1. Adamant anti-religious atheism is a belief. If one canswear they have no belief in God with no doubt whatsoever, then they have a belief system of atheism. If they say they don't think there is but admit there is a remote possibility they could be wrong (can't prove a negative through absence of evidence in an open system) then their atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief and they don't spend their time vehemently insulting believers.

2. No, evolution is not atheism. Science is not atheism. It just happens that most athiest believe in purely science and evolution as science is the natural not the supernatural.

Oh, and could everyone please read the article before immediately assuming the bill is only promoting creationism and ID.

It would get you fired in TN, until this bill that is... Now real science teachers are free to dispute and debunk creationism (to clarify, 7 days to create and 7000-11000 year old earth).

@abge - Well... not exactly. (at least i hope not) But the law is encouraging people to challange current ideas, and creationism and ID are current ideas. And plus, there are a few dodgy spots that are debated by real scientists, which the law could open up for discussion. (law of conservation of mass, for example)

@Draug

I agree; claiming to know that there is no god is as silly as claiming to know that there is one.

And I do hope you're right and this will allow science teacher to speak the truth without fear; however, I worry that given the state of things, other repercussion will still be a large enough deterrent to keep them silent.

@Shock

Yeah, but do you really need a law to have a discussion about the conservation of mass? Clearly, that isn't what this is about.

Evolution does entail atheism. Evolution overthrows virtually every theist claim about the physical world that hadn't yet been overthrown. Science also entails atheism. Science assumes a materialist ontology. Theism rejects materialism. Theism and science are mutually incompatible, which is why Christians are trying to destroy science education in this country.

^And it's times like those that I'm happy to be in Australia...

"claiming to know that there is no god is as silly as claiming to know that there is one."

Claiming to know that there is no tooth fairy is as silly as claiming to know there is one.

"Claiming to know that there is no tooth fairy is as silly as claiming to know there is one."

Yes, yes it is. I'll agree that it is so unlikely that there is a tooth fairy that I will safely live my life as if there isn't one. But, I would not risk my life on it. Same with a god.

@abge - I suppose not, but I don't see why a physics teacher, for example, would ever support creationism. While I'd imagine this may have a few problems with elementary school teachers who are basically unqualified, but any decent teacher would use the law to defend themselves against a barrage of hate from creationists when they say that it quite frankly, makes no sense.

Making non-falsifiable and ridiculous claims, and then hiding behind their non-falsifiability is really the height of intellectual cowardice. But the problem for theists is, you *do* make falsifiable claims. You *do* make claims about the physical world. Human history has been a steady yet intensifying march of progress, disproving them one by one. There is no prediction or claim made by theists about the physical world that has turned out to be true. Not one. If this were any scientific paradigm or research project, you'd have long ago been discarded.

@Putin - Who triggered the big bang? Who created the laws of physics, the laws by which science operates? Science and religion do not have to conflict when viewed as one being the means to examine and understand how the universe works and the other beind a reason *why* it does.

Putin +++

"Evolution does entail atheism. Evolution overthrows virtually every theist claim about the physical world that hadn't yet been overthrown." - Are you secretly Richard Dawkins? (For the record I actually am not arguing against, or for that statement, I'm just making a joke)

Also in response to the claim that atheism is "claiming to know there is no god", I have to say, strictly speaking that is a belief. The statement "I know there is no god" is a positive statement and thus a belief. It still counts as atheism, but technically to be an atheist it is not necessary to go that far. One can stop short of that and simply say "I do not believe there is a god." which is a negative statement. A lack of belief in god, is sufficient, a belief in the non-existence of god, is not strictly necessary. It's a subtle but important distinction.

Putin, you are exactly the type of person that makes people fear science. When you say things like science and religion are incomparable, or that you are 100% certain there is no god, you isolate people, and prevent them exposing themselves to science with an open mind.

You and militants like you do the entire field a serious disservice by creating this hostile environment when one isn't necessary.

@Putin

Have you actually read what I wrote? I made it very clear that creationism is not even remotely science. I even said that I live my life as if there is no god. But, if someone put a gun to my head and asked me if I was 100% sure that there was no god, I would not say yes. I probably wouldn't say that about anything.

Oh dear, did my psot not post?

Perhaps I should say this a different way:

If you claim there is a god, then *you* must back it up. But, just because there is no proof doesn't mean I'm certain it doesn't exist.

@Shock

The more I think about it, the more I think you're right. Good teachers can use this as a defense. But, I don't think it should be lost on us what the real purpose of this bill is.

I'll repost what i was going to say later, time for bed here...

But one thing I'll say shortly:

Abgemacht, I agree, you should do experiments, we did those often enough...dissections and all (I still remember dissecting a pig, that was pretty interesting, and managed to get the brain out whole and intact.)

The article was not very clear, honestly. Just what does the bill say? It doesn't tell.
I think I'm a little more open here than a lot of scientists. I'm not afraid that kids will draw the wrong conclusions if shown evidence. And don't stop at evolution. Show the evidence for and against gravity, as well. There is some, after all -- dark matter is a prima facie case against any major theory of gravitation. Explain why scientists still believe in it, all the evidence for it, etc. Great for critical thinking. Kids aren't going to be scarred for life by some controversy, they'll encounter it soon enough anyway.
And no, I'm not saying that gravity is to be seriously doubted. Just that it's actually useful to see the sausage being made -- science as evidence, argument, etc.
Of course, if the bill truly "encourages the teaching" of religious creationism in science class, that's a whole other matter.

"You and militants like you do the entire field a serious disservice by creating this hostile environment when one isn't necessary."

The only reason there are "militants" to begin with is because the religious hordes have been attacking science with impunity, spreading lies about scientific theories, slandering the good name of scientists, and attempting to indoctrinate our youth with superstitious stupidity instead of teach what children need to know. The environment was hostile long before the so-called "New Atheists" arrived. Appeasement has failed. You cannot reason with the irrational.

"Who triggered the big bang? Who created the laws of physics, the laws by which science operates?"

Vacuum fluctuations triggered the big bang, and the laws of physics were not "created". The laws are descriptive. The equations that make up the laws of physics simply describe how things work. They do not work because of the laws.

semck +!

"Have you actually read what I wrote?"

I meant *you* as a general address to theists. I did not mean you specifically. I do not take the usual claim that god cannot be disproven seriously. It's sad that that's all theists have to hang their hat on now, is that it's very difficult if not near impossible to be 100% certain of anything.

I see. Sorry, I thought you were referring to me specifically.

I agree, if someone believes in god and (more importantly) plans to get others to believe in god, they should have some proof. So far, I've seen none.

@ Draug - the reasons you don't find mistakes in the fossil record is because evolution isn't about making big mistakes, big mistakes are incredibly rare, and don't survive, and don't proliferate through the gene pool (and fossilization is an incredibly rare phenomenon as well. The odds of these two unlikely events overlapping and a non-functional freak of nature fossilizing is very slim indeed, something like 1 in 100000 multiplied by 1 in a million). Furthermore, evolution is not really about trial and error, it's about gradual improvement. And there are plenty of things in the fossil record that look like birds but can't quite fly, (but do in fact glide, or flap or jump, or something). They don't look like mistakes though, because they were still functional, just in a way that couldn't fly as well as a bird, but it could still make a life, fill a niche in the ecosystem.

"And no, I'm not saying that gravity is to be seriously doubted. Just that it's actually useful to see the sausage being made -- science as evidence, argument, etc."

Children need a basic understanding of science before we go on about 'critical thinking'. Critical thinking is for upper level education. We're leaving these students with the impression that there is actually widespread doubt about these issues. That the law of gravity is just as hypothesis, as good as any other. It's teaching lies.

Putin, teaching that science is a set of facts handed down on authority is just as big a lie. I'm not suggesting that they should be taught that the law of gravity is "just a hypothesis, as good as any other." They should be taught that gravity is a SPECTACULAR hypothesis, one that enables us to predict to incredible prediction what heavenly bodies near us or on the earth will do, as well as galaxies in relation to each other.
They should also know that it seems to have some anomalies, and what the conclusions drawn from those anomalies are. That most scientists (though not all) think the success is sufficiently spectacular that it warrants continuing to believe the theory is universally applicable and there must be dark matter. Why this is a pretty good plan, and what are the possible problems.
Critical thinking is for upper level education? Wow.
Just wow.
People who get upset about this debate often loudly lament that "this" (teaching of "problems with evolution") is what is making Americans stupid and bad at science. I submit to you that any society that is willing to leave teaching critical thinking to the end, teaching only knowledge-by-institutional-authority till then, has a lot more obvious places to look for the roots of its educational problems.