Each year, state legislatures play host to a variety of bills that would interfere with science education. Most of these are variations on a boilerplate intended to get supplementary materials into classrooms criticizing evolution and climate change (or to protect teachers who do). They generally don't mention creationism, but the clear intent is to sneak religious content into the science classrooms, as evidenced by previous bills introduced by the same lawmakers. Most of them die in the legislature (although the opponents of evolution have seen two successes).

The efforts are common enough that we don't generally report on them. But every now and then a bill comes along that veers off this script. Late last month, the Missouri House started considering one that deviates in staggering ways. Instead of being quiet about its intent, it redefines science, provides a clearer definition of intelligent design than any of the idea's advocates ever have, and it mandates equal treatment of the two. In the process, it mangles things so badly that teachers would be prohibited from discussing Mendel's Laws.

Comments

Search

PineHall  - My thoughts on this matter   |2013-02-17 17:12:30 My thinking on this matter has been evolving over the years. It is close to my heart since I have a Masters in Atmospheric Sciences and I work at a university in my field. I used to argue that Intellegent Design should be taught in public schools. Today I would argue that it might be better if it were not taught and instead critical thinking and science's axioms/assumptions were taught instead. Things like there are no outside influences (ie outside the universe, God, etc) affecting the measurements in ways that would make a difference; the simplest explanation is the best, what we see, sense and measure is real; we can develop concepts/models to explain what we see, sense and measure; and other axioms like that. Science has been remarkably successful in helping improve our lives, and that has caused people to take science beyond its limitations. Science does not preclude God and I think most people don't understand the limitations of science. Many times people will think science is the answer to everything and it does preclude God. In doing do they do not recognise that they have extended science beyond its limitations to Naturalism. That is why I think high schools need to teach those basic axioms of science, so that the limitations can be recognised. Critical thinking is important to be able to recognise those limitations without having to just remember them.

whitemice  - Agree   |2013-03-10 20:35:03 Agree. "Intellegent Design" is not science. It just isn't. And, honestly, I am just sooooo tired of this conversation. The field is so crowded with polemicists that substantive conversation is extremely rare. This is in "list of three" 1. Creation / Evolution / Intelligent Design 2. Abortion / Reproductive 'rights' 3. End Time Prophecy / The Anti-Christ Any of these three topics comes up... and anyone whose opinion would actually be interesting and illuminating slips out the back and heads down to the pub to play darts and have a beer. Because they know the raving-of-the-ignorant is about to begin and playing darts is a better use of their time. And it is downright dangerous to express a well thought out nuanced and limited view on any of these three - one sentence will be lifted from anything you say - and one team (seemingly at random) will name you a heretic and the other team (to your humiliation) will herald you as the truth speaker of their team. Darts and beer is very relaxing.

whitemice  - Why so much fear?   |2013-03-10 20:45:38 And why are we so afraid a teacher will say something we don't agree with? - and teachers will say all kinds of things off-book anyway (really, they can't be expected not to). I remember teachers expressing their views about all kinds of things. It isn't like students will just graft it all into their psyche (generally it would be good if they did a bit MORE grafting then they are prone to). I'm honestly more concerned that I look around and see schools that are clearly segregated by race and class. And neighborhoods reflect that as well. Some real diversity would greatly encourage the students to have conversations amongst themselves. If there isn't conversation, and real opposing view points, then critical skills don't get exercised much. Everyone just goes with what is "clearly true" [aka, accepted by the hive-mind of there same peers, and that hive mind is rarely motivated to grapple metaphysical or moral issues.]. I'd me more concerned my progeny is caught up in some tribal thought-group than what their biology teacher is saying. Even if I like that tribal thought-group... wait till they go away to college and that group isn't around anymore. All those *CONVICTIONS*, never really considered, pushed, or chosen... they'll just fade away and be forgotten with nary even a regret.

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."