Legislating ignorance...

now we are at same level as Taliban controlled Afghanistan. This is like going back to the nineteenth century but worst!

Read the bill people. It allows a teacher to question aspects of the evolutionary theory or global warming. There are many questions to ask. Last I checked, questioning was a key element in the progress of science. The 'flat earth' was also a fact at one point.

While the Tennessee House Bill 368/Senate Bill 893 proponents most likely have an clear agenda to push creationist ideas within the classrooms, I wonder whether the Bill might in fact not be a bad thing. According to various polls, the majority of scientists in the United States are atheists or agnostics, but the most of the general population claims to be religious. This is despite decades of trying to ban religious thinking from public schools.

As long as the Bill truly provides for healthy debate, may be it is a good idea that scientific thought is open to challenge. After all, this is the primary difference between the development of scientific knowledge and religious beliefs. Science is self-correcting and provides for re-evaluation and refinement based on actual tests and observations. The evidence in favour for evolution is overwhelming, so scientists should not feel particularly threatened.

Mainstream ideas in science are not necessarily understood nor well adopted by the general public. Children should be exposed to the reasoning behind why scientists believe as they do, and healthy debate is one mechanism to achieve this. With all of the television programs, internet sites and literature that offer scientific insights into the nature of the universe, a lot of children are pretty savvy about the origins of life. Teachers that push a strong creationist platform in their science class teaching might very well become embarassed and find their credibility damaged by their own more independent thinking students.

Questioning, challenging and debating are key elements of the scientific process. Why do we need a law to enforce these?
How about a law that allows us to challenge religious dogma and pseudo-science?;)

If teachers are not already making clear the limits to interpretation by the scientific method, then they need better training as science teachers. It does not help to legislate, it's a question of pedagogical methodology. I would presume that in fact this is not just a move for better science teaching, but an indirect attack specifically on evolution motivated by religious sentiment.

Does this mean that I can come to church classes and explain evolution and other scientific theories? I don't think so. Pseudo-science theories (i.e., humans are so complicated that there must be a divine designer) could be taught in other classes, such as history or philosophy. They only confuse students if they are given credibility in science classes. We fought the creationists in Kansas (and finally won)-courage and perseverance to striking down this law. The problem is that many of our politicians have been educated in an educational system that is outright failing-the proof is in our state and national legislatures.

This is just sad. Yes, many teachers will teach something resembling science, and some will now have license to teach rubbish, and be validated. If I were a high school student, and was tested on my willingness to give an answer favorable to nonsense and religious dogma, then I would be so much more oriented to frustration, and to conclude that the majority of scientists resembled my pathetic instructor. I had mid-level quality science instruction, at best, but compared to the garbage I see now, my teachers were a paragon of honesty and intellectual integrity. I am so very glad that I am not making these career decisions now. When I was "coming up", science was science, and religion was religion, and the two did not conflict. What went wrong? It had to start when certain biochemists started explaining that RNAase was so complicated that only A GOD could have devised it! Wow, and that was before PTMs were even appreciated! I have no desire to disprove the existence of god (I think that is an oxymoron). Why do so many of the religious feel so threatened by science, I wonder?

Science progresses as concepts and "theories" are tested or confirmed. While there are still elements of evolution being discovered, edited or debated the general concept is scientifically sound and even partially proven. Evolution is not a belief; it is a scientific theory. That means it is not absolute and doesn't equate with a spirtual concept like "God the creator".
Real scientists will keep questioning competing theories, but when the evidence of a round earth and central sun were explained or proven to scientists no good scientist continued to open a flat earth science “theory”. Or else it would have taken new knowledge three hundred years tfor church doctrine to accept competing scientific theory or progress. Scientists regularly update their theories based on proof and evidence. Religion doesn’t have the mechanism to accept or even discuss logical or scientific reasoning if it contradicts or compete with its “beliefs”.
Creationism is a belief; it is not science. I think it should have no place in scientific studies. It is not comparable to such scientific theories of "biochemical origin" or "evolution" of life form. It resides in the realm of thoughts and philosophy.
Of course all real scientists (Al Gore is not a scientist) continue to measure and evaluate global warming “theory” and test it against competing others, but since it has foundations in the physical sciences it belongs into the scientific study. One more thing; spiritual, moral thinking and beliefs have nothing to add to science in general or climate science in particular.