Why I can't return to Tennessee | Hacker News Reader

Why I can't return to Tennessee

wgrover.com

18 pointswgrover12 comments

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"

Thanks - I wasn't as specific as I should have been because this was originally written as a "letter to the editor" for a couple newspapers, so I tried to keep things short. I'll make some edits accordingly.

For me, what's troubling is the language in the bill that "the teaching of some subjects, including... biological evolution... can cause controversy." The bill's authors aren't referring to any real subtle controversy about the fine details of evolution, they're referring to some controversy about the fundamental validity of evolution, a controversy that just doesn't exist.

Teaching students critical thinking is of course hugely important, and that's what makes this bill so threatening. In the guise of "encouraging critical thinking" the bill allows teachers to teach creationism, or flat-earth-ism, or whatever other unsupported pseudoscience they like. There are plenty of real debates in the scientific community that make excellent examples for teaching critical thinking - there's no need to invent fake debates.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

[2] http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-09/debate-over-how...

But that's not what your letter said. Your letter said that the passage of the bill makes clear "folks like me aren't welcome in Tennessee anymore". Can't you see that is ridiculous hyperbole? How can we have civil debates in this country when a mild bit of meddling in the teaching of hot-button issues by a state legislature provokes that kind of rhetoric?

This isn't exactly the Scopes trial.

Thanks twoodfin, and point taken. "Science education has no value in Tennessee" is of course hyperbole too. I tried to clarify these with the last paragraph ("I know that Tennesseans really do value science...") with debatable success.

I disagree that the bill is merely a "mild bit of meddling," but I'll remember your admonition about civil debate when writing missives in the future.

The part you're not catching there, is that it is a way to teach Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory in classrooms.[1]

[1] http://www.chattanoogan.com/2011/2/21/195128/David-Fowler-Ma...

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com