State Government at it again - Evolution

[Townsend]

Antiscience bill dies in Oklahoma

http://ncse.com/news/2013/02/antiscience-bill-dies-oklahoma-0014724

Senate Bill 758 (document), the so-called Oklahoma Science Education Act, which would have undermined the integrity of science education in the Sooner State, is dead. February 25, 2013, was the deadline for Senate bills to pass their committees, but the Senate Education Committee adjourned its February 25, 2013, meeting without considering it. Still active in the Oklahoma legislature is House Bill 1674 (document), styled the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, which differs from SB 758 primarily in mentioning "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning" as supposedly controversial topics. HB 1674 passed the House Education Committee on a 9-8 vote on February 19, 2013.

As usual in Oklahoma, resistance to the antievolution bills was spearheaded by the grassroots organization Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education, whose board of governors includes a former member of NCSE's board of directors, Frank J. Sonleitner, and a recipient of NCSE's Friend of Darwin award, Victor H. Hutchison. "OESE has been a model of effective advocacy for supporting good science education," commented NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott. "Unlike evolution and climate change, cloning isn't something that NCSE is really interested in," she joked, "but we might make an exception if we could clone people like Vic and Frank and all of the hardworking and vigilant folks they work with in Oklahoma."

SB 758 would, if enacted, have required state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies" and permitted teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." Unusually but not uniquely, no scientific topics were specifically identified as controversial, but the fact that the sole sponsor of SB 758 was Josh Brecheen (R-District 6), who introduced specifically antievolution legislation in the two previous legislative sessions, is telling.

In late 2010, Brecheen announced his intention to file antievolution legislation in a column in the Durant Daily Democrat (December 19, 2010): "Renowned scientists now asserting that evolution is laden with errors are being ignored. ... Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings[,] is incomplete and unacceptable." In a subsequent column in the newspaper (December 24, 2010), he indicated that his intention was to have creationism presented as scientifically credible, writing, "I have introduced legislation requiring every publically funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution using the known science, even that which conflicts with Darwin's religion."

What Brecheen in fact introduced in 2011, Senate Bill 554, combined a version of the now familiar "academic freedom" language — referring to "the scientific strengths [and] scientific weaknesses of controversial topics ... [which] include but are not limited to biological origins of life and biological evolution" — with a directive for the state board of education to adopt "standards and curricula" that echo the flawed portions of the state science standards adopted in Texas in 2009 with respect to the nature of science and evolution. SB 554 died in committee. In 2012, Brecheen took a new tack with Senate Bill 1742, modeled in part on the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act; SB 1742 likewise died in committee.

With SB 758, Brecheen seemed to be following the lead of Tennessee's "monkey law" (as it was nicknamed by House Speaker Emeritus Jimmy Naifeh), enacted (as Tenn. Code Ann. 49-6-1030) over the protests of the state's scientific and educational communities in 2012. The major difference is that SB 758 omitted the monkey law's statement of legislative findings, which cites "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning" as among the topics that "can cause controversy" when taught in the science classroom of the public schools. The history of Brecheen's legislative efforts clearly demonstrates that it is evolution which was primarily the target of the new bill, however.

[heironymouspasparagus]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Hebrew prophet Ezekiel measured the heavens in the sixth century and according to his measurements 177,000 vacancies in this corrupt world of today would be hard to fill.   
 

The saddest part is that you have such an insular, closed-off-from-reality world to live in.  That you could possibly imagine that 99%+ of the worlds population is corrupt and unworthy.  That is a dark, dank world with no joy or happiness.

Ya gotta get out more and meet some of these 99% of people.  It is nowhere near as bleak as you seem to think.

[Townsend]

Second antiscience bill dies in Oklahoma

http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/second-antiscience-bill-dies-oklahoma-0014767

House Bill 1674 died in the Oklahoma House of Representatives on March 14, 2013, when a deadline for bills to have their third reading in their house of origin passed. Along with Senate Bill 758, which died in February 2013, HB 1674 was one of two proposed laws that would have undermined the integrity of science education in Oklahoma.

Multiple.  It causes a pucker.

[cannon_fodder]

I don't understand why we care so much about science education.  Healthcare, aerospace, petroleum... those do not need scientists! 

[Gaspar]

Introduced by Gus Blackwell and Sally Kern.

If you actually read the bill you will find that it is neither anti-science, or promotional of any religious belief.   It simply makes the point that teachers cannot penalize students for favoring one theory over another, nor can teachers penalize students for their beliefs or non beliefs.

Perhaps it would have received a reading had they not included the prevision for a declaration of emergency upon passage (oh Sally, not everything is an emergency).  It's always a good idea to read the bills, because the media does a fine job of glancing over the flaws in legislation, focusing instead on what will get the sheeple all atwitter.

SECTION 4. It being immediately necessary for the preservation
of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby
declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and
be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

[Townsend]

Introduced by Gus Blackwell and Sally Kern.

If you actually read the bill you will find that it is neither anti-science, or promotional of any religious belief.   It simply makes the point that teachers cannot penalize students for favoring one theory over another, nor can teachers penalize students for their beliefs or non beliefs.

Kern = anti-science

Teachers should be able to tell a student that magic didn't make the Earth suddenly come into being.  They should be able to penalize that student a point for that particular quiz.

[swake]

Introduced by Gus Blackwell and Sally Kern.

If you actually read the bill you will find that it is neither anti-science, or promotional of any religious belief.   It simply makes the point that teachers cannot penalize students for favoring one theory over another, nor can teachers penalize students for their beliefs or non beliefs.

Perhaps it would have received a reading had they not included the prevision for a declaration of emergency upon passage (oh Sally, not everything is an emergency).  It's always a good idea to read the bills, because the media does a fine job of glancing over the flaws in legislation, focusing instead on what will get the sheeple all atwitter.

SECTION 4. It being immediately necessary for the preservation
of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby
declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and
be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

So if you take a biology test and you get a couple of questions wrong you can claim religious beliefs and not get penalized? This is idiotic.

Beside, creationism isn't a scientific theory. Gasp, are YOU a creationist?

[Gaspar]

So if you take a biology test and you get a couple of questions wrong you can claim religious beliefs and not get penalized? This is idiotic.

Beside, creationism isn't a scientific theory. Gasp, are YOU a creationist?

Again, you didn't read the bill.

D. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of
course materials, but no student in any public school or institution
shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a
particular position on scientific theories. Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to exempt students from learning,
understanding and being tested on curriculum as prescribed by state
and local education standards.

E. The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic
Freedom Act shall only protect the teaching of scientific
information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or
nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a
particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote
discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. The intent
of the provisions of this act is to create an environment in which
both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the
facts and observations of science, and the assumptions that underlie
their interpretation.

i.e. if the question is "According to Darwin's theory of evolution, from what animal species did man emerge?"  The correct answer would be Primate, no matter what the student's religious belief.  The bill does not protect students from the requirement of learning scientific theories and being tested on those theories.

What the bill does protect students from is the supposition of fact.  No mater what scientific theory you ascribe to, one thing that all intelligent scientists will claim is that there is quite a difference between science theory and science fact.

Currently, my daughter is learning all about the dangers of Global Warming, but her teacher is very wise to point out that it is one of many climate theories.  35 years ago, she would have been learning about the dangers of global cooling.  Perhaps in another 20 years it will be Global Chillin. 

When I was in HS, I learned about the theory of evolution and that we were decedent from apes.  We even had that little picture with the monkey-chimp-ape-caveman-man walking through evolution picture.  Now that theory has been revised to illustrate that we did not evolve FROM apes, but we both evolved from a common and unknown ancestor, but took branching evolutionary paths.  No doubt in another decade or two that will be revised again.

Revisions and improvements in scientific theory are not spurred by those who are taught the theories as facts that must simply be accepted.  On the contrary, scientific advances come from minds willing to challenge accepted scientific theory, and test new hypotheses.

This bill prevents the establishment of "Science Fact" in the minds of children, and encourages an understanding that the foundation of science is theory, and those theories are meant to be challenged.

Personally, I am quite amazed this came from the desk of Sally Kerns.

Don't allow the media to tug on your nose-ring.

[Townsend]

i.e. if the question is "According to Darwin's theory of evolution, from what animal species did man emerge?"  The correct answer would be Primate, no matter what the student's religious belief.  The bill does not protect students from the requirement of learning scientific theories and being tested on those theories.

What the bill does protect students from is the supposition of fact.  No mater what scientific theory you ascribe to, one thing that all intelligent scientists will claim is that there is quite a difference between science theory and science fact.

Currently, my daughter is learning all about the dangers of Global Warming, but her teacher is very wise to point out that it is one of many climate theories.  35 years ago, she would have been learning about the dangers of global cooling.  Perhaps in another 20 years it will be Global Chillin. 

When I was in HS, I learned about the theory of evolution and that we were decedent from apes.  We even had that little picture with the monkey-chimp-ape-caveman-man walking through evolution picture.  Now that theory has been revised to illustrate that we did not evolve FROM apes, but we both evolved from a common and unknown ancestor, but took branching evolutionary paths.  No doubt in another decade or two that will be revised again.

Revisions and improvements in scientific theory are not spurred by those who are taught the theories as facts that must simply be accepted.  On the contrary, scientific advances come from minds willing to challenge accepted scientific theory, and test new hypotheses.

This bill prevents the establishment of "Science Fact" in the minds of children, and encourages an understanding that the foundation of science is theory, and those theories are meant to be challenged.

Personally, I am quite amazed this came from the desk of Sally Kerns.

Don't allow the media to tug on your nose-ring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5]

Religious based beliefs are not scientific theories.

[Gaspar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Religious based beliefs are not scientific theories.

Nowhere does the bill establish that or make any assertion to that effect.  In fact is states the contrary in section E.

Come on folks, it's only 4 pages.

[Townsend]

Nowhere does the bill establish that or make any assertion to that effect.  In fact is states the contrary in section E.

Come on folks, it's only 4 pages.

You -

No mater what scientific theory you ascribe to, one thing that all intelligent scientists will claim is that there is quite a difference between science theory and science fact.

What differentiating scientific theories were you referring to?

[Gaspar]

You -
What differentiating scientific theories were you referring to?

Global Warming for instance. . .I understand it, but I don't believe it to be fact. 

Hubble's law of cosmic expansion. . . I find it a bit too simple in that it only accounts for a single dimensional plane. 

Evolution. . .again, there needs to be further science, especially in the realm of mutation.  New theories suggest that very fast mutations as response to dramatic environment changes may be more influential than the slow changes over millennia.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. . .I think it is vastly incomplete because there is no solid thread between probability and observation. 

There are lots of theories, and there are lots of laws and even some facts.  The idea is that the theories are meant to be challenged, the laws are designed to be general, and the facts are proven. 

[Townsend]

Global Warming for instance. . .I understand it, but I don't believe it to be fact.  

Hubble's law of cosmic expansion. . . I find it a bit too simple in that it only accounts for a single dimensional plane.  

Evolution. . .again, there needs to be further science, especially in the realm of mutation.  New theories suggest that very fast mutations as response to dramatic environment changes may be more influential than the slow changes over millennia.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. . .I think it is vastly incomplete because there is no solid thread between probability and observation.  

There are lots of theories, and there are lots of laws and even some facts.  The idea is that the theories are meant to be challenged, the laws are designed to be general, and the facts are proven.  

Really?  You were referring to all of these in your statement.  This is what you had in mind at the time you typed.  Nice job looking around on the interwebs.

Anyway, you and I will never agree.  This attempt was obviously trying to allow legally teaching creationist ideas in the Oklahoma classrooms.

[Gaspar]

Really?  You were referring to all of these in your statement.  This is what you had in mind at the time you typed.  Nice job looking around on the interwebs.

Anyway, you and I will never agree.  This attempt was obviously trying to allow legally teaching creationist ideas in the Oklahoma classrooms.

Actually the bill states the opposite.

E. The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic
Freedom Act shall only protect the teaching of scientific
information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or
nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a
particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote
discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. The intent
of the provisions of this act is to create an environment in which
both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the
facts and observations of science, and the assumptions that underlie
their interpretation.

All you have to do is read. 

Anywhoo, the bill is flawed because of the moronic section 4.

Carry on.

[Townsend]

Anywhoo

And so we go with this guy's thoughts over yours.

Writing in The Oklahoma Daily (March 6, 2013), Richard E. Broughton, Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Oklahoma, described HB 1674 as "a 'Trojan horse' bill specifically crafted by an out-of-state, religious think tank to open the door for the teaching of religious or political views in school science classes. This is clearly understood by everyone familiar with the bill on both sides. HB 1674 would write false claims about science into state law, contradicting the wealth of scientific evidence, our own curriculum standards and the expertise of Oklahoma's scientists and teachers." He concluded, "Passage of this bill will damage the education of our students, diminish the ability to attract scientifically-based industries to Oklahoma and will likely lead to costly lawsuits over constitutionality."

http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/second-antiscience-bill-dies-oklahoma-0014767