“the monkey bill.”

[Syn7]

With New ‘Monkey Bill,’ Tennessee Takes Evolution Education Back To Scopes

Eighty six years after the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial opened Tennessee classrooms to the teaching of evolution, the state House is trying to slam the door shut again. Tennessee’s House Education Committee approved a bill Tuesday in the name of “academic freedom,” but in reality, it is a thinly veiled attempt to curtail the teaching of evolution. House Speaker Emeritus Jimmy Naifeh (D) has even taken to calling it “the monkey bill.” From the bill’s summary:

This bill prohibits the state board of education and any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or principal or administrator from prohibiting 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, such as evolution and global warming.

Should this bill pass, Tennessee teachers will have official sanction to teach about evolutionary “controversies” that simply do not exist. Furthermore, it will allow teachers to teach pseudo-scientific ideas — such as creationism or intelligent design — as legitimate scientific theories comparable to evolution.

While evolution apparently remains controversial politically, it is not a controversial idea scientifically. Scientists have reached a consensus that evolution is “one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science,” and as such, it is “a core element in science education.” The state of Tennessee has done the same, as it includes evolution in its Tennessee Science Framework, its official science curriculum. So 86 years after the Scopes Monkey Trial gave evolution its rightful place in the state’s classrooms, why are Tennessee Republicans trying to re-litigate the case?

Tennessee’s law is not just out of the scientific mainstream, it falls outside the political mainstream as well. This year, legislators have tried and failed to pass similar legislation in multiple states, including New Mexico, Kentucky, and Oklahoma.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/30/...ducation-bill/


it seems that there is some sort of organized neo con assault on society... they are making big moves right now, and those who oppose them need to realize that now is the time to resist and organize their own movements... all the bad stuff that has happened in the last decade are all related... not including natural disaters, but for sure including the choices in the aftermath of such disasters...

[SoCo KungFu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhbSV...eature=related

This is what happens when you teach religion in science class....

[Syn7]

I think it all boils down to the Fundie interpretation of Matthew 22:21

Look it up. Scary stuff.

i dunno fundies work, but matthew 22:21 could easily be interpreted as a justification to take things from people...

[Syn7]

no doubt... and some of these bonesmokers even have the nerve to point fingers at moderate american muslims as trying to corrupt the country and sneak in sharia law somehow... hows that for irony... "how dare you force your religious ideals on me while im forcing mine on you!!!"

[sanjuro_ronin]

Evolution is an accepted scientific theory but the majority of Christians and religious people that do NOT brand themselves as fundamentalists in the since of he term as used in the states.
The RCC backs evolution.
The whole "science vs religion" crap is a fabrication that started in the 19th century and is being used today to push anti-religious aggendas and sell books.
Newton, Capernicus, Galileo and scores of other scientists in the past were Christians, many of them funded by the church.
Science and religion are compatible, I see no imcompatibility.

Evolution should be taught in science class and until alternate theories are proven in science to the degree that evolution has been, they should be, at best, minor footnotes.

[SoCo KungFu]

Evolution is an accepted scientific theory but the majority of Christians and religious people that do NOT brand themselves as fundamentalists in the since of he term as used in the states.
The RCC backs evolution.
The whole "science vs religion" crap is a fabrication that started in the 19th century and is being used today to push anti-religious aggendas and sell books.
Newton, Capernicus, Galileo and scores of other scientists in the past were Christians, many of them funded by the church.
Science and religion are compatible, I see no imcompatibility.

Evolution should be taught in science class and until alternate theories are proven in science to the degree that evolution has been, they should be, at best, minor footnotes.

I wouldn't say its the anti-religious pushing an agenda. Its the fundamentalist groups trying to pry their way into governments and schools, at least in the states. It's always been the church which has tried to shut down science, because science simply by process (not intent) removes religion from explanations. But that's the religious groups' fault for falling to god of the gaps ideology. I would also argue the true theism of some of past scientists. They lived in a time where it was dangerous to be anti-religious. Or even simply question a detail (Galileo was brought under Roman Inquisition). Although I will concede Newton was religious (though antitrinitarian). Furthermore, in the past there were only 2 types of person that could take a life of scientific pursuit. You were either rich or clergy. No one else had the time for true study. The poor would join the church because the church offered them a life with little responsibility allowing pursuit of their interests.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I wouldn't say its the anti-religious pushing an agenda. Its the fundamentalist groups trying to pry their way into governments and schools, at least in the states. It's always been the church which has tried to shut down science, because science simply by process (not intent) removes religion from explanations. But that's the religious groups' fault for falling to god of the gaps ideology. I would also argue the true theism of some of past scientists. They lived in a time where it was dangerous to be anti-religious. Or even simply question a detail (Galileo was brought under Roman Inquisition). Although I will concede Newton was religious (though antitrinitarian). Furthermore, in the past there were only 2 types of person that could take a life of scientific pursuit. You were either rich or clergy. No one else had the time for true study. The poor would join the church because the church offered them a life with little responsibility allowing pursuit of their interests.

RE: Galileo, I suggest this book since there are far too many misconceptions floating around:
Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion.

The God of the gaps is something that is thrown around way too much and I will be the first to admit that believers use it far more than they should.
Reason and Christianity have always gone hand in hand, it was only after that "fundanmenatalist" doctrine was created that evangelicals in the US started to go against science.
Science helps us to understand God and the universe better, God is revealed to us not only in the bible, but perhaps more importantly, in HIS UNALTERED work: The Universe and science is the best way we have to understand that universe.

Fundamentalists saw/see science as an opposer to faith because that is what they have been told, that is what was "made clear" by people with an agenda from BOTH sides.

Fact is the science and religion have always been compatible since they "preach" two different things and those things are, together, what lead us to God.

Science teaches us, shows us HOW things work in the universe, in nature, it doesn't tell is WHY or gives any reason for us to care about the why.
Science can tell us why the piano makes the sound it does, but it doesn't explain Bethoveen or Mozarts greatest works.
YET, it can help us appreciate them even more.

Christianity gave the early scientists a reason for looking at order in the universe, it told them that there WAS order, it may not have said HOW it worked, that wasn't its job, but the christian scientists knew that there was an order and reason for things and they knew that because that is what they believed.

[SoCo KungFu]

Science teaches us, shows us HOW things work in the universe, in nature, it doesn't tell is WHY or gives any reason for us to care about the why.
Science can tell us why the piano makes the sound it does, but it doesn't explain Bethoveen or Mozarts greatest works.
YET, it can help us appreciate them even more.

Christianity gave the early scientists a reason for looking at order in the universe, it told them that there WAS order, it may not have said HOW it worked, that wasn't its job, but the christian scientists knew that there was an order and reason for things and they knew that because that is what they believed.

Rudimentary science (rather the train of thought and problem solving that is used in scientific method) has been in use long before the christian god was even an idea.

Most of what you said I have no problem with, its a matter of personal belief and that is yours and unarguable. However, the idea that religion says why and science says how, and they do not cross is false. NOMA is just god of the gaps 2.0. It was Gould's cop out to the controversy. Science all the time explains why things happen. Evolution by natural selection is one half how and one half why. Science is trying to even extend that all the way to the beginning (big bang theories, multiple big bang, etc.). And religion is all the time trying to barge into the how of things. The very concept of sainthood (the criteria of the miracle) does just this.

[David Jamieson]

Truth lies dead on the altar of conviction.

This is what happens when fundamental belief overrides reality in an effort to maintain a seperate reality.

Sad exercise really on the face of it and with depth as well.

How do you tell someone that the answer is inside them?

[Syn7]

Evolution is an accepted scientific theory but the majority of Christians and religious people that do NOT brand themselves as fundamentalists in the since of he term as used in the states.
The RCC backs evolution.
The whole "science vs religion" crap is a fabrication that started in the 19th century and is being used today to push anti-religious aggendas and sell books.
Newton, Capernicus, Galileo and scores of other scientists in the past were Christians, many of them funded by the church.
Science and religion are compatible, I see no imcompatibility.

Evolution should be taught in science class and until alternate theories are proven in science to the degree that evolution has been, they should be, at best, minor footnotes.

galileo has bpooks that were banned by the church... gathered up and removed from HIS earth... the science vs religion thing really got heated during galileos time... theres lots of info out there, if you look...