E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Erik Schelzig / AP
Rep. Bill Dunn, left, and Rep. Harry Brooks, both Republicans from Knoxville, during a House session in Nashville, Tenn., on Monday. Dunn is the main sponsor of a bill seeking to allow teachers to question evolution.
Activists were waging a last-minute battle Thursday to scuttle a bill that they say would gut science education in Tennessee by allowing public schools to cast doubt on widely-accepted scientific principles, including biological evolution and climate change.
"What it does is bring the political controversy into the classroom, where there is no scientific controversy," said Larisa DeSantis, who teaches in the Department of Earth and Environment at Vanderbilt University. "It’s scary, as a parent and as an educator."
DeSantis spoke to msnbc.com from the office building of Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam just before delivering a petition signed by more than 4,000 citizens calling on him to veto HB368. The bill easily passed the state Legislature and now awaits the governor’s signature to become law. Haslam has indicated he would probaby sign the legislation.
The bill says the goal of science education is to help students "develop critical thinking skills." It says the General Assembly has found "the teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy" and says instructors should feel free to explore the "scientific weaknesses" in these theories.
The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Bill Dunn of Knoxville, a self-described conservative and Catholic, has said the bill is about "objective scientific facts."
Secularists and scientists argue HB368 is an attempt to introduce religious beliefs such as creationism or "intelligent design" as science, thereby undermining broadly accepted scientific principles and hurting students' education.
"As a science teacher I would say there is no controversy over evolution or climate change in the scientific literature," said DeSantis.
"Sure, we argue about the details. But these are core ideas … that are not controversial."
Critics have dubbed the legislation the "Monkey Bill," a reference to the "Scopes Monkey Trial" of 1925 -- a landmark legal case in which the state of Tennessee charged high school science teacher John Scopes of violating a law barring the teaching evolution in public schools. Scopes was a test case for the American Civil Liberties Union, which wanted to challenge the law which had been spearheaded by a Christian fundamentalist in the Tennesee legislature. Scopes was found guilty and the law remained on the books until 1967.
National organizations urged the state and the governor to jettison the bill.
Among the groups that have announced opposition are The National Association of Biology Teachers, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute for Biological Sciences and the Tennessee Science Teachers Association. The bill has also been lambasted by secularists and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, as a violation of the church-state divide.
"This legislation, which perpetuates the teaching of non-science with a seemingly neutral approach, allows creationists to continue to make unfounded attacks against evolution," states a letter sent Thursday to Haslam from the nonprofit Americans United for Separation of Church and State .
The letter also criticizes two other Tennessee bills that are on the governor’s desk — one that would allow the 10 Commandments to be displayed in public buildings, including schools, and another that would allow teachers to take part in prayer and religious activisties before and after school.
Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United, said believes all three bills will face constitutional challenges if they become law. He said he hopes the governor will veto the legislation, if only for practical reasons.
"I think a lot of governors do understand that there are consequences about passing legislation that so clearly violates the constitution,” Lynn said. “It’s up to him now and I hope he balances (that). They shouldn’t be paying for lawsuits when there are plenty of other things to pay for in Tennessee."
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
What it brings into the classroom is healthy debate. Global Warming was never proven to be man-made yet was taught that way for years. Evolution does nothing to address the most important issue in its full scope. How was the world created? The Evolution theory does nothing to address that. Creationism has just as much probability as either of the two aforementioned beliefs and as such is worty of consideration among the academics.
How does the manmade concept of "creationism" have any probability of validation? The whole universe was created in six days 6000 years ago? That is the biggest pile of BS anyone has ever created. Get religion/church out of our public schools and all levels of government. The US Constitution requires that separation. If these people want to teach creationism, let them put their kids in church supported private schools (with the church members and parents of the students footing the ENTIRE bill for operating that school. NO tax dollars for those schools for any reason.)
You must have gone to school in one of these intellectual backwaters. Evolution doesn't address the issue of how the world was created, any more than it addresses the question of why triangles have three sides. Wrong subject. Astrophysics addresses the question of how the world was created.
Creationism has all the rational rigor of a fairy tale. It's raw, unadulterated speculation, without a scrap of actual evidence. It's no more sustainable than the assertion that the world was created by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. You say that's not true? Prove it isn't.
"The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Bill Dunn of Knoxville, a self-described conservative and Catholic, has said the bill is about "objective scientific facts." "
The bill's sponsor must be a remnant of the Neanderthals rather than a practicing Catholic. The Catholic Church does not have any problem with the teachings of evolution or any other sciences. He sounds to me like just another religious wingnut. Maybe he is a practicing member of the infamous Westborrow Church in Kansas.
Since when is creationism, science??? Why don't they offer a "Religion's of the World" class, and discuss the differing religions, their similarities/differences, and effects on society? That would create well rounded students, and maybe some tolerance.
What it does is institutionalize the backwardness of the "christian" right. Just keep it up and you will get your just reward.
This bill will help students adapt to the world around them. It is a great idea to have the students question broadly accepted principles. That is what Columbus did with the earth being round vs flat. Einstein, Aristotle and Plato all encouraged questioning like this. They need to be able to support their beliefs with facts and they need to be able to handle a wide range of beliefs. Our future generations need to be able to understand the different cultures throughout the world more than anytime in our past. This bill offers them that, instead of the narrow minded teaching they were getting.
PAF,
Not when that "questioning" is based on mythology, religion, or political partisanship. Teach them the scientific method, and then then teach them to apply it.
That shows them how to question broadly accepted principles. With MORE facts and science. Not indoctrination.
Mark, you've just displayed that you have no understanding of some of the most basic facts of science. Why should we think that your opinion on science matters will be any more informed?
Christian fundamentalis are on par with strict Taliban views Both are A s s backwards Limit creative thinking but makes good goat herders.
However I do not see any problem in giving both views and the Mormon view and the Taliban view and then letting the student decide which one makes the most sense. You just have to find a neutral person to teach this
We are, as a country, rapidly regressing.
The forces of stupid are running amok.
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
Science class is not about widely accepted principles. It's about fact. Concrete. Evolution is a fact. Global Warming is a fact. 2+2=4 is fact. A well rounded eduction should include the studies of Aristotle, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, etc. It's called philosophy class. Questions on theology are generally studied in classes on religion. These classes tend to have names like Theology. World Religion. The Bible As Literature. CHURCH. All these ideas have a place, science classes are not it.
Mark, it brings religion into the classroom, not healthy debate. I don't think that there is an argument that our climate changes. We know that historically, and we seem to be in a warming phase right now. There is an argument to be made as to whether it is a naturally occurring change, and whether there is an influence on this change through human impact on the environment. Evolution has nothing to do with how the world was created - don't cloud the debate. Evolution explains how current day living beings (all beings) got to this point in their development. There is also good scientific explanation for creation of the world as well.
I think we can also reconcile our religious beliefs with scientific beliefs if we do not translate the Bible in such a literal fashion. When I was in Sunday School, many years ago, one of the kids in class asked the nun teaching class how she would explain evolution as we were learning about it in class in Junior High. Without batting an eye, she replied that evolution was guided by the hand of God, and when we had developed to the point of being human, we were given souls by Him. The New Testament is the word of man, written by man, many years after Jesus left this earth. God's time, and God's ways, are a mystery to us. The billions of years making up the universe may be only the blink of an eye to Him. I don't think I would be so self-righteous as to disavow what the scientific community has learned over hundreds of years. For all you know, they are lead by God's hand.
Or, I suppose you could go back to the time when we thought the Earth was the center of the universe, with the church supporting this idea as well. I would encourage you to look back at church stances on scientific discovery through the ages, and see how many times they were wrong and had to change their doctrines. I would again encourage you to remember that the Bible that we read, both the Old and New testaments, are the word of man. As such, the writers are prone to error, as all human are.
Of course evolution does not cover the initiation of life on our planet. That's how science works. It cannot explain everything at once.
The Earth has lots of extinct species. None of the current species were around 500 million years ago, but there was plenty of life. The newer species had to come from somewhere. They had to "evolve" from prior ones that they supplanted in many cases.
There's a question around about whether this evolution was designed or Darwinian. Designed evolution requires a supernatural intelligence. The supernatural is not a part of science. Also, you cannot disprove designed evolution, but you can disprove Darwinian evolution. Therefore, designed evolution is not subject to scientific investigation. Except for the above short disclaimer, it does not belong in any science classroom.
End of story.
Sarah, I agree that they should use the scientific method. Intelligent has just as much basis in science as the theory of evolution. Both should be taught, and more importantly, they should be taught how to apply the scientific theory to each.
JOhn....I disagree. I think that all religions should be touched on in the classroom. If we don't expose them to different cultures and beliefs, they end up narrow minded. You also need to remember that the "scientific community" were the first people to believe that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. Scientific theories can be wrong as well.
Yeah, lets throw out truth and fact and go with belief. If we did that then we wouldn't have electricity, the earth would still be flat and fire would still be worshiped. How do they think they got smart phones, TV's, computers and cars?
Really? I can't believe this is even an issue. Anyone that has studied science knows that you have a theory and opinions but you test them to see if they're true. Religion throws out logic and states you must believe blindly or you're a sinner. Jesus didn't teach stupidity. He taught love and compassion.
Good thing the folks of Tennessee were born there and not in Iraq or Iran etc or they would be throwing out science for Islam. Same thing. Belief based on place of birth and not on truth or fact.
PAF,
No, both shouldn't be taught in science class. Creationism is NOT a scientific theory. Creationism belongs in classes like "Religions of the World" or the "History of Religion" or "World Mythology". There is no Scientific Theory of Creationism.
Not to mention, how would you feel if they were teaching the Islamic story of the beginning of the world? After all, Christianity isn't valued any higher or deserving of any extra rights, than any other religion.
Dave, since they were born in Tennessee and not Iraq, doesn't it make sense to expose them to Islam? You can teach religion without it becoming a belief. The same thing with evolution. There is just as much faith that goes in to the theory of evolution as a form of creation as their is in the biblical view of creation. They way things are teaches stupidity, but this law teaches them to expand their mind, taking in viewpoints from others and use reasoning and logic to discern the truth.
There is no problem with exposing kids to other religions .. I'm all for a "world religion" class. I took one similar myself in college and found it fascinating!
The problem is putting this into a SCIENCE class. It's NOT science, it's religion (or philosophy, depending upon how you approach it).
As an aside, the one bill I don't have a problem with is allowing the teachers to take part in religious activities before and after school. Why not? As long as they are not compelling their students to attend or pressuring their co-workers to attend, it should not be a problem.
PAF- Please, run, don't walk, run to your nearest University or college! Suggested classes: Geology, biology, physics, environmental sciences, astronomy, if you have it in you astrophysics. And philosophy 101. (Unless you live in Tennessee, then I suggest you run to your nearest neighboring state).
HEY PAF you said "Intelligent [Design] has just as much basis in science as the theory of evolution." Really, can you please show me some scientific proof of intelligent design? I'll be here everyday waiting for your reply. I simply cannot wait..... please HURRY.
Science and religion were considered the SAME from the time of the Greek philosophers until COPERNICUS. Copernicus was one of the first to disagree with commonly held religious/scientific beliefs.
"Scientific theories can be wrong to" thanks for that profound statement. Scientific theory becomes scientific fact after other scientists (NOT politicians, business men and other myopic fools) test the theory to the point of it being indisputable.
EXAMPLE: Climate change is almost to the point of being COMPLETELY accepted (98% of CLIMATE scientists believe man to be causing SOME of it) but the political, business and fossil fuel organizations are fighting it tooth and nail with the same tactics the tobacco industry used to try to convince people smoking is not bad for your health.... aka deception, obfuscation and "puppet" scientists offering opposite opinions.
Why shouldn't all the theories of creation be put to the test of the scientific method? Evolution has about as much factual basis behind it as most creation stories. They should examine all of them. It isn't for the school system to say this is right and this is wrong when there is no clear "winner." I would prefer that the school system teach them to think instead of memorizing a theory that may or may not be true.
I really hate to burst all of your collective bubbles but "scientific theory" is exactly that, "THEORY". If I need to get the definition of "THEORY" and bring it to this conversation that would be a shame considering all of you "enlightened folks" commenting. Evolution is a "THEORY". So for you to sit here smugly and state that their are "facts" being ignored I suggest you go back to school and research "Theory" vs "fact".
Yes, evolution is a theory. Creationism, however, is NOT.
Mark B.-629097.....Ignorance is bliss. You must be very happy.
Maybe we can build a wall around Tennessee.
Common Sense- You're right. Theory of gravity. Theory of evolution. Oh, by the way, I'm color blind, and I contend that grass is gray.
Sarah, Why isn't creationism a valid theory and evolution is? Neither can be repeated as an experiment.
Not....You show me the proof for evolution (not adaptation), and I will show you the proof for intelligent design. In reality, there is no proof for either one. Because of that fact, we should treat both of them as viable. You also need to understand that science do not strive for consensus (such as 98% of scientist believe that man has SOME contribution). It strives for laws. Just because 98% of scientists believe that the Sun revolved around the earth didn't make it true.
Actually, he may have a point. There are lots of flaws in scientific theory - take for instance gravity. Does it really exist? Perhaps it is just the earth sucking. I am making a joke because the whole debate is a joke. Science brought us technology that was then used to discover the truth about the world about us and above us. Religion brought us moral conviction and social adhesion (within communities to a point) using stories to guide that morality and community bond. But the stories are not science, they are stories. Any person that confuses the two knows nothing of either science or religion.
Bill, To my knowledge, gravity is a scientific law and provable. It is no longer a "theory". A theory isn't provable at this time, like the theory of relativity. How many different changes have there been in science over the years?
PAF,
Maybe this will help you...
I have not seen these fossil skulls of the intermediaries between apes and humans, dinosaurs and birds, etc. To my knowledge, they haven't found complete skulls and those are fragments of skulls that are not even close to being complete. If you have the links for ones that mostly complete, I will happily look at those. By the way, where did you get this article. I would like to read all of it. What I find ironic is that the Genesis story closely resembles the theory of evolution.
PAF,
Read the last paragraphs. They describe you. And that's the entire article. Really, all you have to do to read more like it, is google scientific theories, or evolution, or the differences between creationism and evolution, or any combination thereof.
And, pssst, just because you haven't seen something, doesn't mean it isn't there. The world is bigger than your narrow view, and you aren't the ultimate authority...
"Oh well, all we need to do is have PAF see it..."
Sarah......I don't like simply googling things like that because there is so much misinformation. I am sure that I can find an article that talks about peers refusing to look at scientific evidence of creation. I simply do not trust blind Google searches like that. I agree that just because I haven't seen things that it isn't there. How can one believe in God if that is not the case? Are you suggesting that I should take everyone's word about everything instead of trying to see the research and apply the scientific theory to it? Do you do the same? Do you take my word that creationism is the only way because you haven't seen it? People who are truly educated look for facts and reasons. In fact, I can make a case that I am being much more open minded than you.
http://creationwiki.org/Peer_review
Thought so. Here is examples of people being denied peer review because of their view points.
Put America: I think you have confused "Theory" with "Hypothesis." Hypotheses are yet to be proven, they are proposals to be proven. Theories arise from proven hypotheses that may include usable models to demonstrate proof.
I couldn't ask for a better piece of evidence. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you exhibit A, PAF!
I don't suggest that, no, but it's obviously what you already do...
And, holy crap, this...
http://creationwiki.org/Peer_review
Is this...
Sarah.....I think you are mistaken in my intent of the link. I used that link to show that you can find about anything on the internet and posted that link to prove a point. There is just about anything on the internet and it is often difficult to discern the truth. I am not sure why you are so stuck on the last paragraph. The piece that you are referring to is an opinion piece. Some creationists refuse to let have their work peer reviewed and there is evidence that some creationist want peer review and are denied. Of course there are biblical fundamentalists, just like there are evolutionist fundamentalists. It is dangerous for people to simply deny facts based on preconceived ideas.
Bill.....Theories arrive from prove hypothesis, but the theory is not proven. We can prove that species adapt, which gives us the theory of evolution, but was cannot prove that life came from primordial sludge.
Sarah is a perfect example of why this law should be put into place. I am suggesting that people should be opened minded, educate themselves about the facts, and then come to the most logical conclusion. Instead, Sarah has predetermined viewpoint and will not listen to anyone who might disagree with her. Having students follow that philosophy makes them very narrow minded.
Yeah, because the "science" doesn't pass the review.
waGYK&HSEAR%Cgk7hi;uoZA WEH
That was my head hitting the keyboard.
And did you miss my first comment??? Here you go...
Since when is creationism, science??? Why don't they offer a "Religion's of the World" class, and discuss the differing religions, their similarities/differences, and effects on society? That would create well rounded students, and maybe some tolerance.
That's where your myth belongs. NOT in science class. IT ISN'T SCIENCE, no matter how much you want it to be.
@PutAmericaFirst
most people are ignorant and uneducated to begin with. they seek out the experts to get them some learning. Experts have determined Evolution is the best scientific explanation for what is observed. Keep religion out of it if you want real Science. It's in the same league as Einstein's Theory of Relativity ... geez... care to debate what all modern physics is based on ... maybe you can come up with an equally scientific explanation of the universe from your own pondering of things..lol
I'm with Sarah... keep the billybobs out of science!!!
Does the big bang theory or the idea that we came from Primordial sludge belong in science class? There is just as much faith in that as there is in "creationism". I think it fits because none of the creation stories are close to being provable if we are going to teach one event that is not provable, then we should teach other possibilities as well.
I'll stick with the real experts not the ponderings of the billybobs and religious zealots. After all, we want to make real progress with real science and math, not just make everybody feel good because their religion is causing them to have them some doubts..
Rush.......While I don't think that we should teach religion as the truth, I do think that there is a valid reason to teach possibilities that involve religion. If we followed your advice and let the experts dictate to us what is acceptable, then Columbus would never have crossed the Atlantic. Science is founded on challenging accepted beliefs that are not provable and trying to prove/disprove them.
Lets say that those religious zealots get factual evidence that proves creationism. Would you believe then?
Yeah but that ain't science!! Teach religious theories in a religious studies class... I don't see how that can be made any clearer since we're not living in the middle ages anymore (apparently Tennessee didn't take any real history classes either??)????
Rush.....Lets look at it this way. If we teach solely the theory of evolution from origin on, then they are challenging religious beliefs. If you are going to challenge religious beliefs with an theory that isn't close to being provable, then you are bringing religion into the debate. Either we accept that we don't know how life began and how the universe was created, or we teach all the possibilities.
Why are people who defend evolution so against an alternative being taught as well? If they truly have the best explanation of creation, then they should welcome the presentation of the facts, the competing alternatives and hypotheses. They should be convinced that the facts will prove them right. As it stands now, it looks like they want to suppress any challenges to their beliefs. That in turn makes their belief appear inferior to many people who believe in a faith base creation. A closed classroom, does more to perpetuate creation than an open classroom would if they were all presented as possible alternatives.
Theories are conclusions accepted by the scientific community, backed up by research. Theories continue to be tested and modified over time when necessary, which is why they have credibility, such as the theory of evolution. Intelligent design is a modern-day marketing ploy by right-wing zealots, erroneously called a "theory". There is absolutely no proof for intelligent design as it was entirely made up as an alternative to evolution and called a theory to try to confuse the issue. It has absolutely no research whatever support it.
By the way, the photo of Bill Dunn shows a tendency to a receding forehead, heavy brows and a longish upper lip. Maybe he's in denial.
They're NOT facts! Nothing in creationism is considered FACTUAL. Holy sh**. Your belief that Creationism is science IS inferior because it ISN'T true.
Your belief in Christian Bible stories is equal on the playing field of RELIGION. Study it, teach it, preach it, discuss it, as it pertains to religion. It's equal to all other religions. It's protected the same as all other religions. It's not, however, welcome into the science game, because it isn't science.
I can't walk onto a football field in hockey skates, and then bit** about how nobody's passing me the puck, can I??? Because hockey isn't football. The same goes here. You can't take a story that isn't science, and than complain why no one calls it science. We don't consider it science, because it isn't!
Teaching Creationism has exactly the same merit as teaching alchemy or astrology.
This Tennessee bill will suffer the same fate.
PBS NOVA has a good program on the battle which confirms that Creationism is purely a religious concept.:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
Why are they afraid? If the children are taught HOW to think instead of WHAT to think then there is nothing to fear. Instead they want to teach children WHAT to think because it seems they fear teaching them HOW to think.
Our public schools are pathetic and that is proven in their dismal performance. We have a third world public education system. And all the 'activists' want is more of the same drivel they spoon down the students throats. Teach children how to think for themselves, don't spoon feed ideologies.
My God; can these people possibly achieve a lower level than their present state of stupidity? I can't even imagine this level of insanity controlling the curriculum of schools.
I can just hear their lesson now. "There can't be fossil fuel because everyone, who reads The King James Bible knows there is no such thing as a fossil. That black substance pumped from the ground was put there by God on the third day.
And the climate is getting warmer because Jesus is coming again...real soon; and Jesus will take all the good people (those that don't believe in evolution and/or use birth control) to heaven and the rest will burn up here on earth. He will punish those non-believers real good, just like he does with hurricanes and tornadoes.
Oh, there is the bell. Be sure to practice your pistol shooting and read your Bibles tonight and remember that God loves you... but not those gays, lesbians and Muslims."
We are sacraficing so much to rid Afganistan of the oppresive Taliban and their Muslim form of Sharia law, yet we tolerate the same form of Sharia law from American Taliban Christians. Go figure
i have always had a problem with the pure evolution theory, in which complex structures are said to have developed from many random mutations, and every mutation bestowed a survival advantage even before the accumulated changes produced a skeleton or an eye or some other useful structure.
The Tennessee approach could bring these questions into the open and the ensuing discussion may very well lead to the truth - life on our planet was the result of a huge bioengineering project conducted by advanced beings from other worlds. The question of how those beings came to exist is left for college-level courses.
There are people that believe we never landed on the moon. Should this be taught as fact in schools as well, in the name of "healthy debate"? There are people who don't believe the Holocaust happened. Should history classes teach this is alternate theory because "nobody knows for sure"?
The science classroom is the place to learn about scientific method and accepted scientific theories and truths -- not to promote a nonscientific faith, religion or opinion.
Medicine depends heavily on Evolution. Evolution is the reason we need different types of antibiotics – bacteria evolve. Evolution is also the reason we have to constantly develop new vaccines for diseases caused by viruses like the flu – viruses evolve. Evolution is also the reason we now have “new strains” of diseases like Hepatitis C and Tuberculosis B that didn’t exist 60 years ago.
Additionally, Evolution has definitely been accomplished experimentally. A new species of finch was deliberately created by transplanting an existing finch species to a new ecosystem on an isolated island. Within only 30 years, the descendants of the transplanted finches had become a brand new species. This was witnessed in action and well-documented in photos and films.
If God used “intelligent design” to make humans, He was amazingly stupid. For instance, hundreds of thousands of human children choke to death each year because of a design flaw: humans eat and breathe through the same “hole”. That’s a pretty incompetent “design”, isn’t it? Dolphins (and lots of other species) breathe and eat through different holes, so dolphins NEVER choke to death on food. Why would God design dolphins so much better than he designed humans?
“Intelligent design” can’t explain design flaws in humans; in fact such flaws are powerful evidence AGAINST “intelligent design”. If God designed humans, you would NOT expect any mistakes. On the other hand, design flaws are powerful evidence FOR Evolution, because such genetic misfires are EXACTLY predicted by Evolution.
All you have to do to disprove Evolution is to find a fossil that doesn’t belong in its geological strata, such as fossilized rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian. None have ever been found despite desperate attempts by thousands of religious zealots. If just one single such fossil was ever found, scientists would abandon the theory of Evolution in a heartbeat.
The scientific hypothesis is: Did God create man or did man create God?
Faith is the belief in something not proven.
Is there life somewhere out there in the universe? Probably. If or when it is discovered, does that make it God?
The dumb people who fake being Republicans have basically chased most of the Republicans with brains out of the party. It is literally becoming the case that you have to be completely stupid to be in the party. That's why thinking conservatives (or at this point, just conservatives with any piece of brain left in their heads) are just distancing themselves from this loud but genetically weak pool of semi-humans.
Rick Santorum, the shining example of that. Let me know when the dumb part of the party actually understands he never should have even been a candidate.
PAF, creationism relies on the earth being 6000 years old. Carbon dating and rsiometric testing prove that the earth is much much much much older. Creationism 0 Science 1...
your turn. By the way I'm still waiting on your "Intelligent [Design] has just as much basis in science as the theory of evolution." rationalization.
Tennessee, preparing its children for the 19th Century.
You got that right.
Have they come as far as the 19th century??
What is wrong with society?
A religious fanatic is a religious fanatic, no matter what country they're from.
Yeah because everyone else is sooooo advanced.....
I grew up in Mississippi and now live in Tennessee. I'll tell you this is the most backward, racist place in the 50 states.
PutAmericaFirst: you are so wrong. Theory of evolution is based on science. Its still called theory because there is no way to know exactly. The prime example of evolution in our own lives are viruses. They evolve so fast our antibiotics stop working with some of them. These bugs aren't building armor or coming up with defensive moves, their bodies actually change in a short period of time. Its not intelligence its physical. If you will study evolution you'll see that it is most likely the case for all creatures on this planet. With that said I highly doubt the creator of this universe has an issue with this being the way he creates.
As for the remark about Islam, I meant that as an example of how people do almost no personal investigation regarding the most important thing in their lives and buy into the local norms. If you study religions, and its almost all I do, you'll find a common thread with the masters or teachers that started the religions. Its love. And you will find that their teachings got corrupted by their followers after they died because the followers didn't understand and they grab a hold of rules. When God is forgotten rules become the religion.
I agree that it is based on some scientific evidence, but there is just as much evidence in Intelligent Design or the Creation story. There are plenty of cracks in all of them, so they all take a lot of faith to believe in. You will not find a creationist that disagrees with the natural adaptation of species. Where the disagreement comes into play is over the changing of one species to a completely different species. If that was the case, then there should be all sorts of missing links. Every specie should have a missing link between its nearest relative. ALL of those links are not there. Evolution doesn't just miss the link between man and ape, is is missing it between wolf, bear, and boar. Squirrel and monkey, etc.
Tenn is a state that I believe will not produce the engineering and science skills needed to really put America first. Basing science on faith, or creationism, is a problem when it comes to producing realistic technological results. I doubt anyone can show me how the devices used today can be supported by religious ideas.
The science for evolution theory is very robust while there is no scientific evidence that supports ID or Creationism. None. Offer us some science you think supports either which merits discussion and it will be ripped apart by me or someone else who actually understands the science.
There is all sorts of evidence of missing links. Expecting a smooth continue of evidence for missing links can not happen because fr two main things: 1) fossil evidence is relatively quite rare since it takes rare and very special environmental circumstances to preserve animal remains and fossilize them and 2) the search for fossils is only a couple of hundred old.
You need to do some serious investigating of the science rather just spouting off about things you have not studied. If you need links I will supply them, but you can Google such information easily.
culheath,....I do not adhere to any religion, nor have I ever congregated with any kind of prayer group, however, I am convinced of both the reality of evolution and that of a creator, that the two are intertwined and that each are the best evidence proving the other. There is just too much complexity, interactivity, relativity and interdependency of all things to one another to have been randon or by natural selection, It could only have come about by supreme intellectual design.
Think about it. While it is possible all physical things and bodies could have materialized from all the known building blocks so plentiful throughout the universe, all those things combined could not have accounted for our set of conflicting feelings, emotions and and a conscious.
I will not go any further at this time, but I will say, for the past 15 years I have tried to write a book explaining the the fundamental principals of the theory of 'Devine Science' without offending the many religions. But have recently decided to just release an essay outlining the four key pieces of the puzzle of a creator and evolution which I think will enable others to fill the blanks and determine for themselves what is reality or not.
THREE CLUES:.....It is not intellegent design, but designed intellegence........Think spiritual not physical............What is a soul, what does one resemble ?
Medicine depends heavily on Evolution. Evolution is the reason we need different types of antibiotics – bacteria evolve. Evolution is also the reason we have to constantly develop new vaccines for diseases caused by viruses like the flu – viruses evolve. Evolution is also the reason we now have “new strains” of diseases like Hepatitis C and Tuberculosis B that didn’t exist 60 years ago.
Additionally, Evolution has definitely been accomplished experimentally. A new species of finch was deliberately created by transplanting an existing finch species to a new ecosystem on an isolated island. Within only 30 years, the descendants of the transplanted finches had become a brand new species. This was witnessed in action and well-documented in photos and films.
If God used “intelligent design” to make humans, He was amazingly stupid. For instance, hundreds of thousands of human children choke to death each year because of a design flaw: humans eat and breathe through the same “hole”. That’s a pretty incompetent “design”, isn’t it? Dolphins (and lots of other species) breathe and eat through different holes, so dolphins NEVER choke to death on food. Why would God design dolphins so much better than he designed humans?
“Intelligent design” can’t explain design flaws in humans; in fact such flaws are powerful evidence AGAINST “intelligent design”. If God designed humans, you would NOT expect any mistakes. On the other hand, design flaws are powerful evidence FOR Evolution, because such genetic misfires are EXACTLY predicted by Evolution.
All you have to do to disprove Evolution is to find a fossil that doesn’t belong in its geological strata, such as fossilized rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian. None have ever been found despite desperate attempts by thousands of religious zealots. If just one single such fossil was ever found, scientists would abandon the theory of Evolution in a heartbeat.
No, PutAmericaFirst, there is NOT "just as much evidence in Intelligent Design or the Creation story." There is, quite bluntly, none except for a religious text which provides no scientific evidence whatsoever.
One of the biggest problems with Intelligent Design or Creation, from a scientific standpoint, is that you have an 'explanation' to which you attempt to fit data to come up with the conclusion you wish to support. That is NOT how science works...in science you have an idea, you test it, catalog the results, and go where the evidence leads you regardless of where you want it or think it should lead.
In 1859 Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace co-presented their theory of descent with modification to the Linnean Society of London. In the more than 150 years since, not only has it not been disproved, but it has found more and more support as we discover the chemical and molecular basis for cellular processes and inheritance. Common cellular processes unite all living organisms down to the simplest virus all the way to humans. There are transitional forms in the fossil record so your 'missing link' claims are refuted, although as an earlier poster indicated, the conditions under which a fossil is formed are extremely rare, and thus the likelihood of a single mutant being preserved is astronomical, let alone for that fossil to be found and identified.
"There are plenty of cracks in all of them, so they all take a lot of faith to believe in."
No, there aren't...only in the creationist or intelligent design claims...
from TalkOrigins.org, an excellent source on this topic:
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; AAAS 2006; GSA 2009; NAS 2005; NCSE 2012; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.
So by all means, let's continue to deny fact in order to push your religious dogma down our throats...it's not like science has improved the human condition like relig...wait...it has
PutAmericaFirst,
You claim that scientific theories are only “theories” in the colloquial sense, merely “ideas” that have equal merit to faith. I’m willing to watch you put that perspective to a test.
General Relativity is “only” a scientific “theory”. According to General Relativity, gravity is the warping of spacetime caused by the presence of mass. This totally and absolutely proves that Christ’s “ascension into Heaven” is a lie because in order for him to ascend into Heaven, the Earth would have had to lose all its mass, meaning it was destroyed and no one would have survived to read any Bibles after that.
Now, let’s consider your proposition that ideas from your faith have validity on an equal footing with a scientific theory. I propose a contest between Science and God.
I’ll make you a side bet. If you win, I’ll swear off science forever and become a devout born-again Christian. If I win, you’ll give up your religion forever and become a staunch disciple of science. OK?
Climb up onto the roof of any church you wish, and jump off. If you levitate in the air without falling, God wins the contest and you win the bet. But if you fall to the ground, Science wins the contest and I win the bet.
Just remember, General Relativity is “only a theory”, JUST LIKE EVOLUTION.
That's a complete falsehood.
Why lie?

As well as Gravitational Theory, Heliocentric (Earth orbits sun) Theory, etc etc.
The core of these theories are so well established that they are basically considered fact. The hows and the whys are still being answered in some aspects. But there is so much evidence that the earth orbits the sun, that gravity and mass acts on objects, and that life evolves that the core concepts of those theories are not in question.
Whenever someone says 'oh it's just a theory' in reference to the colloquial usage of theory, they are only displaying a total ignorance about what a scientific theory is.... why do people think they can argue things that they know nothing about?
America is entering into it's own Dark Ages. This is not going to be a pleasant ride.
lol...probably because they don't know they don't know. :)
I say it's our duty to disturb their bliss.
And pray tell where does this scientific fact come into play regarding his religion and beliefs?
re: Dick-2100935. Very interesting that the sponsor is Catholic, isn't it? I mean, does he know his own church SUPPORTS science and evolution? The official church position for Catholics is pro-evolution; the Catholic church sees no problem with the idea that we evolved from lower life forms (with some evolving less than others, I think!). But for southerners, denomination doesn't seem to matter, Catholics there are the same as born-agains. I'd love to see the Catholic hierarchy standing up for evolution...but no, they only stand up when it has to do with birth control or abortion. God forbid they support education.
Jim,
I wonder if PAF took that bet and that's why we haven't heard back from him? I love Conservatives, they don't believe in science until they get on air planes, or drive cars, or turn on a light, or go to a doctor...
Sarah -
Thanks. If PAF took me up on that bet, I am disappointed that we all weren't invited to watch
I would say that conservatives are powerful proof of "Unintelligent Design". It makes me absolutely sick that these people have their heads full of such crap, but it makes me angry that they are trying to force religion down our throats and blatantly violating the Constitution in the process.
Incidentally, I am a huge fan of your posts, especially about gay marriage.
Jim,
Thanks, and at the risk of sounding really vulgar, I'm also not a huge fan of conservatives trying to shove crap up my vagina either. Sorry, that needs to be said. A lot. Lol.
We also have to realize what would happen if this made it's way into a classroom. The teachers that would use it as an activity to teach students how to apply the scientific method and what peer reviewed really means while using ID as the example that clearly fails those requirements would be out within the first year. These people don't just want teachers to clarify the opposing points of view; they clearly want sycophants that would present ID/Creationism favorably. No way would they let someone who properly tore down those points of view via proper science to survive long.
I think this law will be wonderful! Science teachers will be able to compare and contrast scientific facts developed through the scientific method with the mythology of religious tracts incl. the Bible. For example in astronomy: the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun (note: not in harmony with the Bible); the earth and Sun formed over 4 billion years ago (not in harmony with the Bible); the sun is a medium yellow star located about two-thirds of the way out from the center of a galaxy of stars called the Milky Way and it takes light 50,000 years to go across the diameter of the galaxy (not in harmony with the Bible); our nearest neighboring galaxy of stars is Andromeda which is 75,000 light years away (not in harmony with the Bible)...and so on. Every day on every page of the science text book the students will be hammered that the Bible can neither explain nor account for the scientific facts. That way the students will have it hammered over and over again the the Bible is a package of myths. Isn't that WONDERFUL! Is that not why we have separation of church and state?
If you can find a science teacher in Tennessee willing to stand up to the inevitable viciousness of the Reich Wing Hyper Christians when that comparison is hammered home, then perhaps you have indeed cited the "silver lining" in this cloud.
Realistically, do you think that outcome is likely?
profbam-1670207: that's a nice way to look at it but the problem with believers is they stick their fingers in their ears and go nener nener nener nener nener..... I can't hear you. How do you penetrate insanity if they won't listen to truth?
I don't believe that Religion and science have to disagree but somehow people think there were two people named Adam and Eve and we came from them. I would like to know who their kids married? Each other? That would explain humanity being so insane because we are so inbred. But how did we all get to look so different if we have the same parents?
Can you tell us why a science teacher should be expected to waste his/her time talking about religious views and why they are wrong? Why discuss religious BELIEFS in public schools? We going to have the poor teachers discuss all the religious theories while we're at it? I mean why just Christianity's?
There are so many churches in the AL town where I live that you can't convince me they can't go bash science there. The one place my kids can go get facts and not religious beliefs in this town...state...region of country (seriously) should be public school I pay my taxes for kids to attend. There are several religious schools around, and if other kids' parents want them to watch teachers teach kids that science is a lie or a bunch of people just chatting and making opinions, and why they think there isn't a difference between science and religion they can send them to one of those.
As it is the fundamentalists public teachers try to get a little prayer in here and a little Bible quote in there...it is illegal and if I (former science teacher) had to teach all the religious beliefs as equally reasonable and defendable as the science (you know...the name of the subject is science, not religion?) not only would my students have failed their standardized tests because we wouldn't have had time for much else, but I wouldn't have been able to stand up there and lie to them about that.
So is the goal to get as many teachers to leave the state because they aren't willing to lie to kids as possible? Oh yes...it is. Then they can put in all teachers who believe as they do and the public schools will big religious schools...oh, yes, that was the idea apparently along with keeping kids as ignorant about science as possible so they will believe the "right" religious beliefs. What a crock of crap. Teach your kids whatever you believe in church and home, but I doubt you will get many science teachers to agree to that nonsense...I hope, at least.
Ram.....The reason they should discuss it is to give the students a way to think and debate. Science and education should be much more than memorizing facts. Knowing that water boils at 212 Fahrenheit or 100 degrees Celsius will not help you in life. Being able to put facts together to prove a theory true or false can help them in any number of ways. I agree that they shouldn't put in quotes from the bible or put in religious beliefs, but if we are going to teach a creation theory at all, then the major theories all have a place.
If you want to teach religious thought then it should be in a comparative religion class not in a science class.
Religion is not a scientific theory, it is an allegorical creation mythos and is actually debased by attempts to move it into a scientific sphere. It is like trying to demonstrate the literal existence of the characters in King Lear; pointless and missing the entire point of the story.
The idea that you make science teachers essentially have to explain why creationism and intelligent design are ridiculous is such a waste of students time. That's literally the equivalent of asking the same teacher what he wants for lunch then making him explain why he doesn't want each of the other items on the menu.
Hi students...
Evolution - lots of evidence supporting a well tested and hyper reviewed theory
Intelligent Design - zero evidence supporting a religiously backed theory not open to peer review.
Oh and Tennessee... Before you do this ask Dover, PA if they miss the money they wasted trying to do this and getting battered down in court.
By all means, teach Creationism - but present it in the same way that science courses cover quackery like Phrenology, Astrology, and Alchemy.
That would be the appropriate place for it.
PutAmericaFirst,
You seem to keep misunderstanding the point. Creationism, or I. D., is NOT a science. It is a religious view only. It has no place in our Public School system at all, let alone in Science Class.
I'll place a link to the whole article below (it's too long to copy/paste here), but I'll paste a piece of it here for your reading, because I doubt you'd bother to read the whole thing. It's from an essay written in 1981 on this subject by Isaac Asimov.
"Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in their attempts to disprove evolution. They do this in numerous ways, but the most common example, at least in the mail I receive is the repeated assertion that the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates the evolutionary process to be impossible.
In kindergarten terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that all spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing disorder—that is, in a "downhill" direction. There can be no spontaneous buildup of the complex from the simple, therefore, because that would be moving "uphill." According to the creationists argument, since, by the evolutionary process, complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that process defies the second law, so creationism must be true.
Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is somehow invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying in the face of the second law through sheer perversity. Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are not blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms is suitable only for kindergartens.
To lift the argument a notch above the kindergarten level, the second law of thermodynamics applies to a "closed system"—that is, to a system that does not gain energy from without, or lose energy to the outside. The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole.
Within a closed system, there are subsystems that can gain complexity spontaneously, provided there is a greater loss of complexity in another interlocking subsystem. The overall change then is a complexity loss in line with the dictates of the second law.
Evolution can proceed and build up the complex from the simple, thus moving uphill, without violating the second law, as long as another interlocking part of the system — the sun, which delivers energy to the earth continually — moves downhill (as it does) at a much faster rate than evolution moves uphill. If the sun were to cease shining, evolution would stop and so, eventually, would life.
Unfortunately, the second law is a subtle concept which most people are not accustomed to dealing with, and it is not easy to see the fallacy in the creationist distortion.
There are many other "scientific" arguments used by creationists, some taking quite clever advantage of present areas of dispute in evolutionary theory, but every one of then is as disingenuous as the second-law argument.
The "scientific" arguments are organized into special creationist textbooks, which have all the surface appearance of the real thing, and which school systems are being heavily pressured to accept. They are written by people who have not made any mark as scientists, and, while they discuss geology, paleontology and biology with correct scientific terminology, they are devoted almost entirely to raising doubts over the legitimacy of the evidence and reasoning underlying evolutionary thinking on the assumption that this leaves creationism as the only possible alternative.
Evidence actually in favor of creationism is not presented, of course, because none exists other than the word of the Bible, which it is current creationist strategy not to use."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html
Please take the time to read the whole essay.
I do understand where you are coming from and it would seem to be a great opportunity to squash ID by submitting it to Scientific Methodology in comparison to Evolution......but I agree with others that this is likely not going to be the case in the Tenn classrooms. More than likely this ends up creating more confusion and debate...the two primary weapons of ID which do nothing constructive for Evolution. Debate and confusion in out classrooms is a win for Creation mythology.
However, there are authors with strong reputations that have actually done this. Ken Miller (once you get past his personal belief in God which is easy) in his books "Only a Theory" and "Finding Darwin's God" does a masterful job of taking Creationism and ID seriously as a scientific theory and submitting it to careful examination with the scientific method...at which point he shows how and why ID/Creationism fails miserably in both its critiques of evolution and claims of Creation evidence.
William...You're 100% right that ultimately this stuff has no place in a science classroom. We also have to realize what would happen if this made it's way into a classroom. The teachers that would use it as an activity to teach students how to apply the scientific method and what peer reviewed really means while using ID as the example that clearly fails those requirements would be out within the first year. These people don't just want teachers to clarify the opposing points of view; they clearly want sycophants that would present ID/Creationism favorably. No way would they let someone who properly tore down those points of view via proper science to survive long.
I am happy to hear my kid will have that much less competition when applying for top university admissions and future high tech, science and corporate jobs. Thanks Tennessee!
When I was in high school in the 1960's and learned about the first "Monkey Trial", I never imagined that in my life time people would be so backward as to deny science and actually believe in creationism let alone want to teach it in the schools. What has happened to our country? How can we let this happen? What is next? And we dare to think Islam and other religions are backward.
No one is denying science, but we don't worship it as you apparently do.
What has happened to our country is that too many Americans hate God.
The only backward thinking is the God denying, fantasy driven evolution, that even it's author and his buddy Sir Arthur Keith were honest enough to admit was "unproven and unprovable."
Where are your transitional forms?
If you reject the Noaic Flood out of hand, you will never come to the right conclusion about history, BTW.
Guffaw! Darwin would marvel at the level of proof now established, the evidence is in your very DNA! Evolutionary biology need not deny God, but hyper Christians like you are really doing that by denying the logic and carefully reasoned science that some might argue we are given.
You can't win this fight. Creationism and intelligent design are so lame and intellectually bankrupt as to be a waste of good brain sugar.
Join the flat earth society!
I don't blame the GOP or Christian rightists for this wave of idiotic legislation in our GOP-controlled states, anymore than I would criticize a fish for swimming. It's what they do. I do blame all those centrists, liberals and independents who foolishly claim there is no difference between the parties and don't bother to vote. Yes, the Democrats are woefully imperfect, some are corrupt. But this GOP onslaught of religious nonsense is horribly unhealthy for our nation. Get off your indifferent butts, get registered, and VOTE these GOP clowns out.
*sigh*massaging temples...
Herald9, seriously, that is your response, that Americans 'hate God' by using our senses that you believe we were given to investigate our world, then we are supposed to deny our own senses based on a religious text that varies depending on whose 'version' you have of it
And as far as the 'Noaic flood'...can you explain, then, why 75% of all fishes became extinct during the Permian extinction? lol
Herald9 -
The Noaic flood? This has been completely and thoroughly disproved. All ya gotta do is examine the geological strata. It shows that there has NEVER been a world-wide flood. NEVER.
How big was that boat anyway? It had to be the size of the state of Maryland just to hold all the insects. How were the lions and tigers kept apart from their food sources like giraffes and wildebeests? Where were the holding tanks for all the bacteria and viruses? Where were the amoebas housed?
But suppose there had been a world-wide flood that destroyed the entire human race (except for one man's family). Wouldn't that mean God was a greater mass murderer than Hitler? I mean, Hitler was a bad Christian who killed millions of people, but even Hitler didn't destroy the entire human race.
Is the right conclusion not the correct one, then?
My God does not demand self-delusion. I'm sorry that yours does.
Herald9 writes: "No one is denying science, but we don't worship it as you apparently do... The only backward thinking is the God denying, fantasy driven evolution"
Dude says no one is denying science, then goes and denies it in his next sentence. These are the geniuses we're dealing with here.
"Where are your transitional forms?"
You mean transitional fossils? They're all over the place. Perhaps some Googling is in order for you.
Once again, proof that ignorance is celebrated over intelligence in this country.
Especially in the republican party.
There are more wise people in the Republican Party, evidently, because "The beginning of wisdom, is the fear of the Lord."
You just totally proved it with some quote!
I have one for you "The beginning of wisdom is not being a moron."
/sarc/
There shall in that time be rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock. - Monty Python's Life of Brian
lol...thanks for that moment of morning mirth, Shuklack. Gotta watch that flick again.
" We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. " - Benjamin Franklin
The Tennessee Government, and most present day Republicans, must be working very hard!
This issue should be more than a slam-dunk for intelligent, rational minded people...
The idea that the earth/cosmos are only 6,000 yrs old is complete nonsense, scientifically speaking! This is indeed one of the core biblical notions that comes with the territory of so-called Creationism & Intelligent design...I can walk right outside in my back-yard and perhaps dig up stones older than that!?
Every thing evolves from a state of origin to evolutionary rest, including human intelligence and consciousness, that takes the idea of human evolution out of the ape domain - Human beings are more mental than physical is my point, so why debate about when human hair started disappearing during a time when our ancestors may have looked more ape-like than human - I contend we were never apes in the actual sense, and I applaud science for such findings...
And by the way for those who don't know, or for those who resist wanting to know because it turns many religious doctrines into fairy-tales and phoney ideology, the planet earth is a bit older than 4 Billion years! Long live scientific investigation and the rational mind of human beings (males & females)!!!
lmao when they show adam and eve playing with dinosaurs at that wacky amusement park
And the universe is around 13 billion years old.
I can't believe they are trying to teach fairy tales in place of science. No wonder we are well on the way to being a 2nd or 3rd world country.
Next they'll try to teach that fossils were put there by a "higher power" to test their faith.
Geez, I always thought religion was an attempt by primitive humans to explain the world around them. I guess those primitive humans still exist. What a surprise.
Like I said, if you reject the Noaic Flood out of hand, you will always be the one without a clue.
and you, Herald9, are the clueless one
'there are none so blind as he who will not see'...
dude, go bury your head in the sand, but please leave our kids alone so they can advance beyond your 13th century understanding of science
Herald, nobody is dismissing it "out of hand" but rather relying upon known facts to disprove it:
1) There is not enough elemental oxygen and hydrogen to make enough water to cover our world in water entirely (unless there were no land variation back then... and I clearly remember the mention of mountains in the bible).
2) Geological evidence precludes a world wide flood event.
3) The ark would need to be enormous to house two of each animals (many 100s of times the size of the fabled craft). Let alone their foodstuff.
4) Even if there was enough water on the planet to cover it entirely, 40 days of deluge would strip the atmosphere of the oxygen levels needed to sustain a human. Noah and kin would have suffocated.
5) Salinity changes in the water would render most aquatic life extinct. At a minimum, we would no longer have any freshwater animals (at least without evolution).
6) Genetic analysis shows when we have had population constrictions... while many species have, they do not temporally line up, thereby excluding the notion of a worldwide population squeeze.
This is not an out of hand dismissal. It is a dismissal only an idiot would ignore.
I don’t understand why those that believe in a creator or god insist on their teachings be given equal billing in schools? Why do build they build church's or places of worship? Isn’t that your rightful place for such education. I have been to a good many church’s and listened to many a sermon and have read the bible from cover to cover at least twice, unfortunately only partially the Koran. That’s how I learned what faith and religion was. What I have learned is a simple truth, their is no simple truth when it comes to believing in god, creation or religion. And because of that truth or lack of, proves to me that it has no place in the education system to be taught as an essential component to a persons development and future career.
If religious studies are that important then they need to include all faiths!
There lays the problem! God or the Gods (depending on religion) wants us to believe in him, have faith in him, listen to him and worship him. Yes I'm generalizing on purpose because theirs no possibility of doing otherwise considering ALL faiths and religions and their myriads of offshoots claim the (real ) truth for their own. Christianity has thousands of denominations... Anglican, Catholic, Baptiste, Greek orthodox, Evangelicals, Mormonism, Jehovah’s witness etc. Which one of theses fine institutions do you want teaching their version of the bible in school? How about we encourage children to learn Islam or Buddhism etc. That would definitely be useful as it would help them to learn how to expand their thought process to include instead of exclude. But we all know that would never fly! Why, because most religion don’t want this kind of critical thinking, they don’t want spiritual development to be a personal choice. They love the power they have as if they were gods.
sorry mark...it has been proven that co2 levels today are rising and are above the levels when last global warming happened by nature...as for evolution you need to back further to the stuff stars are made of...maybe look at the periodic table and understand...there is no way a omnipotent being created earth 7000 years ago...that is just silly...we have written history from china going back further...i love faith and embrace those who have faith in their beliefs but at some point a rational person must realize there is more than our beliefs born out of ignorance...time to turn the page my friend
Yes, CO2 level are higher. That is a fact. That fact alone does not mean much in the light of global warming. It may or may not have a dramatic effect on the climate. There may be a correlation, but to my knowledge, there has been no conclusive study that shows how much CO2 is effecting the warming. Even evolution has an explainable point of origin. While I think that it would be difficult to prove that creation happened 7,000 years ago, it would be hard to prove that creation didn't happen with God's help as detailed in Genesis. The way the Bible describes create and what was created in each day nearly mirrors the current theory of evolution.
Those who don't believe in evolution also deny humans' involvement in climate change. It typically goes hand in hand, which tells me it's a conditioned response and not the result of unbiased, critical thinking. PAF, you keep saying you're for open mindedness, but you're not really. Your responses are predictably conservative and anti-science.
Not just PAF, but most conservatives, actually.
Actually, PAF, there is a mountain of evidence that humans are having an effect on our climate...this effect is primarily due to two causes...the pollution in the atmosphere is 'closing' the 'safety valve', the infrared window that allows excess heat to escape from our atmosphere...and all the heat from fossil fuels (carbon sources) being put into the atmosphere while carbon 'sinks', biomass which sequesters carbon by removing it from the atmosphere are dwindling...
while global temperatures are rising, there is anecdotal evidence which seemingly refutes the notion of 'global warming', but in fact the extremes of weather are predicted by global climate change...we have entire shelves calving off of Antarctica, many species of coral are stressed due to less than a single degree increase in ocean temperatures, glaciers are receding at a pace which is increasing at a rate even greater than our increase in fossil fuel use...and the list goes on
so here are some predictions for you to chew on...tornadoes will become more common and widespread and increase in intensity in areas that are prone to tornadoes, and we'll start seeing them more in areas where they AREN'T common...same for hurricanes--more intense and more common...heat waves will be more extreme, more winds and also increased windspeed...
When university admissions officers are looking at applications, anyone from Tenn will automatically go to the bottom of the pile. That's just evolution. Let the stagnant genes stay down South where they are more at home.
But northlite, the bad part is that many parents don't want this to happen to their kids and there are many who would be horrified as I am at the thought of it. This is their futures we are talking about and the future of this country. If they did that in AL it wouldn't mean that all parents in that state want it...not all genes are stagnant in any state despite what it appears to be. The problem is that the ones that are happen to be in control of the whole state in the red states. This is where the constitution has to be upheld at the federal level and I hope it is.
Have no fear, it will be ruled unconstitutional because of it's inherent religious basis.
culheath,..........Agree
I worked for a homeschool program, and yes, the majority of the people homeschooling their children are doing so for religious reasons, so you can imagine the issues I had trying to teach them science, evolution in particular...
But a Chemistry professor from a nearby private, Christian University came by to speak with our principal, because he was deeply concerned about the homeschool students that were coming to them...in every single discipline those students outperformed public school students except in science, and in science they were nothing less than crippled when it came to understanding and learning about science at the college level...
Science flies men to the moon, religion flies men into buildings.
Mississippi and Kansas should be added to the list. They don't want science taught to children, so the parents don't appear as stupid. Sort of like the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, where in the end a young boy pointed out the king was naked. Guess what? I think most in the nation are quite aware that certain states are known to be intellectually challenged, and being stupid is no guarantee of a ticket to heaven.
Notfiveo,
awsome quote, so true
It's stunning to think that the Tennessee law that made it a crime to teach evolution in the classroom not only SURVIVED the Scope's Monkey Trial of 1925, but was still on the books FORTY-TWO YEARS LATER.
Did the Tennessee Legislature repeal that law in 1967? What an enlightened group! Where are they now, when the state needs them so badly?
I can only hope that Tennessee science teachers replay the essential message of the Scope's Trial and they debunk creationism on a daily basis. Because this legislature and governor seem posied to pass this idiotic law.
Here in Oklahoma, we're in a race to the bottom with Tennessee. I am so glad my children are well beyond the "teaching" being shoved down the throats of today's public school students.
Un-freaking-believable!!!
The fanatical religious fundamentalists won't rest until they have taken over our education system to spread their dogma and misinformation. An ignorant, illiterate populace is much easier to rule than one in possession of facts, capable of sound reasoning and able to discern fantasy from reality. If there ever was a radical group of Americans wanting to infiltrate our schools and indoctrinate our youth with ignorance and lies it's the fundamentalist christians. Go Away!
Agreed.
Of interest in regards to evolution, ever notice how these people seem to slowly condensing into certain areas/states in the country? And by them taking control of all education in those areas, insure the perpetuation of a sub-standard level of Intelligence.
We may be witnessing the beginnings of a whole new sub-species of Homo Sapiens. One that will remove themselves from impeding all areas of technological and scientific advancements by simply being incapable of possessing the mental capacity to do such.
That may be a good thing. To quote Judge Smails from the movie "Caddyshack"...,
" The world needs Ditchdiggers, too!"
Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church!
Read Dover Vs. Kitzmiller. There is a legal firm in Michigan, funded by the founder of Domino's Pizza, being used to defend the attempts to bring religion, through Creationism, into the classroom. It is a concerted effort to foist their beliefs upon the rest of the citizens of the US. It is a clear violation of the Constitution and any true American should be objecting in a LOUD VOICE.
No wonder the south lost the civil war. Their political leaders are crazy morons.
I think this trend against science spending is scary on an even larger point, because we've already seen what happens when a civilization begins to turn away from science and learning. Neil DeGrasse Tyson made an excellent point at a seminar I watched. He pointed out that two thirds of the stars in the sky have Arabic names, because at one time the muslim world was the center of learning and knowledge. Our knowledge of the universe expanded under Islam at a rate almost unprecedented before the 19th century.
Then around the beginning of the 12th century, a religious philosopher named Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali emerged and declared science to be the work of the devil. The entire intellectual foundation of Islam collapsed, and the middle east NEVER recovered. The Muslim world from that point on continues to exist only as a third-world cesspit to this day. They turned away from science, and their society from that point on to today now lives little better than well-treated livestock.
Now jump several hundred years later, and look at what you see happening in America today. Religious fundamentalism is on the rise, and attacks on science are becoming more and more commonplace. Religion is slowly creeping into classrooms, and American students are increasingly misinformed about basic scientific facts. "Faith based initiatives" are on the rise while the space program gets gutted in every budget. There is now a lot of money and a LOT of passion dedicated to destroying science in America. We've already seen what happens when a society undergoes this sort of transformation. It's time to take a step back and consider just how dangerous this can be, because we don't have to imagine what will happen; we've already SEEN it.
I asked about 100 high school aged kids if they knew what the term big brother meant. Not a single one did. I asked them if they knew that areas of the middle east at a very recent point was considered to be the Garden of Eden and looked nothing like it does now. No clue. I am frightened for my children and their future in this country. The idea of Big Brother is lost on them because their elders (who know the story) have asked for it. Their elders are trying to fix the world by imposing morals and ideas that relate to societies that resemble either the middle east, or the 17th century. Can't wait to live out the rest of my life in a burqa.
Ask any christian - who ultimately said how our world was created? 99% of the time the response will be God.
Remind them that you asked who said how our world was created, not WHO created it. You'll get a puzzled look.
A human being wrote Genesis, not God. And the man who wrote Genesis did not even want people to know his name or be able to identify him. And on this anonymous humans own word of honor, an entire religion is built. Go for it.
First, the Holy Bible is not a book of science. It is filled with common sense or gross cause and effect relationships, i.e, "let their be light and there was light." We know how suns are born in the 21st century and we know how they die. Students need to learn such things.
Second, Moses wrote Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament about 1,440 B.C.E. There was a great deal going on among humankind in at least six civilizations around the world in 1,440 B.C.E., including Egypt. Some of those civilizations were going on even 25,000 B.C.E. and earlier---let alone 1,440 B.C.E.
Third, scriptures are based on "faith" knowledge and science is based on inductive logic and deductive logic. "Faith knowledge" is just that. One accepts on faith that something is true. There is no need for factual evidence. Science requires factual evidence to support a conclusion. Leave the Bible at home or at the church (unless it is being read for literary purposes). It is not a book of science.
Stupid Republicans- stop imposing your backward beliefs into politics!! I am so sick of the bullying by these people. Can you believe that these children, who don't go to a religious and private school, will be exposed to less scientific education than in the majority of states?! I would be insanely mad if I were a Tennessee resident
Patricia, I'm a southerner and I'm insanely mad even though it doesn't surprise me at all. Tennessee has taken a sharp swing to the right, and this kind of knownothingism is back in vogue. If allowed to go forward this will be a major contribution to the dumbing down of America.
What is more puzzling is that they do it with a straight face.
Legislating ignorance. Way to go, red state. That's why the blue states lead in all educational & economic categories.
so first they wanted to remove slavery from text books, and now this?!? who makes the law in TN these days, the KKK??
Nah, just what has become the mainstream of the republican party.
"develop critical thinking skills"
They don't need to learn that in Tennessee, why learn something you can never possibly hope to use.
The dumbing of America, brought to you by the GOP. After us Yanks kicked their collective butts in the Civil War we should have dismantled their plantations and redistributed their land and wealth to the slaves. Hey it could not be any worse than it is now, sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh. Yee haw hee haw the south are dumb again. So keep voting for these rejects from the morally corrupt GOP go on see what kind of society you end up with. ROFLMAO! Is there such a thing as a 10th world country?
I'm always interested by the irony when the Christians try to use empiricism (i.e., "X is only a theory") to disprove science.
I mean, these Bible huggers do realize the heart of their religion and their science fiction-esque holy book is equally "provable" via empiricism...and...infinitely less evidence exists for theory than any of these theories they're trying to debunk.
Literally, if we want to include "Creationism" in a "more critical discussion re: science"...doesn't that require us saying
"Look, kids, nothing is ever certain. That's the nature of human existence. We only know things through our limited perception, our memory and our ability to intuit cause and effect. Here we have evolution, with 100s of years o f evidence. Oh yes, and here's Christianity, with none.
Until America can shake-loose from the anti-science conservatives we will suffer as a country by not competing with the rest of the world.
They truly do not "get it".
They don't get that scientific concepts are DIS-PROVABLE.
DIS-PROVABLE, DIS-PROVABLE, DIS-PROVABLE, DIS-PROVABLE, DIS-PROVABLE...
Evolution and Climate Change are structured so that the scientific community (or anyone) can attempt to DISPROVE them.
Faith is not.
How do you set up an experiment in an attempt to DISPROVE that someone goes to heaven after they die? You cannot.
How do you set up an experiment in an attempt to DISPROVE that God created the universe? You cannot.
That is because faith is not structured to allow such testing; so it does not belong in school.
As long as we have these people holding the USA back, we risk falling so far behind that we will never catch up.
Some of these people have great political power; some have run for President with a serious shot at success.
IT IS SCARY.
'How do you set up an experiment in an attempt to DISPROVE' that someone goes to heaven after they die?'
I think you have just solved our problem...we get all those fundies to prove they go to heaven when they die... :)
Yes, that all important scientific factor you know the one where science is always right like when they old everyone that T-Rex was a scaled creature, when in reality, they just unearthed one that had feathers for goodness sake! Science is always changing and what they say is so, is not always necessarily so.
However, they all agree that 1) T-rex existed, and 2) it was over 6,000 years ago.
floridamom1,
but science unlike religion will make adjustments when they discover they were wrong. If they learn something about electricity and have to change they will. Just like they do with dinosaurs. Religion however will not look at truth or fact AT ALL!
good point Dave,
science adapts as new knowledge shows up;
religion is rigid and stagnant
Floridamom.
Your right, science is continually expanding and modifying its knowledge/theories based upon new observations. That's the point of science....in case you didn't understand Science is a means by which humanity can use the tools at its disposal to learn and expand its understanding about this universe. The answers are not written in some science fiction book penned by male Jews 2000-4000 years ago. They are out there for us to find. Science class teaches your children (i) what's been found so far and (ii) how to find things themselves.
How do you propose a non-scientific faith/holy book (much less a specific one) fits into the science classroom? They're not based on repeatable observation (actually, they're based on disbelieving your observations). They're not testable. They provide no new knowledge (rather, the static writings of premodern humans). They're historical.
I mean, if I believe that a pink sentient cow from a planet call Nebular was transported here from the 3rd universe leftwase and created the world with nothing more than the secretions from his ubder advanced utters...My belief and your belief are equally valid scientifically...neither has any proof so neither is considered proven.
Perhaps Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Wicca, Zoroastrianism, Pantheism, etc. should be the topic of a separate class or incorporated into the humanities curriculum (I'd be surprised if they weren't already).
But, to insert non-science into Science Classes just doesn't make sense. I mean, I assume you subscribe to the Christian religion. Would you propose (in the context of a science class) we say:
It's just ridiculous to even imagine. Look, we tried your method (close eyes, believe in alien creator, pray, then die) for thousands of years...it got us little but wars and masters hiding behind the cloak. We've tried science for 300 years and now we have electricity and literally everything that separates us from remote Amazonian tribes. We've been to the moon. I'm communicating with you via something called the internet. Etc.
If you want your religion taught in my school, fine, teach it along with the numerous other religions in a history or humanities class and in it's appropriate historical context.
If you want it in the science classroom, then it should be taught in the scientific/empirical context...it is a science class after all. The teacher should summarily say "Here's a list of the myriad world religions. They are numerous, untestable, unproven and in many instances, posit theories and occurrences that defy everything we've observed about this world. Notably, they provide no observable or repeatable support for such occurrences. Moving on..."
Yes, with science, new information can indeed change what is so, with religion, nothing can change, any successful attempt usually causes a schism and a split of a religion. (as seen on a church marquee) With enough Faith, the Facts don't matter.
And for the record, it was a T-Rex ancestor (one that pre-dates the T-Rex) that was discovered with evidence of feathers, not an actual Tyrannosaurus Rex.
With religion, the Truth is static and unchanging in-spite of changes in knowledge, with science, the Truth can evolve (pun unintentionally intended) with changes in knowledge.
I have a science experiment using religion - You start with 3 subjects: you have #1 subject wish for something, you have #2 subject pray for something, and you have #3 subject do nothing. Observe the outcomes of each subject and I can guarantee, all three outcomes will be the same. Praying has the same effect as wishing or doing nothing.
I've always wanted to have my kids do this at their schools for science fairs, but i didn't want to wake up with a burning cross on my front yard. These religious folks don't like you making fun of them by using logic or science, as many of you have already stated.
btw, i feel very good about how many on this post responded to some of the people who are actually for this bill. You did such a great job and used so much logic and factual evidence. you give me hope!
Biblical religious truths, just like the Greek Tragedies or any other high literature is about the human condition and not about measuring or seeking factual evidence.
Trying to use religion to measure things and discover facts about the nature of the universe is not only useless but also a damaging corruption of what religious thinking has to offer.
Science does not even attempt to discuss the WHY of things, it discusses the HOW. People who confuse and try to merge these two approaches to human understanding are not just doomed to failure they are also dangerous in their perpetuation of ignorance.