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.
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.
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.
"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.
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...
This isn't exactly the Scopes trial.
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.
[1] http://www.chattanoogan.com/2011/2/21/195128/David-Fowler-Ma...