Bill Nbr: HB0368
Sponsor: Dunn
Status:
Next sched. action: Wed, 2011/04/20

Description:

"This bill prohibits the state board of education and any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or principal or administrator from prohibiting any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping 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, such as evolution and global warning [sic].

This bill also requires such persons and entities to endeavor to:

(1) Create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues; and

(2) Assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies."

More info...

R. Neal's picture

Joe Powell with more on the

Joe Powell with more on the origins of this bill and its implications...

The House education committee is scheduled to vote on it today.

smalc's picture

Hmm, Dunn seems to want to

Hmm, Dunn seems to want to give teachers a lot of power, then not let them have access to collective bargaining.

The addition of cloning to the list with evolution and global warming is a new one to me.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

Why, oh why, doesn’t someone just explain to these people that, in the vernacular of science, a “theory” is not just an opinion or a fleeting thought?

The Dunns, whom I understand home school their children, should certainly know that in the context of science “creationism” and “intelligent design” are merely hypotheses and that it is the body of scientific evidence collected to support those hypotheses that would constitute “theories.”

There are no bodies of scientific evidence to support those particular “hypotheses,” though, hence there are no “theories” to support them.

So far as I know, the terms “hypothesis” and “theory” are still introduced and explained in grade school science curricula...

rikki's picture

Tamara, you are giving

Tamara, you are giving "intelligent design" too much credit calling it a hypothesis. It actually has no scientific basis whatsoever since it can not define its terms. It is appropriate for a philosophy class.

Reading the language in that bill as someone who understands words and has a grip on scientific evidence, it seems like it forbids intelligent design from being discussed in a science class at all, and a teacher who wished to discuss the uncertainty of climate predictions would need to emphasize that the climate denier's hypotheses are at best unsupported by evidence and at worst deliberate efforts to mislead the public. Climate denial does offer a good case study in the misuse of science and why it's important to be able to think critically so you don't get fooled by charlatans.

Stick's picture

If it can not define its

If it can not define its terms then its not philosophy.

Stick's picture

I feel Wittgenstein's gaze

I feel Wittgenstein's gaze from the grave.

That's hilarious! I've read some Wittgenstein, but I won't pretend to have any expertise in that department. My areas of interest trend toward American Pragmatism and Critical Theory in which defining terms [or should I say the meaning of terms in their materiality] based on the best evidence available is one of the primary tasks of philosophic inquiry.

My point, crudely put, was that philosophy has come to be equated with personal opinions and beliefs instead of an intellectual pursuit that attempts to untangle the ways in which we can establish the validity of truth claims or the terms we use to understand the world and communicate with others, for example.

I should remember to finish my daily intake of coffee before posting!

rikki's picture

Defining terms for the

Defining terms for the purpose of philosophy is different than defining them for science. Obviously there is a huge body of philosophy related to intelligence, but there is no agreed-upon way to measure it in non-human animals.

The notion that you can objectively distinguish between an intentionally designed object and undirected design is interesting philosophically, but useless scientifically.

Creationism in any of its forms offers nothing to measure or detect, explains nothing and predicts nothing. It therefore fails miserably at being a theory and is really not science at all. That being the case, and this bill saying it protects only scientific information, it could be interpreted as banning intelligent design from science classes.

Somebody's picture

Creationism in any of its

Creationism in any of its forms offers nothing to measure or detect, explains nothing and predicts nothing. It therefore fails miserably at being a theory and is really not science at all.

Creationism explains plenty. Well, everything, actually. It is just normally done in terms of faith and scripture, not science. Intelligent Design fails because it attempts to assert creationism using the vernacular of science, but not through actual science. ID simply attempts to arbitrarily end scientific inquiry into how something happens by suggesting an intuitive recognition of patterns and, rather than seeking further understaning of the pattern, simply attributing the existence of the pattern as de facto proof of an intelligent designer of said pattern.

For instance, examination of a snowflake in actual science would cause the practitioner to seek further understanding of the repetitive six-sided construction, which leads to discovery of principles of chemistry and atomic structures. That, in turn, leads to inquiries into how those things work, and so on. ID looks at a snowflake, perhaps tacitly acknowledges some aspects of chemistry, like perhaps boiling and freezing points of water, but then simply jumps to the assertion that anything as intricately amazing in design as a snowflake - they're all six-sided, but yet each seems to also be an individual! - simply is the product of an intelligent designer, who thought that structural conformity juxtaposed with individuality would not only be pretty, but poetic.

The end result is that ID is an affront both to science and to faith. It truncates the natural process of scientific inquiry, and it attempts to define faith through disingenuous means.

rikki's picture

So if you take this

So if you take this understanding of scientific inquiry and note that the bill says it "only protects the presentation of scientific information," do you reach the same conclusion that I do? I think this bill, properly interpreted, precludes the teaching of any brand of creationist pseudoscience.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

I caught your point the very first mention, Rikki, and it seems (surprisingly) valid to me. How funny!

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

...in which case, I believe Blount County would need to buy new high school biology books, wouldn't they?!

Somebody's picture

Creationism is a matter of

Creationism is a matter of scripture and faith, not science. ID is an attempt to dress up creationism using science lingo, but is not really science. Ergo, ID is not protected under the bill.

There's nothing in the bill, however, that precludes teaching ID or even creationism without the disingenuous window-dressing. (You have to refer back to things like the Bill of Rights for that.) What it actually says in the bill is that teachers should be able to teach and help students understand various "controversial" scientific disciplines, and offers protection of "the presentation of scientific information."

Of course, the heydey in the courts will be the gnashing of teeth over about what actually counts as "scientific information." While some proponents of things like ID and climate-change denials are well aware that they're really just using scientific language to dress up their political agendas, many less cynical people out there who are not great at science and are not at the top of their game in critical thinking, will in good faith (for lack of a better term) try teaching that stuff, believing it to be scientific information. In either case, someone else will then have to challenge them in court, with a big part of the argument being over what counts as science.

It's a win-win for proponents of things like ID, particularly the nasty, cynical ones, because either this bill will actually be seen as protection for the teaching of that stuff, and it will get taught, or the aforementioned arguments over what counts as science will be made in the courts, and much political hay will be made as the ID crowd plays the part of the besieged victim of the left.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

Let them make their "political hay," then. If a case of this sort was to make it to the courtroom--and surely it would soon enough--the ends would justify the means for the victor--and surely that would be "us."

I think any "win" "they" might realize would be over the moment the judge let down the gavel and the cameras stopped rolling.

Rikki makes a valid (and infinitely amusing) point.

Andy Axel's picture

It is appropriate for a

It is appropriate for a philosophy class.

f/u "charlatanism"

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

Tamara, you are giving "intelligent design" too much credit calling it a hypothesis.

I know. I just try to be "nice."

R. Neal's picture

Rolled to 3/29.

Rolled to 3/29.

R. Neal's picture

Passed by the House Education

Passed by the House Education Committee yesterday and recommended for passage by the House.

It's up in the Senate Education Committee today.

Unbelievable.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

But do-able, if we dumb down our teachers enough.

I know what: Let's avoid hiring any more with masters degrees, bring in as many as possible with no training or professional experience teaching, and do everything we can to ensure that no good students will ever enter the profession at all.

That should help.

reform4's picture

Lawsuit time

The Supreme Court has already ruled the teaching of ID as unconstitutional.

If this is passed and implemented, TN gets to fork out $$$ to lose a lawsuit.

Meanwhile still no bills to grow jobs.

R. Neal's picture

Senate punts

Senate Education Committee rolled the bill to 4/20/2011.

Guess they needed to get their public education dismantling package crammed through first.

R. Neal's picture

Great article in Metro Pulse

Great article in Metro Pulse re. Rep. Dunn's bill to require teaching of "Scientific Objective Facts" in Tennessee's classrooms.

‘Critical Thinking’ or Creationism in Tennessee Classrooms?

Glad some local media finally noticed.

j.f.m.'s picture

Thanks. I think Cari did a

Thanks. I think Cari did a really good job on that. But for the record, we "noticed" a long time ago (and mentioned it in at least a few earlier stories). We just didn't write about it in detail til it got out of committee, because there are so many weird, dumb, and/or alarming bills floating around the Legislature right now that there's no point devoting a lot of time to them unless and until they start to look like they might become laws. (As for other local media, Gene Patterson grilled Dunn about it pretty well on Tennessee This Week a few weeks ago. Don't know what other broadcast media have done.)

Of course, with the current Legislature, the percentage of weird, dumb, and/or alarming bills with a good chance of passing has gone way up.

R. Neal's picture

House floor debate

House floor debate underway...

(link...)

R. Neal's picture

It's the Monkey Trial all

It's the Monkey Trial all over again!

(some rep): Evolution has never been proven, shouldn't be taught.

Rep. Floyd, R Chattanooga: We have common sense. We aren't scientists. This is a common sense bill. Thanks Dunn for protecting teachers from intellectual bullies.

Dunn: Doesn't change curriculum. No new chapters or theories. Gives academic freedom if teachers stay "between guardrails" of "objective scientific facts." Some people want teachers to only teach certain objective scientific facts, bill allows teachers to teach other objective scientific facts.

Rep. Butt R Columbia: Remember being taught stuff in high school that turned out to not be true. Gave up aqua net hair spray because it caused global warming. Not true. Taught not to eat chocolate. Chocolate is good for your. This bill protects teachers when kids question a theory, teacher can't make them feel dumb or ignorant or stupid. Etc. etc.

Rep. Fitzhugh D Ripley: Not a scientist, grounded in my faith, mentions Inherit the Wind. Wonders why we are doing this.

Rep. Shipley R Kingsport: As a teacher, found it offensive that he wasn't allowed to teach other well-founded theories but did it anyway. Felt threatened. Couldn't pray with football players, but did it anyway. Important to just do it. This protects teachers. I can teach this and be safe from prosecution. Make it possible for student to ask difficult questions. Teacher if free to answer within bounds of normal scientific study.

Rep. Jones D Nashville: New books? Dunn: No. Jones: So this is just classroom chit chat or discussion, won't cost anything? Dunn: No. Jones: Critical thinking, teachers say we don't allow enough time because of teaching to NCLB test. All for time for critical thinking. But it is too time consuming. Don't have time to teach critical thinking.

Dunn: Won't bring in Buddhism or anything.

Andy Axel's picture

Evolution has never been

Evolution has never been proven, shouldn't be taught.

Presumably this Congresscritter was standing upright and using opposable thumbs. Oh, wait...

Thanks Dunn for protecting teachers from intellectual bullies.

Now if only someone could do something about the anti-intellectual legislators.

Some people want teachers to only teach certain objective scientific facts, bill allows teachers to teach other objective scientific facts.

Some doctors would treat headaches with analgesics, but this would allow doctors to treat headaches with trepanning.

Rep. Butt

Gold.

Make it possible for student to ask difficult questions.

Actually, it shuts down inquiry by elevating charlatanism as on par with the scientific method.

It also makes that biology final so much easier.

Q: Describe the mechanics of the celluar meiosis function necessary to the reproductive cycle.

A: God did it.

All for time for critical thinking. But it is too time consuming. Don't have time to teach critical thinking.

"And that is why you fail."

Won't bring in Buddhism or anything.

Oh, no. Heaven forfend that alternative theories of Creation get introduced to our children...

bizgrrl's picture

Q: Describe the mechanics of

Q: Describe the mechanics of the celluar meiosis function necessary to the reproductive cycle.

A: God did it.

Good one.

R. Neal's picture

Bill passes, 70 to

Bill passes, 70 to 23.

Unfuckingbelievable.

Andy Axel's picture

Unfuckingbelievable. Plus ça

Unfuckingbelievable.

Plus ça change, etc.

"The most ignorant man, when he is ill, may enjoy whatever boons and usufructs modern medicine may offer -- that is, provided he is too poor to choose his own doctor. He is free, if he wants to, to take a bath. The literature of the world is at his disposal in public libraries. He may look at works of art. He may hear good music. He has at hand a thousand devices for making life less wearisome and more tolerable: the telephone, railroads, bichloride tablets, newspapers, sewers, correspondence schools, delicatessen. But he had no more to do with bringing these things into the world than the horned cattle in the fields, and he does no more to increase them today than the birds of the air.

On the contrary, he is generally against them, and sometimes with immense violence. Every step in human progress, from the first feeble stirrings in the abyss of time, has been opposed by the great majority of men. Every valuable thing that has been added to the store of man's possessions has been derided by them when it was new, and destroyed by them when they had the power. They have fought every new truth ever heard of, and they have killed every truth-seeker who got into their hands."

--H.L. Mencken, "Homo Neanderthalensis," 29 June 1925

rikki's picture

Putting aside the men who

Putting aside the men who sponsored and supported it and just looking at the actual language of the bill, it would seem to have either no effect at all or to preclude creationism and intelligent design from the classroom on the grounds that they are not scientific. It seems more like a stupid and pointless piece of legislation than a threat to education.

The language about respect for differing views, aside from being hopelessly vague and unenforceable, seems most likely to be invoked by a student who understands evolution being told he or she will go to hell or by a student who seeks to understand but is denied by a teacher who can not or will not properly explain the science.

WhitesCreek's picture

I think the big problem with

I think the big problem with this bill is that it effectively removes administrators' ability to remove a teacher who uses religious arguments against science in the classroom. It is vague enough to cause massive amounts of trouble in the hands of a local crusading DAG for instance.

j.f.m.'s picture

No, the bill explicitly bars

No, the bill explicitly bars the introduction of religious perspectives. It only lets teachers talk about "the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught," which of course is something teachers are already allowed -- and presumably expected -- to do.

We all know what they're trying to do here, get fancy with the language in some way that will allow teachers who are so inclined to get all nudge-winky about how "evolution is just a theory" and whatever. But the bill as written really precludes much more than a nudge-wink -- and it is also relying on there being sufficient numbers of evolution-doubting science teachers in Tennessee schools to make some kind of actual dent. (Because it doesn't require teachers who are completely comfortable with evolution to do anything except teach the state curriculum.)

So the real issue is to make sure that Tennessee science teachers understand and "believe in" evolution. Which one would hope is generally the case, although I know not to take things for granted. When my kids get to that age, I'll have no compunction about just asking their assigned science teachers if they are comfortable teaching about evolution. If they're not, I guess I'll ask for a different teacher.

agrarianurbanite's picture

or show up in class for a

or show up in class for a little debate...

Andy Axel's picture

No, the bill explicitly bars

No, the bill explicitly bars the introduction of religious perspectives.

Which should preclude so-called intelligent design, as it is grounded in religious perspective. But color me skeptical.

fischbobber's picture

Critical thinking

I assume that this bill would require the question,

"Did God create man or did man create God?"

be put at the cornerstone of high school education. Of course the history of the Christian faith would take the entire freshman year and once the students had a clear picture of just how the modern bible came to be and the philosophy came to dominate western thought (and of course persecute not only non-believers but free thinkers in general), then and only then, could they move on to the advanced scientific theory involved in intelligent design. Let there be light, y'all.

All for critical thinking of the scientific kind, don't you see.

It almost makes one embarrassed to admit to being a Christian.

bizgrrl's picture

All for time for critical

All for time for critical thinking. But it is too time consuming. Don't have time to teach critical thinking.

Unbelievable!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives