Evolution law may change nothing

Evolution law may change nothing

There are 49 comments on the The Tennessean story from Apr 15, 2012, titled Evolution law may change nothing. In it, The Tennessean reports that:

Bill Campbell of Old Hickory and others protest the new evolution law, which allows classroom discussions analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Tennessean.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#21 Apr 25, 2012
The Dude wrote:
http://www.topix.net/forum/new s/evolution/TJ3D5ROB9AM5J32AL/ p2#c29
I stand corrected, I did mention an opponent was ignorant of a specific fact. Even so, I don't post insults regularly, only in retaliation.

.
The Dude wrote:
We also back ourselves up all the time. That's your problem. Hence they aren't mere baseless ad-homs on our part.
Go ahead and back yourself into a corner; the new law ensures science will carry on.

.
The Dude wrote:
Not at all, in fact we've supported that from the start. Nothing wrong with critical thinking applied beyond the classroom either, where again you run into problems.[] So we should teach students critical thinking and the scientific method, and give them the knowledge required to progress their scientific education so that one day they might become qualified scientists and test those scientific theories.
Or alternatively we should have schoolkids repeat each and every scientific experiment ever done throughout history that led to our currently accepted scientific theories just to make sure that nothing at all is being taken on faith.
Critical thinking isn't just for 'beyond the classroom', it's an essential part of science education. If a teacher can't provide critical thought in support of an accepted theory he either doesn't need to work in public schools or there's something wrong with the science.

There's nothing wrong with teaching children which experiments support scientific theories and which don't. The bill does nothing more than take faith based science out of the classroom.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#22 Apr 25, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I stand corrected, I did mention an opponent was ignorant of a specific fact. Even so, I don't post insults regularly, only in retaliation.
Like I said, boo hoo. I'd say grow a pair, only you'd probably cry again. Throw insults at me all day and night, won't bother me none.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Go ahead and back yourself into a corner; the new law ensures science will carry on.
Not when creationists take advantage of it it won't. Kids'll end up being too stupid to be scientists and you'll have to continue relying on scientists from places like India.
Brian_G wrote:
Critical thinking isn't just for 'beyond the classroom', it's an essential part of science education. If a teacher can't provide critical thought in support of an accepted theory he either doesn't need to work in public schools or there's something wrong with the science.
And critical thinking is already an essential part of science education. Like the English alphabet being a necessary for English language class. However a law stating the alphabet is required would be superfluous. Same thing in science class.

The problem you deliberately ignore is that there are creationist organizations pushing for creationist materials to be taught AS "critical thinking" in science classes, despite them being full of BS. Plus also, there are some creationist teachers who would take advantage of your new law and DELIBERATELY (and illegally I might add) use the law as a loophole in order to NOT provide support to accepted scientific theories like evolution.
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with teaching children which experiments support scientific theories and which don't. The bill does nothing more than take faith based science out of the classroom.
No it doesn't. It allows BS to be called "critical thinking" and unscrupulous teachers to get away with violating the First Amendment. This would damage children's education and quite easily lead to another evolution/creationism lawsuit, which the creationists would lose and would cost the schoolboard potentially up to a million bucks in fees that they can't really afford.

However your desire just to "stick it to the left" means you think it's worth the risk.
Truth Prevails

Mineola, NY

#23 Apr 25, 2012
Can evolitionist answer this?

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. If we came from a common ancestor of the ape, where did it come from?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24 Apr 25, 2012
Truth Prevails wrote:
Can evolitionist answer this?
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. If we came from a common ancestor of the ape, where did it come from?
Only questions 7 and 8 apply to the theory of evolution, which only explains biological diversity here on Earth. The answers are easily available online if you are interested.

But you're not.(shrug)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#26 Apr 25, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Go ahead and back yourself into a corner; the new law ensures science will carry on.
The new law virtually guarantees lawsuits. Remember John Freshwater?
Brian_G wrote:
Critical thinking isn't just for 'beyond the classroom', it's an essential part of science education. If a teacher can't provide critical thought in support of an accepted theory he either doesn't need to work in public schools or there's something wrong with the science.
I work for public schools, pal. Critical thinking is already part of the curriculum.
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with teaching children which experiments support scientific theories and which don't. The bill does nothing more than take faith based science out of the classroom.
And you're stupid enough to believe that. P.P Barnum was it? "There's a sucker born every minute."

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#27 Apr 25, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Only questions 7 and 8 apply to the theory of evolution, which only explains biological diversity here on Earth. The answers are easily available online if you are interested.
But you're not.(shrug)
I'd argue that 7 doesn't even apply either. Evolution only begins once the first organisms begin to reproduce.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#28 Apr 25, 2012
MikeF wrote:
The new law virtually guarantees lawsuits. Remember John Freshwater?
What part of the new law allows teachers to brand students? Is that the way you teach?

.
MikeF wrote:
I work for public schools, pal. Critical thinking is already part of the curriculum...
Then it won't make any difference in your classroom.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#29 Apr 25, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What part of the new law allows teachers to brand students? Is that the way you teach?
If that's all you came away with, you missed a great deal.
Brian_G wrote:
Then it won't make any difference in your classroom.
Though I taught high school I'm now in management so these is no my classroom. However, it's the other classrooms that concern me.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#30 Apr 25, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What part of the new law allows teachers to brand students? Is that the way you teach?
He didn't even MENTION Freshwaters torture techniques.(shrug)
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Then it won't make any difference in your classroom.
Depends if there's any more John Freshwaters in there dunnit?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31 Apr 26, 2012
MikeF wrote:
If that's all you came away with, you missed a great deal.[] Though I taught high school I'm now in management so these is no my classroom. However, it's the other classrooms that concern me.
I don't believe using a Tesla coil is relevant, any teacher that brands a child should be fired.

Are other teachers in your school branding children? Is that why you fear this new law?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#32 Apr 26, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't believe using a Tesla coil is relevant, any teacher that brands a child should be fired.
Are other teachers in your school branding children? Is that why you fear this new law?
OK, you don't now crap about the case so you keep harping on the branding issue. Got it. Go back to sleep, Brian.

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#33 Apr 26, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, you don't now crap about the case so you keep harping on the branding issue. Got it. Go back to sleep, Brian.
Absolutely right! It was not just about a Tesla coil! I can't believe the ignorance of some people. He was a much bigger ass than that. From http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/freshwater-... :
The Board determined that Freshwater had proselytized in class, had taught creationism, omitted required material on evolution, and had branded students using a Tesla coil.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#34 Apr 26, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, you don't now crap about the case so you keep harping on the branding issue. Got it. Go back to sleep, Brian.
Nah, Brian's dodging as usual.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#35 Apr 26, 2012
MikeF wrote:
OK, you don't now crap about the case so you keep harping on the branding issue. Got it. Go back to sleep, Brian.
You don't think there's anything wrong with a teacher branding a cross on a student's arm with a Tesla coil? I'm glad I slept through your class!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Freshwater

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#36 Apr 26, 2012
The law doesn't protect John Freshwater, it doesn't permit proselytizing, Christianity or Global Warming Alarmism; it just allows teaching critical thinking.

What's wrong with that?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#37 Apr 26, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You don't think there's anything wrong with a teacher branding a cross on a student's arm with a Tesla coil? I'm glad I slept through your class!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Freshwater
I didn't say that. I did say you missed the point.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#38 Apr 26, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
The law doesn't protect John Freshwater, it doesn't permit proselytizing, Christianity or Global Warming Alarmism; it just allows teaching critical thinking.
What's wrong with that?
Go back to sleep, Brain.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#39 Apr 27, 2012
We need critical thinking in school because so many people believe our use of fossil fuel has been an experimental test of man made climate change.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#40 Apr 27, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
We need critical thinking in school because so many people believe our use of fossil fuel has been an experimental test of man made climate change.
Critical thinking supports the concept of global warming. Perhaps we could help you on that concept here too, though I am sure that topix has some global warming forums too. Or better yet, what part of AGW do you dispute? I hope you do realize that even the most ardent denier will admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What do you think would happen when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#41 Apr 28, 2012
There has never been an experimental test of climate change mitigation. There has been no experimental tests of climate feedback either.

I think if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled, the Earth will warm slightly, probably at the low end of the IPCC estimates. That warming could be beneficial; we don't have any experimental test that shows its harmful. Certainly history has shown warmer climates and more CO2 is beneficial to life and colder climates with less CO2 is hostile to life.

The mass of CO2 is about 3,160,000,000,000,000 kg; I don't think its possible to release that much CO2 by burning fossil fuel over the next century, do you? Simple due diligence demands a prescription must be tested before it's used. The FDA experimentally tests every drug prescribed, why have a lower standard for climate?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vanderbilt University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? V... (Oct '15) Jan 30 yehoshooah adam 251
News Rushing GWU's gay fraternity Jan '17 Baptistism by Proxy 1
News A changed Helena to lead schools Dec '16 Paylur 2
News Immigrants demonstrate against Trump as protest... Nov '16 Well Well 2
News 'Rape in America is an epidemic': Brave rape vi... (Sep '13) Oct '16 Fair 2
News Men in Tennessee die differently (Jun '14) Oct '16 Fair 4
News Obamacare customers lose access to top Tennesse... Oct '16 Fair Elections 1
More from around the web