On Tuesday, April 10, Tennessee HB368/SB893 became law without the signature of Republican Governor Bill Haslam. The bill passed easily, 72-23 in the Tennessee State House and 25-8 in the Senate.
The bill purportedly protects teachers who might somehow face disciplinary action for teaching (for example) intelligent design or denial of anthropogenic climate change. The fact that no teacher has ever been disciplined for teaching these concepts troubles the sponsors of the legislation not a whit. Just as some elements fight a voter fraud problem that doesn't exist, this bill creates the impression of a "problem" where none exists.
According to the bill,
The general assembly finds that:(1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens;
(2) 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
(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.
In point of fact, only about 28 percent of high school biology teachers surveyed by the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers teach evidence for evolution at all. Another 13 percent teach creationism or intelligent design in a favorable way.
Some intelligent design proponents claim that teachers have been disciplined for teaching intelligent design, but a quick read of cases here, here and here makes it clear that it wasn't the teaching of intelligent design, but some other crazy behavior or simple misunderstandings, that were the root problems in each case.
Not surprisingly, 60 percent of high school teachers totally avoid this keystone subject entirely, which is exactly what bills like this intend. While wrapping themselves in the flag and waving a cross, these legislators purport to protect the rights of teachers while in reality quashing discussion of scientific topics. Not surprisingly, the bill was not authored by Tennessee legislators or their assistants. Rather, the bill was crafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that crafts "model" legislation that uniformly advances an anti-science, conservative, know-nothing agenda.
There is still some scientific disagreement about man-caused (i.e. anthropogenic) climate change, this much is true. But there is no debate or controversy whatsoever on evolution; it's generally accepted science in broad terms -- though there is still plenty of debate about the details -- and no reputable scientific evidence exists for so-called "intelligent design."
Science may never truly be "settled", but case law can be. In 2005, Bush appointee John E. Jones III not only gave this backdoor attempt to interject faith into science classes a cold stare decisis, but gave it the hairy eyeball.
The Dover Area School District Board passed a measure that required teachers to read this statement, creepily similar to ALEC's wording as represented in the Tennessee bill:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.
You see? All they want is for students to exhibit "critical thinking" or to "keep an open mind." Who could be against that? In his decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Jones reviewed the legal landscape of such measures arising from the 1968 Epperson decision in which the Supreme Court unanimously overturned Arkansas' anti-evolution teaching law.
Post-Epperson, evolution's religious opponents implemented "balanced treatment" statutes requiring public school teachers who taught evolution to devote equal time to teaching the biblical view of creation; however, such statutes did not pass constitutional muster under the Establishment Clause. See, e.g., Daniel, 515 F.2d at 487, 489, 491. In Daniel, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that by assigning a "preferential position for the Biblical version of creation" over "any account of the development of man based on scientific research and reasoning," the challenged statute officially promoted religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause.
The Daniel decision arose from a 1973 attempt by the Tennessee Legislature to enforce the denegration of evolutionary theory. The writing of the Sixth Circuit in Daniel is crystal clear.
Throughout human history the God of some men has frequently been regarded as the Devil incarnate by men of other religious persuasions. It would be utterly impossible for the Tennessee Textbook Commission to determine which religious theories were "occult" or "satanical" without seeking to resolve the theological arguments which have embroiled and frustrated theologians through the ages.
The requirement that some religious concepts of creation, adhered to presumably by some Tennessee citizens, be excluded on such grounds in favor of the Bible of the Jews and the Christians represents still another method of preferential treatment of particular faiths by state law and, of course, is forbidden by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.We deem the two constitutional violations described above to be patent and obvious on the face of the statute and impossible for any state interpretation to cure.
Jones' legal decision in Kitzmiller -- binding only on parts of Pennsylvania, and never appealed, so it never applied to at the District Court or national level -- was crystal clear.
[O]ur conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID [intelligent design] as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
It's not at all certain which part of these statements was unclear to ALEC or the Tennessee Legislature. Jones slapped down the action of the Dover Area School Board with this scathing assessment:
The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
Why should we believe that the action of the Tennessee legislature will be judged any less harshly by history? In the next election after the Kitzmiller decision, the Dover Area School Board was ejected en masse by the voters. We can only hope the same will be true of the Tennessee State Legislature. Unfortunately, science denialism has strong roots. It will likely not be that easy to kill.
Crossposted from Logarchism.com
Robert Koehler: Growing Up, Falling in Love
Katharine Quarmby: Redenhall Church And A Quiet Revolution
Cara Santa Maria: 'Monkey Bill' Becomes Law, Imperils Science In Tennessee
Tenn. evolution law set to do more harm than good - The ...
Monkeys Question Tennessee Anti-Evolution Law (PHOTOS)
Tennesse Anti-evolution Statute - UMKC School of Law
Tenn. governor allows evolution debate bill to become law ...
Tennessee enacts evolution, climate change law - Los Angeles Times
You don't expect teachers to inform your kids that 2 + 2 = 29, that trees sometimes fall upward and hit clouds, or that rivers often flow uphill.
Why not?
Really. Think about it.
Berthajane Vandegrift
A few Autistic Questions about Freud, Marx and Darwin
"biological adaptation consists of “natural selection” (generally premature death) doing something (Heaven knows what?) to a collection of lucky, genetic accidents."
~~~This is actually a rather dated view of evolution. It's actually a couple of decades out of date of the current understanding in the field of biology. Textbooks are generally 5-10 years out of date from the most current knowledge. Regardless, you can find more up to date information in university level biology books.
Also, you reasoning is a little backwards. Changes to the genomes of organisms, either through random mutations, chromosomal re-arrangement, horizontal gene transfer, or even epigenetics (which changes gene expression without altering the DNA sequence itself) produce changes in organisms. When these changes provide the organism with a fitness advantage (i.e. produces more offspring), such changes become solidified in the species.
"I am suspicious of any “science” that appeals to the courts to protect them from criticism."
~~~You should be suspicious of any "science" that must force its way into the classroom through legislation rather then be subjected to scrutiny through the scientific method. Court challenges against creationism/ID are in response to this attempt to short cut the scientific oversight that all science normally undergoes.
There is simply no evidence of active "intelligence" playing a role in evolution. It may appear that way but that is simply a mistake of anthropomorphizing the process of evolution.
Many of the promotors of the creationist movement realize they have no scientific basis for their claim, but they continue to make false statements, anyways.
This is a political movement to get religion back into public schools, in order to create a more theocratic culture and government.
http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/diagenda.html
Secular Humanism has had its time and can continue to be taught, but the facts expose it as another false religion that just confuses the masses including our students.
It's hard to take someone seriously when they make a completely false statement right off the bat.
~~~Another epic creationist fail. Of course you see no evidence when you refuse to open your eyes. Just like you fail to see why the Bible is utterly useless as a scientific resource until you open your mind.
Do a Google Scholar search for "transitional species". Or if those articles are too technical, do a simple Google web search. Either will bring to face-to-face with a extensive research information on evolution and transitional fossils.
"Secular Humanism has had its time and can continue to be taught, but the facts expose it as another false religion"
~~~What facts???? Show me these facts! They would certainly be worthy of a Noble Prize if they prove evolution wrong.
"there is intelligence that designed our world and ourselves"
~~~No, not really. The world merely appears designed because we happen to live in it. It would be like a fish wondering why the earth is made mostly of water and seemingly designed for aquatic life.
Although there are no well known scientists in the long history of global warming that compare with Darwin, there is still over 100 years of theory and data that support today's concept of global warming. Ironically, unlike evolution, global warming was accepted with almost not contravention for the entire span of history, until very recently. In fact, global warming was promoted as a positive thing for decades!
It wasn't until the religious ideologues decided global warming didn't jive with their biblical reality, that it suddenly became a controversy.
Wait. What? How did you know that?
So the teachers in Tennessee should acknowledge the existence of Klingon Cosmology for these reasons:
1) Since we see Klingons all the time on television and in the movies, then they must be real.
2) An official, North American-based Klingon Language Institute exists.
3) People conduct religious ceremonies, including weddings, speaking Klingon.
4) The Bible and Shakespeare's plays have been translated into Klingon.
5) An Australian cave offers vistors an opportunity to have an audio tour guide in Klingon.
I went to school in the "Bible Belt" back in the 70's and 80's. Yeah, there were a lot of religious students and teachers, but the subject of evolution was hardly the theatrical affair politicians want you to believe it was. Frankly, evolution was a small part of fairly broad biology courses. Darwin was only a small part, because their was so much to cover (e.g. Mendel, et. al.). I know you guys up their in the Northeast think us poor, stupid southerners just sit around eating grits all day and talking about the Bible. That's a stereotype, and nothing more.
I remember evolution being discussed in length in a biology class in which the teacher refrained from offering her personal views even when pressed by many students. It was also taught in history (the Scopes trial, etc.), by a teacher who was probably a creationist, but she taught it reasonably.
Evolution is going to be taught regardless of what smoke and mirrors a bunch of politicans use to work people up. But the whole thing is a distraction, and nothing more.
Heck, most of us down here don't even wear shoes. How can we even begin to grasp that we all came from monkeys?
Not exactly. There is a growing debate was over how much of the recent warming trend is due to natural influences and how much is due to human influences.
When I observe my fellow Americans, I am forced to conclude that up to half of them do not generally accept the science you claim to be generally accepted.
What I observe is breathtaking inanity.
ALEC generated legislation is a perfectly predictable outcome of that broad, breathtaking inanity. ALEC, therefore, is what the scientific method compels us to expect.
When the parents finally woke the hell up and realized their little muffins weren't gonna get into Stanford with a brain-full of half baked religious "theories," they rose en mass and fired those people.
Semper vigilans!
It uses the words that at teacher can or may, not that a teacher must do something. That makes it much harder to prove that harm is being done.
It also includes other things in the debate , human cloning and global warning, because if it singled out evolution, it could be tossed out as a way to teach creationism which has been found to be religious and not scientific.
If you have a problem with evolution, then the chances are (we're talking 99.9999% chance) that the problem lies with your science education. Go get a PhD in biology from an accredited university then come and talk to me.