Tennessee does it again...

My stance here is cold and firm--no.

Creationism has NO PLACE in the classroom to be taught...with one caveat, I'll say, to be fair--if it's a PHILOSOPHY class, such as Philosophy of Religion or World Cultures, then yes, goi ahead and allow the teaching of creation myths, they're fair game in that sort of arena, provided it isn't "Accept this as THE answer or fail the class."

But creationism/Intelligent Design has NO place amongst real science in the science classroom...

I really wish science was taught closer to the way it is actually done in the real world. Of course, there needs to be some level of classical learning, because you can't expect every student to independently reproduce every scientific breakthrough. However, I don't see why Science is often taught the same way as History (which, by the way, I also think is taught poorly).

So, on one hand, I'd like to see a bill like this because it may help students think more critically about science and not see it is as just another course where they need to memorize stuff. However, I feel that is a very naive take on the situation. It seems very clear that the purpose of this is not to encourage independent thinking, but to allow for the defilement of science in favor of religious dogma.

@abgemacht:

2 questions:

1. I'm intrigued--in a good way, so not attacking you--what is your idea for teaching science the way it is in the "real world," what does that entail doing differently, and why?

2. How does CREATIONISM help for critical thinking about SCIENCE, though? Again, for philosophy or culture studies I can see that being the case...but there's no science to creationsim...

I am very motivated to argue that Pastafarian creationism should be taught in school as well.

Ugh *headdesk* FUCK KENTUCKY. No offense or anything but seriously. Seriously.

Mafi...this is Tennessee we're talking about, not Kentucky. ;)

Errr yes. Sorry. My sincere apologies to Kentucky.
FUCK TENNESSEE!

@obi

I'm afraid I was unclear. Let me try to clarify:

1) If you aren't doing experiments, you aren't doing science. Having students memorize F=ma and then having them solve a Free Body Diagram is a skill that will almost never be needed in a lab. There are reference books and the Internet so you don't have to memorize equations and we now have simulators that will model and solve for basic systems.

Now, a student *must understand* F=ma and how to use it and they should understand a FBD, but memorizing and solving outrageous, purely plug-and-chug problems? That's not science.

Instead of being told F=ma, students should be given a small car, a scale, a measuring tape, and a timer and be told to *figure out what the equation is.* It's really not hard to do, especially if you have a competent teacher that can guide them in the right direction. Trust me, if they set up an experiment, run trials, and figure out the formula, they'll not only remember it without purposefully memorizing it, they'll *understand* it.

2) Creationism doesn't help at all. It's a stupid idea and completely botches up the scientific method. It is nothing more than an exercise in distorting the truth. However, I did like this quote:
"teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."

Yes, we should be doing that because students should not accept what they hear in a class room as absolute truth; however, in this context it is clearly a ruse to sneak ID into the class room. But, this could be accomplished very well in the manner I described in (1).

Ugh. Fuck Mafia. No offense but that was Tennessee, not Kentucky.

That said, if any one bothered to read the bill, it actually encourages open discourse about the strengths and weaknesses of all theories, which could actually be good as the science teachers association and the teachers themselves are pro-evolution. Also note that it does not require any theory specifically to be taught. It really is a do nothing bill, but the idiots in TN's house don't realize they just opened the door to and encouraged promoting evolution above what the fundamentalists teach as the teachers are now free to refute the idiocy of creationism.

@Draug

But talking about creationism in a science class is like talking about yoga in an english class. The merits (if any) are irrelevant because it isn't related to the course.

Mafia, I had already typed that response on my phone. My apologies to you now that you corrected your error. Understand that themountain folk of KY are more enlightened than our southern neighbors. Heck, KY was known for its universities before the civil war. So we aren't some religious nut jobs like TN. We believe in a right and proper education. It's just that we are a poor state and so the hill and mountain folk don't have the graduation rates of states which are more affluent as they drop out to go help the family pay their bills.

@ Draugnar - Yeah I know, obi also called me out on that. I retract my slur against Kentucky and instead direct it at Tennessee.
That says, you may be correct that the teachers association are pro-evolution, and I'd bet teachers are by and large pro evolution. But surely there must be at least one or two who believe in creationism. And those ones can still, under the guise of this bill spread disinformation to their students, can they not?

Err that should say "that said"

@abge - Read the bill. They aren't obligating the teachers to teach it at all. But if a kid comes in and talks about mommy and daddy and preacher say evolution is "evilution" then the teacher is free to examine (and show to be crap) the so called merits of the other system.

As far as ID goes, it's just the idea that God guides evolution. If you don't believe in God, then you don't have that view. If you do believe, than it isn't refuting evolution as God gave the birds wings to escape large predators as opposed to nature doing it through trial and error. I must say I've never seen one of the errors in the fossil record, so there is no conflict to me.

@Mafia - I really doubt there are many teachers of science who are creationists. The two are sort of mutually exclusive. But even so, they would teach it without the bill, so this just frees up the hands of the good teachers to correct the crap the bad ones teach.

And yes, "God gave the birds wings" is rather simplistic but I'm on my phone...

Yes, but neither Creationism nor ID are sciences. Neither present a hypothesis for empirical testing.

For once I actually agree with everything Draugnar said... This bill may have been produced with the intention of promoting creationism, but it's going to backfire like hell on them, which is good.

@Draug

If a student asks about Creationism, I think it's reasonable to explain to them why it isn't science and why evolution is not only a good theory, but actually a theory, unlike Creationism.

However, a teacher who talks about creationism as if it is a theory, or even remotely scientific, should lose their teaching credentials.

@largeham - and this bill allows for science teachers to say that. (perhaps unintentionally, but who cares?)

Completely agree with abgemacht. Science (as well as History) are poorly taught. Students need to see how science works and why it works, and not just think that people can have their own "beliefs" on scientific facts.

And an answer to the thread's question: No.

@abge - If a teacher is talking as though creationism is a scientific theory, I'd be wondering how they got their qualifications to teach science in the first place.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by the term ''creationism''. In my opinion it has become a good all round stick with which to beat theists over the head. One can, in my view, justifiably believe in a creator without holding to the proposition that the Earth is 7,000 years old.

I also think that Atheism, particularly where it becomes anti-Theism, should be taught in Religious Studies lessons in the context of another belief system. I realise, however, that this is unlikely to gain much support from either side in the debate.

This bill is aimed at primary and secondary educators, so they should approach it as if the parent's view were a theory (creationism and ID are theories, just supernatural ones) and then show why they aren't scientifically sound and therefore aren't scientific theories. As I said before, ID is not counter to evolution, it is just a philisophical/religious motivator as to *why* (something science isn't intended to answer) evolution works the way it does and it also neatly wraps up the lack of fossil evidence for the mistakes along the way.

I think you give them too much credit, Draugnar...

They may SAY they're going to just use this if the kids have a question...but then, how hard is THAT? All the parents have to do is say they want their kid hearing the creationist side and there it is, creationism...examined as science.

(What bothers me almost more, however, is jsut the fact THIS is allowed in schools, this sort of blurring of the lines between chrcuh and state a bit, but on the other hand, they have a bill forbidding talking about homosexuality.)

Ah, I see, but I believe it should be placed in any religious studies classes.
"I also think that Atheism, particularly where it becomes anti-Theism, should be taught in Religious Studies lessons in the context of another belief system. I realise, however, that this is unlikely to gain much support from either side in the debate. "

1. Atheism is a lack of belief
2. This is an argument over the teaching of science, not atheism, and I can't wait until someone plays the evolution=atheism card.

@obi - see, the thing is, the bill also allows the teachers to critisize creationist theories and ID. So they could legally answer when asked what creationism is with: "unfounded religious belief that you shouldn't waste your time with." then continue to explain why.

Next up: Alternatives to Sex Education - > The theory that storks deliver babies.

Though I suppose we are yet to see the government reaction to that above statement. (even though the law has made it legal)