Philadelphia’s Hite Seeking an End to Teacher Seniority
Philadelphia school superintendent William R. Hite Jr. knows all about controversy. Since taking... Read More
‘Teach the Controversy’ Science Bill Becomes Law in TN
Legislation aimed at protecting teachers who want to present “controversial” views of evolution and climate change has also made headway in Oklahoma.
Governor Bill Haslam might not like the “teach the controversy” idea becoming part of Tennessee science curriculum, but not enough to veto it. Last week, after he failed to act on a bill, passed by both chambers of the state’s legislature, that would protect teachers who wished to “cover scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories” on evolution, climate change and human cloning, he allowed it to become law without his signature. Thus, Tennessee becomes the second state after Louisiana with a “teach the controversy” law on the books. In Oklahoma, a similar version of the bill has passed the House but hasn’t yet been acted by the state Senate.
All bills contain identical language, saying they “shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine.” There’s also identical language about how they’re intended to “help students develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens.” However, the subjects they target are not areas where there are significant scientific controversies; either the bills’ sponsors are poorly informed (and thus shouldn’t be injecting themselves into science education), or they have non-educational goals in mind.
Critics of the legislation contend that this is simply another attempt to insert religion into the public school science classroom, after previous attempts to teach creationism, and later intelligent design, were shot down by federal courts as a violation of the separation of church and state.
After the US Supreme Court’s 1987 decision forbidding the teaching of creationism in science classes, those who objected to the teaching of evolution modified their ideas slightly. They relabeled these ideas “Intelligent Design.” In the wake of that tactic’s defeat in the courts, the opponents of science education retooled again.
Although both bills focus mainly on protecting the teachers, the Oklahoma bill also adds a clause that shields students who voice disagreements with conventional scientific views.
In his “non-signing” statement, Governor Haslam said that he didn’t believe that the bill would have an impact on the scientific standards that govern Tennessee classrooms, nor will greatly alter the curriculum used by science teachers. His reservations with the law was what he called “lack of clarity.”
However, I also don’t believe that it accomplishes anything that isn’t already acceptable in our schools. The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion. My concern is that this bill has not met this objective. For that reason, I will not sign the bill but will allow it to become law without my signature.”
Discover Magazine called Haslam’s justifications “a crock,” saying that this is just an end-run around the judiciary’s prohibition on teaching creationism in schools. The Neurologica blog attributed Haslam’s actions less to his sincere belief that the law will not really result in any significant changes, and more to his desire to avoid an embarrassment of having the the bill become law anyway when the legislature overrode his veto. It seems all but inevitable, that whatever happens now, ultimately the fate of this law and similar ones around the country will be decided in court.
Tuesday
April 17th, 2012
Recent News
Adobe’s Move to the Cloud Impacts School Software Plans
Following along with Microsoft’s changes to its popular productivity suite Office, Adobe... Read More
Media Shift Means Academic Publishers Embracing Open Source Journals
Sometimes the pace of change can take everyone by surprise. For decades, people in the sciences... Read More
Popular News
Number of Homeschoolers Growing Nationwide 50
Researchers are expecting a surge in the number of students educated at home by their parents over... Read More
James Shuls: Why We Need School Choice 26
The Pedagogical Agenda of Common Core Math Standards 23
Career Index
Plan your career as an educator using our free online datacase of useful information.
- Select a City Subject
- BSN Schools in Arlington
- BSN Schools in Athens
- BSN Schools in Belton
- BSN Schools in Big Spring
- BSN Schools in Denison
- BSN Schools in Galveston
- BSN Schools in Levelland
- BSN Schools in Lufkin
- BSN Schools in Midland
- BSN Schools in Texas City
- BSN Schools in Tyler
- BSN Schools in Uvalde
- BSN Schools in Waco
Comments
This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.
Censorship topped with ridicule is the way to ensure the future for the theory of purely accidental origins of man. From this humble underpinning springs the entire agenda for hopeful change to a more planned and controlled society, a world of Islam, in the sense of its meaning submission to authority of the Wise Men. This article sends a message to insurgents who would imagine themselves above the fray and secure in expressing anti-Darwin thoughts and handing out assignments on design principles to those formerly isolated from information science topics relabeled as “religious instruction”. These actualists, hesitant in presenting the necessary doctrine of apparent design, the tenet of mirage in all that could lead students to belief they are made objects, must be identified, denounced and banned under the applied separation doctrine in all functions controlled by the central government. Only as their every word is censored can Darwinism reign in safety. Keep the faith.
[...] 'Teach the Controversy' Science Bill Becomes Law in TNeducationnews… state's legislature, that would protect teachers who wished to “cover scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories” on evolution, climate change and human cloning, he allowed it to become law without his signature. [...]
Wow. “D Bunker” isn’t debunking anything and is clearly a religios zealot with insufficient education or intelligence to write an understandable message. I suppose that is not suprising for a creationist – which is the only thing obvious about his comment. And, um, it was darwinism that was censored for ages – as this article points out by displaying the plaque about the ‘monkey’ trial. Religion has always been the greatest cause/source of censorship in the world. In fact, suggesting that scientific information requires censorship of conflicting views to survive is simply laughable. Then again, the whole post is laughable. The law is embarrasing and we can only hope the courts will see through this latest end-run effort as easily as they did when so-called ‘intelligent design’ theory was proposed.
The minute a teacher brings up this “controversy” business up in a science classroom, the ACLU will be off to the races I bet. And godspeed.
If it’s laughable, then what’s the problem with the bill allowing for conflicting views? Evolution isn’t bulletproof. Name calling isn’t productive, and only makes for zealots on both sides. Let the discussion from both perspectives continue in classrooms and the truth is bound to prevail. There is way too much information available now via the internet for inquisitive students to be brainwashed by teachers. The attacks on religion are tired and show a lack of respect for dissenting views.
The problem is that creation simpy is not science by definition. Science teachers aren’t trained nor should they be to be a teacher of religion. You don’t have to believe science anymore than you have to believe christianity. Teaching a scientifically different view point should occur, but scince when is creationism open to peer review or when does it create repeatable experiments? And since its not and does not, its not science
The problem is that the dissenting view is religion, not science. That’s why they had to legislate instead of writing proper peer reviewed documents to become a scientific theory.
I don’t understand what it is that they want teachers to teach exactly. What the ID proponents are actually saying is “Look around. Everything’s so because god said so. The end. Everyone off to lunch!” As an entirely-too-lazy high school student I would have loved this kind of science compared to the chemistry, physics and bio I had to actually learn, but alas I doubt if it would have added much to my knowledge.
[...] For more information, click here. [...]
Because you’re creating a controversy when there isn’t any. There’s no competing theory of man’s development that is as thorough, as backed up my experiment, as robust or independently verified as evolution. It isn’t intellectually honest anymore than saying “Well, there’s some controversy over the nature of the sun. Some people think it is a star while others believe it’s a very yellow and very big round of cheddar. ” Not to mention if my public-school going child got a lecture on religion in his science class, I’d hit the roof. If you want your kid to think that an old man in the sky made humans, you can teach it to them at home. You don’t get to tell lies to my kid too and call it “a dissenting view.”
I’m not in favor of shoving any religion at a kid, but comparing the theory of evolution to the sun is a stretch, at best. Should religion be preached at a public school? No. Should the unproven holes in evolution be presented to students, allowing them to form their own conclusions. Yes. Evolution may (not at everyone agrees) have the most amount of robust verification, but that doesn’t make it bulletproof. It’s not. This law could prove to be excessive, but it’s a direct rebuttal to the excessive push to make the theory of evolution equivalent to the belief that he sun is a star. That’s the “dissenting view’s” problem with the whole thing.
[...] ‘Teach the Controversy’ Science Bill Becomes Law in TN [...]
[...] Discover Magazine called Haslam’s justifications “a soil,” saying that this is just an end-run around the judiciary’s disallowance on teaching creationism in schools. The Neurologica blog attributed Haslam’s actions not so much to his sincere belief that the rule will not really result in somewhat significant changes, and more to his lust to avoid an embarrassment of having the the account become law anyway when the legislative body overrode his veto. It seems every one of but inevitable, that whatever happens at once, ultimately the fate of this ordinance and similar ones around the nation will be decided in court.Source [...]