kids than the other pap that floats around in the news espoused as "science" by uninformed "secular priests".

[MrFun]

You don't care that misinformation is being taught as if it was a proven, valid theory?

[Jon Miller]

Science should be taught in science class.

There are many things which are not science, but which are still useful to be taught/to know/to know about. Something not being scientific does not mean it isn't true.

ID is not science, it shouldn't be taught in science class. I am perfectly fine with Darwin's theory of evolution (I am using Darwin's theory because that is often what is taught in classes when it isn't the same as the modern theories, although the modern theories grew out of it) or Mendel's genetics being taught in science class despite the fact that we know they are not proven and valid theories (even that they are wrong). Because they are science.

This is the central issue, science being taught in science class. It should be the same for religious private schools or public schools. I don't care (well, I do for public schools) what is taught in other classes (could be literal 7day creation).

JM

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You don't care that misinformation is being taught as if it was a proven, valid theory?

Other than the hyperbolic article statements and implications, where does the resolution indicate that misinformation is being taught?

[MikeH]

I think ID has a place in a Science classroom.

It's an absolutely fabulous example of how something unscientific can be presented as scientific. And I think "how do I evaluate this scientific story in the media?" is a really key fundamental skill that absolutely everyone should be taught.

We see here all the time how often relatively intelligent people can have a fundamentally misguided view about a science story, because they have never been taught how to critically evaluate scientific information in the media.

Scientists are rubbish at communicating with the public. If ID isn't science? Why not? It sounds like science, except often it's actually being presented in a way I can understand. People say there are some obvious lies in ID. How could I tell?

[MikeH]

And only in Science class because only a Science teacher would have a hope in hell of teaching that.

[Jon Miller]

But the issue is that the philosophical consideration of ideas is not science. It's philosophy. And scientists are often not the best suited to deal with this. They are scientists, not general philosophers.

ID isn't science. You can point out why it isn't science. This could be done in science class.

That doesn't mean that there are obvious lies/etc within it.
For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I don't think it is easy to argue that it is an unreasonable philosophical position.

JM

[Jon Miller]

A good source:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25

"Conclusion

Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.
The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.
No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modem life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes."

JM

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And only in Science class because only a Science teacher would have a hope in hell of teaching that.

Science teachers by and large are dolts particularly primary and secondary school science teachers.