WSJ's Weird Embrace Of Pseudo Science...

WSJ's Weird Embrace Of Pseudo Science And The War On Real Science

There are 11 comments on the Silicon Alley Insider story from Apr 14, 2012, titled WSJ's Weird Embrace Of Pseudo Science And The War On Real Science. In it, Silicon Alley Insider reports that:

The Wall Street Journal published a self-revealing news article on Tennessee's recently adopted law encouraging science teachers to teach their opposition to "controversial" scientific findings.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Silicon Alley Insider.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#1 Apr 17, 2012
When you consider that The Wall Street Journal is owned by the same Right Wing sociopaths that owns Fox News, you begin to understand.

They are tightly aligned with the misogynistic, Fundamentalist, evangelical, Republican party and all people who want religion to replace the American Constitution with Biblical law and rule

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2 Apr 18, 2012
You should take a look at the law, it requires critical thinking and not teaching Creationism.

Get the story from the original source, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270...

It seems the biggest problem people have with the new Tennessee law is the demon authors, not the content of the law.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#3 Apr 18, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
You should take a look at the law, it requires critical thinking and not teaching Creationism.
Get the story from the original source, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270...
It seems the biggest problem people have with the new Tennessee law is the demon authors, not the content of the law.
Considering the authors were creationists and the laws are sponsored by reps who are creationist sympathizers, well yeah.(shrug)

Add to that the fact that evolution is NOT scientifically controversial, hence the law lies. Having a law that states science must teach critical thinking and the scientific method is as superfluous as having one saying English class much make sure students know the English alphabet.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#4 Apr 18, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
You should take a look at the law, it requires critical thinking and not teaching Creationism.
Get the story from the original source, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270...
It seems the biggest problem people have with the new Tennessee law is the demon authors, not the content of the law.
If it isn't targeted at evolution then why is it specifically mentioned?

(a)(2) "The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy;"

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB03...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5 Apr 18, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
If it isn't targeted at evolution then why is it specifically mentioned?
(a)(2) "The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy;"
And evolution is not scientifically controversial, hence this is irrelevant to the teaching of evolution in science class.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6 Apr 18, 2012
The law doesn't say evolution is scientifically controversial, it says the teaching... can cause controversy. That's why this forum exists, because of the controversy.

Don't you want to face reality?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#7 Apr 18, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
The law doesn't say evolution is scientifically controversial, it says the teaching... can cause controversy. That's why this forum exists, because of the controversy.
Don't you want to face reality?
Bullshit.

"(c) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies."

Notice the last TWO WORDS!
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#8 Apr 18, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
The law doesn't say evolution is scientifically controversial, it says the teaching... can cause controversy. That's why this forum exists, because of the controversy.
Don't you want to face reality?
I already do. You don't, which is why you keep avoiding the points. If it's not a scientific controversy then it's inappropriate to mention evolution an a law alleged to promote critical thinking in science class. Surely if that WAS the meaning of the law, then it should single out scientific concepts which *are* SCIENTIFICALLY controversial. Hence the law as it stands is either poorly worded, or it portrays evolution as being scientifically controversial.

Don't you want to face reality?

Scratch that, we already know you don't.(shrug)
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#9 Apr 18, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit.
"(c) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies."
Notice the last TWO WORDS!
Yeah, but uh, Brian's a hypocrite.(shrug)

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10 Apr 18, 2012
"(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion."

What's wrong with that?
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#11 Apr 18, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
"(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion."
What's wrong with that?
It's the DI's way of saying "Please don't tell anyone that our objections to reality are theocratic in nature!"

Unfortunately for them, once someone mentions the SLoT in biology class, the game is up.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Science 66,516
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 min SaviorSelf 28,496
What does the theory of evolution state? 35 min pshun2404 118
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 1 hr MADRONE 84
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr Dogen 3,439
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Subduction Zone 160,863
Why isn't intelligent design really science? 8 hr Subduction Zone 35
More from around the web