Tenn. Senate OKs Bill To Allow Anti-Evolution Talk In Classrooms

#2
#2
I don't have a problem with the way it was worded. I come from a science degree and outright reject creationism. The bill, as it is written, just allows for teachers to critique the scientific soundness of evolution and climate change. There are reasonable inquiries in both fields of study. Creationism isn't necessarily what it is implying, at least not the way it was written.
 
#3
#3
first there is the belief that TN HS science teachers/students are smart enough to make this happen. Second there is the belief this can be done without bringing creationism/6 days into the discussion. Last, it seems to be a get out of jail free card for inserting religious beliefs into a science class. None sound very positive

Also the other bills seem to show the direction they are going in TN

Earlier this week, the Tennessee House approved a bill authorizing the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, as part of a display of “historic documents.” The Senate is considering an anti-abortion bill that would require publishing names of doctors,
Click to expand...
 
#4
#4
The bill guarantees that teachers won’t be subject to discipline for challenging the science of evolution and climate change.
Click to expand...

No one have a problem with the climate change part of bill ?
 
#5
#5
I have a problem with the whole thing. If they were teaching it correctly already there would be no use for this bill. It allows them to introduce "alternate theories" or simply show anti-Gore movies without actually challenging their students
 
#6
#6
I'm all for critical thinking and pointing out where evolution may not make sense, or what it has yet to explain. That is the heart of science.

If this is thinly disguised legislation to open the Bible and start teaching creationism as a legit scientific alternative then I am definitely against it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
Maybe if the teachers would stop teaching the Theory of evolution as a fact this bill wouldn't be needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#8
#8
NEOCON said:
Maybe if the teachers would stop teaching the Theory of evolution as a fact this bill wouldn't be needed.
Click to expand...

they can teach the facts that exist and how it evolves into the complete theory. The religious aspect should not be taught in a public school science class
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
utvolpj said:
they can teach the facts that exist and how it evolves into the complete theory. The religious aspect should not be taught in a public school science class
Click to expand...

but they must state it is a theory and not proven and they do not.

they teach it like its a fact and if you disagree you are either lying or fooled.
 
#10
#10
NEOCON said:
but they must state it is a theory and not proven and they do not.

they teach it like its a fact and if you disagree you are either lying or fooled.
Click to expand...

no they do not need to state it is a "theory" (as you would define it) if they teach it correctly. That isn't the reason this bill is being introduced anyway
 
#11
#11
utvolpj said:
no they do not need to state it is a "theory" (as you would define it) if they teach it correctly. That isn't the reason this bill is being introduced anyway
Click to expand...

yes they do because it is a theory.

it is crap that a teacher would teach something that cannot be proven. noone has created anything from nothing yet and until they do all of macro evolution is a theory.

there are steps that have to be made in an experiment for it to not be labeled as a theory and not being able to create something from nothing (which evolution hinges on) slams the whole thing from fact to theory.

the bill exist because people are sick of people like you who act like its a given.

i have no problem teaching multi theories, multi religions, and all as theories.
 
Last edited:
#13
#13
NEOCON said:
yes they do because it is a theory.

it is crap that a teacher would teach something that cannot be proven. noone has created anything from nothing yet and until they do all of evolution is a theory
Click to expand...

are you saying there are no parts of it that have been proven? While a theory can't really be proven it can be disproved by even a single observation. You have one of those?

and since you say "it is crap that a teacher would teach something that cannot be proven" then I assume you are 100% against any creationism/ID being taught in school?
 
#14
#14
volinbham said:
No more problem than showing "An Inconvenient Truth" and not critically examining the claims.
Click to expand...

It appears most disagree with the evolution part of the bill but are okay or have no comment about the climate change part of bill.
 
#15
#15
Gramps said:
It appears most disagree with the evolution part of the bill but are okay or have no comment about the climate change part of bill.
Click to expand...

I can see 2 reasons for that: the religious angle since evolution can conflict with creationism but there's not much religious link to climate change and the more settled science of evolution compared to the often politicized science of climate change.

I agree with most who think this is a backdoor way to sneak creationism into science class and I cannot support that. If it's just taking a critical look at scientific theories then I'm okay with it.
 
#16
#16
utvolpj said:
are you saying there are no parts of it that have been proven? While a theory can't really be proven it can be disproved by even a single observation. You have one of those?

and since you say "it is crap that a teacher would teach something that cannot be proven" then I assume you are 100% against any creationism/ID being taught in school?
Click to expand...

creationism along with evolution and all others need to be taught as theory. I have no problem with anything being taught and shown examples for why some believe this or that. I would have no problem at all with my child being shown reasons why some believe in evolution as long as the teacher clearly states it is a theory.
 
#17
#17
I think it is funny that it is necessary. If we understood science well enough to teach it, there would be no need for a bill to "allow" discussion of weaker points of theories and competing thoughts, hypotheses, or even theories.

This does seem like a back door to insert personal views into accepted curricula, which I'm not excited about. The danger is that what qualifies as scientific theory could become confused.

Of course, teaching theories as fact is also dangerous, but to me that is less the fault of the curricula and more the fault of some teachers that don't appreciate the nuance or fully understand all the science. That's not an attack in them, though. It is very difficult to fully understand all the science on these issues without some high-level courses and immersing yourself in it, which takes a lot of time.

The problem is that if you don't understand the scientific weaknesses, then opening the door to evolution not being fact somehow seems to immediately and illogically swing the door around such that creationism is somehow on equal scientific footing with evolution, which isn't accurate.
 
#18
#18
NEOCON said:
Maybe if the teachers would stop teaching the Theory of evolution as a fact this bill wouldn't be needed.
Click to expand...

Wait so creationism is fact? Evolution seems a damn sight more plausible than some omnipotent force creating two white people and so on.
 
#19
#19
utvolpj said:
I have a problem with the whole thing. If they were teaching it correctly already there would be no use for this bill. It allows them to introduce "alternate theories" or simply show anti-Gore movies without actually challenging their students
Click to expand...

I read the official bill summery linked in the article and it did not mention suggesting "alternative theories" at all. It stated:

...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, such as evolution and global warming.
Click to expand...

Merely pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of various scientific theories ought to be taught in the classroom anyways. That is critical thinking. It does kids no service to tell them that such and such is fact. It is much more beneficial to have them think critically about the subject at hand from various different angles.
 
#20
#20
This sort of circus would be completely avoided if we didn't have government schools. The public provision of education would guarantee that it's accessible to all, without all the negative consequences of allowing wasteful government to ruin our children's education at a high price-tag.
 
#21
#21
utvolpj said:
first there is the belief that TN HS science teachers/students are smart enough to make this happen. Second there is the belief this can be done without bringing creationism/6 days into the discussion. Last, it seems to be a get out of jail free card for inserting religious beliefs into a science class. None sound very positive

Also the other bills seem to show the direction they are going in TN
Click to expand...


yeah, God forbid they don't say anything negative about evolution. or question it since it is a theory and not a fact. The biggest hoax you libs have pushed on humans.
 
#22
#22
Nerd-Vol said:
Wait so creationism is fact? Evolution seems a damn sight more plausible than some omnipotent force creating two white people and so on.
Click to expand...

yeah nerd-gator. somehow evolution defied all odds in making one protein that somehow defied all odds in making one simple cell. etc....
 
#23
#23
Nerd-Vol said:
Wait so creationism is fact? Evolution seems a damn sight more plausible than some omnipotent force creating two white people and so on.
Click to expand...

A little off-topic, but any Bible scholar that claims that God created two white people is probably a member of the Klan. No one that is taken seriously has ever said that.
 
#25
#25
volinbham said:
I can see 2 reasons for that: the religious angle since evolution can conflict with creationism but there's not much religious link to climate change and the more settled science of evolution compared to the often politicized science of climate change.

I agree with most who think this is a backdoor way to sneak creationism into science class and I cannot support that. If it's just taking a critical look at scientific theories then I'm okay with it.
Click to expand...

Evolution does conflict with creationism, with that being the reason that more are opposed to that side of the bill, while accepting the climate change because it has very small religious link.

That is being hypocritical, with neither science/theory being fact.

I do agree this is a backdoor effort to sneak creationism back into the classroom.

IMO, the big bang, origin of life, evolution and religion all should be keep out of the public classrooms.

The big bang, origin of life and evolution are all theories, not fact. Creationism is faith, not fact.

This is a very touchy subject. There are millions of people with strong feelings on both sides.


I look at it this way:

Student A: The parents are athiest/unbelievers and believe in the big bang, the origin of life and evolution. They do not want their children taught anything about God.

Student B. The parents believe God as the creator of our universe and life. They do not want their children to be taught that the world started from nothing, life began from a single cell and man evolved from a monkey or some type of primate.

The big bang, the origin of life and evolution may seem more plausible to some, but they are full of holes and are theory, not fact.

With neither side being fact, why should either one be taught in our public schools ?

Why should the government tell the parents of student A and B what their children have to be taught ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top