Clever Anti-Science Yahoos in Tennessee — Making Monkeys Out of the Smarter Portion of the State’s Citizenry

© 2012 Peter Free

 

15 April 2012

 

 

Culture wars in America

 

The United States’ primary culture war is not with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.  It is with our own Reality-denying nut cases.

 

These smart, but ignorant folk just pulled off a major coup in Tennessee.  Governor Haslam allowed a subtly manipulative law to pass into the statute book.  The statute promotes teacher-prompted science-denial in the classroom.

 

 

Sly manipulation under the guise of “controversy”

 

The Religious Right’s Tennessee ruse revolves around the scientifically unwarranted introduction of the word “controversial” into the statute’s listed scientific propositions, which include (but are not limited to) “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

 

This claim of controversy where there is none is the Religious Right’s version of the “big lie” tactic.

 

 

Pay attention to the statute’s wording

 

Here is what Tennessee House Bill 386 (now statute) gave as a reason for expanding teachers’ leeway to introduce cavil (find fault unnecessarily) with established scientific principles:

 

(a) The general assembly finds that:

 

(1) 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;

(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 . . . .

 

The solution this legal mandate offers is:

 

(b) The state board of education . . . 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.

 

(c) The state board of education . . .  shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies.

 

Toward this end, 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.

 

(d) Neither the state board of education, nor any [other educational authority] shall 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.

 

(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.

 

 

“Sounds good to me, Pete, what’s wrong with promoting critical thinking?”

 

The problem is that the fundamental scientific propositions underlying:

 

(i) evolution,

 

(ii) the very generally understood chemical origins of life,

 

(iii) the fact of human contributions to global warming,

 

and

 

(iv) the possibilities for human cloning

 

are not (scientifically) controversial.

 

Instead, the rationally-based controversy that does exist generally involves the economics and ethics that extend from "playing with" each proposition.

 

Note

 

In the case of climate change, the amount of the (non-trivial) magnitude that humankind contributes to warming is indeed controversial.  But this is different than doubting the scientifically proven anthropogenic mechanisms by which the warming is occurring.

 

Ethical and economic conundrums are not what the Tennessee law is trying to address.

 

Instead, the statute is trying to manipulate students and the public into thinking that the science underlying each these subject areas is itself controversial.

 

By introducing doubt, where there should be virtually none, Tennessee does a disservice to public education’s previously accepted duties to:

 

(a) inform students as to Reality’s characteristics,

 

and

 

(b) teach them to critically think about:

 

(i) proven facts and rationally weighted uncertainties

 

and

 

(ii) to separate the known, and the partially known, from speculation and fantasy.

 

 

Citation — to an excellent overview of what critics of the Tennessee law had to say

 

The National Center for Science Education did an excellent job of tracking the Religious Right’s Tennessee ploy:

 

Boos for Tennessee's monkey law, National Center for Science Education (11 April 2012)

 

The above article contains a summary of brief quotations from knowledgeable people.  Among these is the organization’s own Steven Newton (Programs and Policy Director), who listed several prominent organizations that publicly opposed the Tennessee law.

 

These groups included:

 

American Association for the Advancement of Science

10 Tennessee members of the National Academy of Sciences

American Institute of Biological Sciences

National Association of Biology Teachers

National Earth Science Teachers Association

National Association of Geoscience Teachers

Tennessee Education Association

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee

 

Citation

Steven Newton, Tennessee Volunteers for Creationism, Huffington Post (11 April 2012)

 

Joining this list in opposition is the American Society of Human Genetics:

 

ASHG Statement on Tennessee Law Undermining the Teaching of Evolution, American Society of Human Genetics (11 April 2012)

 

 

The National Center for Science Education listed some other articles that covered Tennessee’s scientifically backward step

 

Boos for Tennessee's monkey law documented its quotations with links that led to the following articles:

 

Tim Ghianni, Tennessee law allows creationism theory in classrooms, Reuters (10 April 2012)

 

Jane Roberts, Tennessee evolution bill becomes law without governor's signature, Commercial Appeal - Memphis (10 April 2012)

 

Helen Thompson, Tennessee ‘monkey bill’ becomes law, Nature, doi:10.1038/nature.2012.10423 (11 April 2012)

 

Leslie Schichtel, Evolution bill to become law in Tennessee, despite Vandy prof's effort, Inside Vandy – Vanderbilt University (11 April 2012)

 

Chas Sisk, Gov. Haslam allows evolution bill to become TN law, The Tennessean (11 April 2012)

 

Andy Sher, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam doesn't sign evolution bill, but it's still law, Times Free Press (11 April 2012)

 

Valerie Strauss, Tennessee back to the future with new anti-evolution law, Washington Post (11 April 2012)

 

 

The moral? — When religious faith is too weak to combine Reality with love of God, it stoops to discouraging rational inquiry

 

We already have too many American zealots for ignorance.

 

Passing laws to encourage this group of irrational ignoramuses is a bad idea.  At least insofar as American global competitiveness is concerned.