TN, 5 Others States Introduce Bills To Prohibit Teaching Evolution

[bodecea]

I wonder if the science teachers will teach the kids today that the hubble took pictures of what LOOKS to be an alien spaceship and how many children are encouraged to consider that possibility...compared to the number of teachers who will say the pictures LOOK LIKE a cross and let the kids ponder that? I mean...is an alien space ship more *scientific* than a cross?

Lol...

Babbling now?

 

[bodecea]

I hate to tell you all the bad news, but scientists don't think or believe that humans descended from apes or monkeys.

But we all have common ancestors.

 

[rikules]

House Bill 368 (PDF), introduced in the Tennessee House of Representatives on February 9, 2011, is the sixth antievolution bill introduced in a state legislature in 2011, and the first introduced in Tennessee since 2007. The bill, if enacted, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers 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."

The only examples provided of "controversial" theories are "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." The sole sponsor of HB 368 is Bill Dunn (R-District 16), who, according to Project Vote Smart, answered yes to the question “Should Tennessee require its public schools to teach evolution as theory rather than scientific fact?” in 1996 — the same year in which the Tennessee legislature considered a bill (SB 3229/HB 2972) that would have provided for the suspension or dismissal of any teacher or administrator who taught evolution as a fact rather than a theory.

Antievolution legislation in Tennessee | NCSE

So, this used car dealer knows enough to prohibit teaching certain aspects of science? No wonder this nation continues to fall behind others on the level of science mastery of its students.

Legally required stupidity...what will they think of next?

Your reaction?

stupid people are ruining America

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/155233-excellent-pot-kettle.html


i wonder what calif-girls' defense of this will be?

when it comes to teaching "Creation" conservatives say "you should teach BOTH! (evolution AND creation) because if you only teach one side THEN IT IS brainwashing!"

then they turn around and do everything in their power to REMOVE EVOLUTION from schools.....

forgetting completely that they just said "teach BOTH! else it is brainwashing!"

apparently they want to teach both until they can have evolution banned

then they will STOP saying "teach both" and START saying "evolution is the BIG LIE! and we should NOT BE TEACHING LIES to our children!"

apparently "brainwashing" is only bad when the other side does it....

 

[rdean]

Why is Creationism/ID even put on a competitive pedestal next to evolution? (Don't answer that)

There's mountains of corroborating evidence to support evolution. C/IS has... what? There's just as much proof that my farts create mini-universes.

There's a substantive difference between a theory and a hypothesis. I even hesitate to call C/ID a hypothesis, because that means it could be tested through the scientific method. But there's no way to falsify it. So if it's not even a falsifiable hypothesis, how could it possibly be a valid idur to introduce into the science classroom? Derp!

All theories based in mysticism are equally valid. The reason is because they can't be "disproved". For instance, we all know the center of the moon is made from edible and soft gooey cheese dip. No one can prove otherwise, so it must be true. This is how science works for the right wing. Now, the truth is they get very angry that someone is comparing the validity of "Samson", whose magical strength was in his dreadlocks, to the center of moon being made from soft, gooey cheese. Both are equally likely to be true.

Science to the right wing isn't necessarily a matter of believing based on faith alone. The right wing further disclaims science once science shows that the damage mankind does will cost money to remediate. This is where they determined that science can be called "junk science".

Ask a right winger what should be done about hazardous waste sometime. They will look at the budget and, if it cuts into profit, they will say that hazardous waste was called hazardous based on "junk science".

They funny thing is, the profit goes to some company. Nothing the right wing base even gets to keep.

 

[rightwinger]

Which part of "freedom of religion" or "separation of church and state" is confusing to you, Joe?

You want to believe the Earth is 5,000 years old and teach your child that, fine by me. But WTF gives you any right to teach that nonsense to MY child?

Maddie,

Likewise, what gives the school the right to teach my child (if I had any) that a Scientific THEORY called Evolution is the only acceptable version of how the world came to be?

Personally, I like what the high school in my hometown did..... They taught the THEORY (unproven, scientific belief) and also included a small bit of curriculum documenting that there are other THEORIES out there which are contridictory to the THEORY of Evolution relative to how the world and humanity came to be.

My problem is when you have these school systems teaching Evolution as SCIENTIFIC LAW instead of THEORY.

Do you get upset when your local school teaches the theory of gravity? Germ theory?

Like Newton said......that apple fell to earth because God wanted it to

 

[jeffrockit]

Because scientific FACTS support the theory. Just like they support the THEORY of gravity

Which scientific FACTS do you have to support the THEORY of creationism?

Are you OK with schools teaching there are no scientific facts supporting creationism? How about that scientific FACTS do not support the Bible?

As pointed out earlier in the thread the facts support the evolution of a species. We can all see that dogs and cats have "evolved" through the years, what we can't see and is not a proven fact, is that a dog becomes a whale or an ape becomes a man or the ancestor of an ape becomes man in one branch and ape in another.

I think the idea of disallowing the teaching of evolution is a bad idea. However, that is not what the quote in the OP states is being done here. Evolution should most definitely be taught at least until there is something that proves it to be wrong... not saying that will ever happen, mind you.

Where I always have a problem is when teachers try to teach the Theory of Evolution as an answer to how life began on earth. When they begin to teach Abiogensis as fact, I balk.

Immie

But we do know much more than that. We know that single cell creatures existed before multiple cell creatures. We know that over time, creatures became more complex.

There are no fossil records showing all levels of complexity existing millions of years ago. In looking at rock strata we can tell which type of animals and plants existed during which periods

That is Scientific FACT

Where did the single cell creatures come from?

 

[Madeline]

As pointed out earlier in the thread the facts support the evolution of a species. We can all see that dogs and cats have "evolved" through the years, what we can't see and is not a proven fact, is that a dog becomes a whale or an ape becomes a man or the ancestor of an ape becomes man in one branch and ape in another.

I think the idea of disallowing the teaching of evolution is a bad idea. However, that is not what the quote in the OP states is being done here. Evolution should most definitely be taught at least until there is something that proves it to be wrong... not saying that will ever happen, mind you.

Where I always have a problem is when teachers try to teach the Theory of Evolution as an answer to how life began on earth. When they begin to teach Abiogensis as fact, I balk.

Immie

But we do know much more than that. We know that single cell creatures existed before multiple cell creatures. We know that over time, creatures became more complex.

There are no fossil records showing all levels of complexity existing millions of years ago. In looking at rock strata we can tell which type of animals and plants existed during which periods

That is Scientific FACT

Where did the single cell creatures come from?

From the elements....from matter that had no life as we use that term.

 

[jeffrockit]

But we do know much more than that. We know that single cell creatures existed before multiple cell creatures. We know that over time, creatures became more complex.

There are no fossil records showing all levels of complexity existing millions of years ago. In looking at rock strata we can tell which type of animals and plants existed during which periods

That is Scientific FACT

Where did the single cell creatures come from?

From the elements....from matter that had no life as we use that term.

Where did the elements or matter come from?

 

[Madeline]

Where did the single cell creatures come from?

From the elements....from matter that had no life as we use that term.

Where did the elements or matter come from?

My guess? These bits of matter and energy are eternal, and have been morphing for eons, and always will. I dun think anyone knows for sure.

 

[Immanuel]

From the elements....from matter that had no life as we use that term.

Where did the elements or matter come from?

My guess? These bits of matter and energy are eternal, and have been morphing for eons, and always will. I dun think anyone knows for sure.

Your guess? That is so scientific!

Immie

 

[8537]

Like Newton said......that apple fell to earth because God wanted it to

I don't see any of the folks who discredit evolution by calling it a "theory" jumping out of third-story windows to discredit the theory of gravity.

 

[8537]

Where did the single cell creatures come from?

From the elements....from matter that had no life as we use that term.

Where did the elements or matter come from?

The most basic elements were created in the nano-moments after the Big Bang. The heavier elements were created in subsequent supernovas etc...

But of course, none of that (nor the origins of life on earth) has anything at all to do with Evolution.

 

[HUGGY]

From the elements....from matter that had no life as we use that term.

Where did the elements or matter come from?

My guess? These bits of matter and energy are eternal, and have been morphing for eons, and always will. I dun think anyone knows for sure.

A lot of people know for sure. Matter "morphs" from one element to one of less electrons constantly...slowly...predictably. Matter is fused to higher assemblies of electrons, neutrons and protons from the heat of super novas. As this fused matter scatters out and away from the exploded super nova it gradually changes to matter lower on the periodic chart. Not all of the matter fused turns into the maximum number of components. That is why there is a complete array of elements.

All matter was at one time hydrogen and helium in the beginning. Then it got "cooked" into denser material which degrades and the process repeats. Life formed when under the right conditions the four important components of RNA and DNA assembled into spiral codes that self replicate by presenting keys that can only be opened by the right elements in the proper order and timing. It(life) is purely chemical bonding and the proper timing and conditions at the most elemental level. The most simple life is just the right chemical recipe protected by a shell that prevents the disruption of code within.

 

[Truthmatters]

What hope is there for our education system if we cant teach facts because of religion?

 

[Sheldon]

Where did the single cell creatures come from?

That question is explored in abiogenesis, which is a separate study from evolution.

 

[jeffrockit]

From the elements....from matter that had no life as we use that term.

Where did the elements or matter come from?

My guess? These bits of matter and energy are eternal, and have been morphing for eons, and always will. I dun think anyone knows for sure.

They had to come from someone or something. Things don't just magically appear. Don't be afraid to answer how they were created as everything has to have a creator. There is no poof and they are there. That is where the Atheist get stonewalled. How did our organs happen. Did the blood come 1st? If so how is it circulated. I guess the heart came first then but then how is its purpose to pump blood needed. It goes on and on and is still unanswered unless you understand that all things had to have a creator.

 

[HUGGY]

Where did the elements or matter come from?

My guess? These bits of matter and energy are eternal, and have been morphing for eons, and always will. I dun think anyone knows for sure.

They had to come from someone or something. Things don't just magically appear. Don't be afraid to answer how they were created as everything has to have a creator. There is no poof and they are there. That is where the Atheist get stonewalled. How did our organs happen. Did the blood come 1st? If so how is it circulated. I guess the heart came first then but then how is its purpose to pump blood needed. It goes on and on and is still unanswered unless you understand that all things had to have a creator.

No Jeff, they didn't. Read my above post. The shell I refer to could easily just be a chemical covering like calcium carbonate. Think of them something akin to an M&M candy. VERY simple. As these extremely simple one celled life forms boiled around in the warm water....there was a diverse array of examples and some of these chemically concocted accidents merged with one another combining the properties of their simple needs to sustain replication and purpose and survival. Some absorbed chemicals/elements to continue replicating...some used light to sustain replication. Many of these crude combinations released oxygen as a bi product of the chemical replication process. Try to think of the photo synthetic components as the first crude "eyes". The oxygen releasing components as the first "lungs". Of course these components gradually became more complex but we are talking VERY simple chemical processes just starting out. The RNA and DNA components just kept stacking up from very short Keys to replication gradually to more and more complex ones as these "M&M's merged (absorbed one another)adding more diversity and therefore chances of survival. The brain could very well just have started out as a function of easier RNA codes to assemble than others making it "intelligence" through just beating the odds. Sort of like..If it works..it is smart. If it works better it is smarter.

Again...these are EXTREMELY minor differences gradually being added on as these "M&M's continued to absorb each other. But as conditions in the "pool" changed the unsuccessful merges lacked the stuff to cope and those things stopped replicating I E ...."died". The prime directive of the crude DNA and RNA was to replicate only because the ones that didn't...well just didn't. As the correct assemblies DID survive to replicate they kept on adding "features" and those features needed more features. NOT WANTED features. The environment created the NEED.

At first the laws of chance dictated all change. Like rolling the dice ... If only "sevens" were to be successful...then only sevens survived. But as "sevens" did survive the dice tended to program the DNA and RNA codes favoring "sevens" and "sevens" got rolled more and more frequently.

Keep in mind that Earth was not the Earth we know today. There was no free oxygen at first. Crude life had to adapt to conditions as they changed and oxygen consuming life came much later. It was the first organisms expelling oxygen through chemical decomposition involving sunlight that CREATED all of the free oxygen that later organisms adapted to leading eventually to US.

 

[editec]

Well, no learning is a bad thing, Two Thumbs. But in schools where we can't get kids to read or do math above a 4th grade level, a class on Mythology seems like gilding the lily.

If it's an elective, I guess I have no beef with it. It is interesting.

I, for one, have no problems with teaching the bible in our schools alongside other mythology

same here.

And it would be awesome to watch people go batshitcrazy as the bible got pulled out.

If the Bible is studied in comparitive religions or in classes about mythology nobody goes "batshit".

It's when that nonsense is taught as an alternative to SCIENCE that people object.

As well they should as far as THIS CHRISTIAN is concerned, FYI.

 

[8537]

Where did the elements or matter come from?

My guess? These bits of matter and energy are eternal, and have been morphing for eons, and always will. I dun think anyone knows for sure.

They had to come from someone or something. Things don't just magically appear. Don't be afraid to answer how they were created as everything has to have a creator. There is no poof and they are there. That is where the Atheist get stonewalled. How did our organs happen. Did the blood come 1st? If so how is it circulated. I guess the heart came first then but then how is its purpose to pump blood needed. It goes on and on and is still unanswered unless you understand that all things had to have a creator.

When you start with the belief that god exists, it's not hard to construct a scenario wherein the only answer to some inquiry is "because there's a god".

But just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it's an act of a creator. When Copernicus noticed that certain "stars" traveled in retrograde movements he didn't say "well, God must be dragging them around". He went about figuring out why - and in the process discovered planets. Now no-one asks why "stars" have retrograde motions.

 

[Old Rocks]

Clay-armored bubbles may have formed first protocells

The research, published online this week in the journal Soft Matter, shows that clay vesicles provide an ideal container for the compartmentalization of complex organic molecules.

The authors say the discovery opens the possibility that primitive cells might have formed inside inorganic clay microcompartments.

"A lot of work, dating back several decades, explores the role of air bubbles in concentrating molecules and nanoparticles to allow interesting chemistry to occur," says lead author Anand Bala Subramaniam, a doctoral candidate at SEAS.

"We have now provided a complete physical mechanism for the transition from a two-phase clay–air bubble system, which precludes any aqueous-phase chemistry, to a single aqueous-phase clay vesicle system," Subramaniam says, "creating a semipermeable vesicle from materials that are readily available in the environment."