"Monkey bill" passes Tennessee Senate

"The Senate approved a bill Monday evening that deals with teaching of evolution and other scientific theories," the Knoxville News-Sentinel (March 19, 2012) reported, adding, "Critics call it a 'monkey bill' that promotes creationism in classrooms." The bill in question is Senate Bill 893, which, if enacted, would encourage teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of "controversial" topics such as "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

Among those expressing opposition to the bill are the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, the American Institute for Biological Sciences, the Knoxville News Sentinel, the Nashville Tennessean, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, the National Earth Science Teachers Association, and the Tennessee Science Teachers Association, whose president Becky Ashe described (PDF) the legislation as "unnecessary, anti-scientific, and very likely unconstitutional."

The Senate vote was 24-8. According to the Tennesseean (March 20, 2012), Andy Berke (D-District 10) "noted the state’s history as a battleground over evolution — the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 drew national attention and inspired the Oscar-winning film Inherit the Wind — and said the measure would cast Tennessee in a bad light." Berke also objected that the bill would encourage inappropriate discussions of religious matters, saying, "If my children ask, ‘How does that mesh with my faith?’ I don’t want their teacher answering that question."

The bill now proceeds to the House of Representatives, which passed the counterpart House Bill 368 on April 7, 2011. SB 893 was amended in committee before it passed the Senate, however, so the two houses of the legislature will have to resolve the discrepancies between the bills. Tennessee's governor Bill Haslam previously indicated that he would discuss the bill with the state board of education, telling the Tennesseean (March 19, 2012), "It is a fair question what the General Assembly’s role is ... That’s why we have a state board of education."

snowdog wrote:Teachers should already be giving the strengths and weaknesses of any theory. Far too many times though, in classrooms I've been in, teachers would try and pawn of the theory of evolution as fact and not give the other side. I think there are many merits to micro-evolution but there is a lot left to be desired with macro-evolution. I honestly don't have any strong feelings one way or the other in regards to evolution vs creationism. Right now I'd fall more in line with a creator although it wouldn't be the biblical creation story.

snowdog wrote:Teachers should already be giving the strengths and weaknesses of any theory. Far too many times though, in classrooms I've been in, teachers would try and pawn of the theory of evolution as fact and not give the other side. I think there are many merits to micro-evolution but there is a lot left to be desired with macro-evolution. I honestly don't have any strong feelings one way or the other in regards to evolution vs creationism. Right now I'd fall more in line with a creator although it wouldn't be the biblical creation story.

Toot wrote:I dont have a problem with them teaching it just as long as they make it VERY clear that it is a theory and not a fact

Toot wrote:Lol...whats that supposed to imply?

Stovepipe wrote:I'm curious, so you fall in line with a creator based on what, your feelings? That is perfectly fine, but in a science classroom I can't think of any logical reason at all why the science of evolution shouldn't be taught. If there are weaker areas of the science then of course, that should be illustrated as well, that is what science is all about. If there is scientific evidence of a creator then that should be part of the curriculum as well. I just don't see how this issue of evolution in the classroom is even up for debate in the year 2012.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:I'm curious, so you fall in line with a creator based on what, your feelings? That is perfectly fine, but in a science classroom I can't think of any logical reason at all why the science of evolution shouldn't be taught. If there are weaker areas of the science then of course, that should be illustrated as well, that is what science is all about. If there is scientific evidence of a creator then that should be part of the curriculum as well. I just don't see how this issue of evolution in the classroom is even up for debate in the year 2012.

I'm not saying they should teach creationism or a creator. I'm saying there are some teachers that I have had that teach evolution as if it is 100% legit. What I'm saying is, teachers should give the good with the bad on the theory of evolution (which it looks like we agree on). I think the lack of scientific evidence for a "big bangish" type event leads to the ultimate conclusion of there being some type of creator.

As for the bill itself, I see some merit to it but I don't think it was necessary. Like one person said in the article, it is probably something that could have been handled by the board of education.

jmundie wrote:Evolution is an accepted theory. Which means, it probably isn't exactly right, but it explains a lot. Almost all of our knowledge of biology comes from the theory of evolution being at its core. Just like Einsteins Theory of Relativity is at the core of our physics. It's probably not 100% true, cause this stuff is complex, but it yields a basis by which we build science and discover new stuff.

Focusing on the idea that something is a "theory" as a means of saying other hypothesises have equal scientific validity is moronic, and par for the course in our backwards tennessee legislature (I'm looking at you Stacey Campfield and your disastrous grammar and spelling, your oppressive backwards laws against homosexuals, and your general disdain for anyone who has actually come to a conclusion based on reason and logic)

Evolution is not 100% settled, but most of its conclusions are backed up by evidence, so in my opinion, its ok to talk about it in a mostly fact based setting, just like we do with the theory of relativity.

That being said, origins of life, a question that evolution doesn't even attempt to answer, despite the strawmen seeking fundamentalists desires, is a philosophical and theological one as much as it is a scientific one. And the big bang is a possible idea for how life formed, but until it can be replicated in a lab, or shown through fossil evidence, it remains more out there than the idea of macro evolution.

That being said - I like to think I'm devoted to following Jesus, yet I don't fear science or its conclusions and I don't reject them. The bible was never meant to be a science textbook, and trying to read it that way is like reading the yellow pages for spiritual insight.

jmundie wrote:And the big bang is a possible idea for how life formed, but until it can be replicated in a lab, or shown through fossil evidence, it remains more out there than the idea of macro evolution.

snowdog wrote:

jmundie wrote:And the big bang is a possible idea for how life formed, but until it can be replicated in a lab, or shown through fossil evidence, it remains more out there than the idea of macro evolution.

Probably be a good idea not to replicate the big bang.

Toot wrote:All aspects of gravity have been proven to my knowledge

Toot wrote:All aspects of gravity have been proven to my knowledge