

Why I can't return to Tennessee - wgrover
http://wgrover.com/writing/2012/04/12/cant-return-to-tennessee.html

======
droithomme
Well I'd glad you linked to the bill, I hadn't read the text of it, though I'd
heard some murmuring.

Perhaps you would like to be more specific about which parts you object to.

It says "teachers shall be permitted 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."

It says administrators and bureaucrats shall not "prohibit any teacher in a
public school system of this state from helping 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."

It also "only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not
be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine..."

This is all said to be needed because "An important purpose of science
education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students
develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent,
productive, and scientifically informed citizens"

~~~
Yarnage
You're cherry picking statements to make this bill sound like something
positive. I'd suggest just doing a Google search though; it's been debated to
death.

~~~
twoodfin
The bill is only a few paragraphs. Point at the horrible bits. Otherwise it
seems like a big piece of nothing that's being blown up for partisan or
ideological reasons (On both sides, I'm sure.)

There are seemingly a lot of people out there with a huge personal investment
in the idea that there's a "war on science" going on. Maybe it's validating to
feel persecuted, who knows? But there's more science being done and taught
than in any time in our history. Being against human cloning or banning light
bulbs doesn't require being "anti-science"; people just have different values.
That's what politics is for sorting out.

~~~
wgrover
You're right, science keeps chugging along and I don't feel particularly
persecuted as a scientist, as validating as that would be! :)

For me it comes down to the fear that because of this law, the rest of the
world will view Tennesseans as less desirable to have in the world's
companies/universities/laboratories/etc. because Tennesseans spend time
learning about creationism instead of real science. As a Tennessean that
embarrasses and worries me.

~~~
Prophasi
I haven't read debates about the content of the bill, but having read it
directly, I'm not sure how to get from A to B (B being kids learning about
creationism):

"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..."

That's a true statement; and not only CAN those topics cause controversy, but
they can be counted on for it. The value and substance of the controversy
raised is a related topic, but not directly implicated here; the mere presence
of such controversy is a valid concern for educators -- blithely pretending
it's not there isn't an effective answer, I don't think.

But what to do about the controversy?

"[Educators] shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary
and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific
questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills,
and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about
controversial issues."

Sounds reasonable. Not only are we acknowledging controversy, but we're
bringing students into the meta-conversation about it. That, as much as the
primary topic, is essential to critical thinking, collaboration, and
dispassionate discourse. Ideally, they engage in civics here as well as
science.

Now, obviously anything put forth by a politician should be examined with a
critical eye; there are usually ulterior motives. That said, I'd hate to
become so cynical that I dismiss a bill like this because, for example, it was
a) raised by a politician in X Party; and b) it mentions topics I know I'll
disagree with him on. In substance, I really can't find anything here about
which to take umbrage.

You're right that this opens the door to the _debate_ , but shouldn't it? The
ostensible focus on scientific evidence and critical thinking should
subsequently wither baseless dogmas, whether they be religious or not.

Finally, I think that in practical terms the bill itself is fairly worthless,
lacking in specifics as it does.

~~~
wgrover
That's what makes it hard to criticize this bill - of course teachers should
encourage debate and critical thinking. And there are lots of subjects in
science that merit debate. But the authors of the bill have a specific subject
in mind - the fundamental validity of all of evolution - and giving students
the impression that there is ANY debate among biologists about the fundamental
validity of evolution is just dishonest.

Opponents of the bill claim that it's written the way it is (emphasizing
critical thinking) to differentiate the bill from various earlier pro-
creationism legislation that got overturned by the courts; details [1] and
[2]. But anyway, I hope you're right and the bill ends up encouraging debate
about real science.

[1] [http://ncse.com/news/2012/04/boos-tennessees-monkey-
law-0073...](http://ncse.com/news/2012/04/boos-tennessees-monkey-law-007300)

[2] [http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-09/debate-over-
how...](http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-09/debate-over-how-teach-
evolution-and-climate-change/transcript)

------
gm
First of all, it's why I _won't_ or _don't want_ to return to TN.

But also, why is this HN's problem?

~~~
gte910h
I'd contend no one will encounter a force field when trying to enter TN, so "I
can't ever go back" is perfectly meaningful for anyone who is unable to
stomach this anti-intellectualism.

