# Promote critical thinking? Or introduce religion into science class? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 11, 2012, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443 "2012-04-11T06:19:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/21 "2012-04-11T11:21:23Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I’m tutoring a college student–one significantly older than I am. She blew my mind when she said that she doesn’t “believe” in dinosaurs and frequently informs her professors about this. “How do we know that those bones are actually bones or that they don’t belong to elephants!” The problem here is definitely widespread. It’s not that these aren’t good questions, it’s that they’re not _used_ as questions. The individual doesn’t actually want the answer, isn’t going to find out the answer, and above all doesn’t want you to give it to them. You see it with accusations of liberal bias in the media—it’s not used as a stepping stone to a program or social pressure that will reform news, it’s just a snide remark. You see it with the “broccoli” question in the health care debate. You see it in evolution and its associated side-debates like carbon dating. You see it in climate change talk. People raise points that deserve followup and ask questions whose answers are illuminating, but they don’t do it for the followup or illumination. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/22 "2012-04-11T11:25:25Z")
There is only a limited amount of time in the school year to attempt to teach what is in the textbook, and measures like these will make it even harder to get through them. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/23 "2012-04-11T12:46:15Z")
> [@Mekhazzio](#): > > When there are this many people that go through the full education system and still misunderstand it on a fundamental level, there’s clearly something wrong somewhere. Well, there’s a sophisticated and active _miseducation_ system fighting to create that misunderstanding. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that it has an effect. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/24 "2012-04-11T13:58:57Z")
To attack this from the other angle - do you think the practice of teaching the scientific method, of teaching how to critically analyze a theory, isn’t currently permitted? Of course it is. The problem that this legislation purports to rectify doesn’t exist. So then what’s the actual purpose of the legislation? Just think about that when you say “oh, teaching critical thinking to analyze scientific theories, sure, that sounds good…” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/25 "2012-04-11T14:11:49Z")
We already have the SCOTUS telling us we can’t teach Creationism or ID in schools. What is it that they want to teach, consistent with that decision, concerning evolution? I agree with Blake that most teachers, especially those at the elementary school level, are not equipped to challenge the established scientific theories like evolution. Better to offer a “critical thinking” class in HS that looks at all subjects, not just science. Let’s teach the tykes the science stuff they need to know. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/26 "2012-04-11T14:25:16Z")
[“This bill prohibits the state board of education and any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or principal or administrator from prohibiting 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, such as evolution and global warming.”](http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=HB0368&ga=107) Read that and tell me it’s a coincidence they list a bunch of scientific “controversies” that religious conservatives are opposed to in evolution, abiogenesis, and global warming. And get a whiff of the doublespeak about teaching theories “in an objective manner.” > [@Bemused](#): > > Clearly, there are those who are afraid this is a backdoor attempt to get creationism into the science class. Are they right? Is this all this bill is? Of course it is. [This Washington Post column](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/tennessee-back-to-the-future-with-new-anti-evolution-law/2012/04/11/gIQAJb7g9S_blog.html) notes that the biggest lobbyist for the bill specifically talks about it protecting teachers who bring up intelligent design. I appreciate that you want science to be taught properly, but I think the Creationists who support this bill would you as the equivalent of a useful idiot. It’s still a struggle to get evolution taught in science classes in some states, and bills like this are part of the reason. They’re not going to augment science classes with logic classes or deepen the teaching of evolution. They just want to be able to teach their distorted version of evolution and talk up Biblical creation in science classes. > [@Bemused](#): > > So is there merit to this? Or is TN about to return to 1925? I’d say 1850. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/27 "2012-04-11T15:33:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We already have the SCOTUS telling us we can’t teach Creationism or ID in schools. What is it that they want to teach, consistent with that decision, concerning evolution? I agree with Blake that most teachers, especially those at the elementary school level, are not equipped to challenge the established scientific theories like evolution. Better to offer a “critical thinking” class in HS that looks at all subjects, not just science. > > Let’s teach the tykes the science stuff they need to know. Indeed, science classes should concentrate on the best up to date discoveries and research, not on unsupported pseudo-science. As a personal note I had to say that I do substitute work at a local school on occasion, and recently I had to teach a class on the scientific method, now of course there is a way to still give good scores to students that on the whole still think that horoscopes, UFOs, and other cable special nonsense makes a controversy, what is important is that they learn what is what scientists and experts say and that they are aware that when they grow up that what they still believe is very likely to affect them if they decide to go to fields where the pseudo-science will be a drag on their development or advancement in that field. More relevant to them is that as future voters they do have a duty to be well informed of who actually has the support of the evidence on controversial topics. And that leads us to the current efforts to let pseudo-science get into the science class. BTW the bill is called the Teacher Protection and Academic Freedom Bill. And yes, that does ring a bell, it is the old wedge strategy: [http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/04/academic\_freedom\_bills\_be\_alar.php](http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/04/academic_freedom_bills_be_alar.php) > [@](#): > > “Academic Freedom” bills seem to come in two flavors: Those that protect students from the possibility of learning certain things, and those that protect subversive teachers from getting in trouble for being bad teachers. In both cases, they are bills typically introduced into state legislatures by conservative republicans expressing concern with the Liberal Bias. There is a vague institutional connection between the concept of Academic Freedom Bills and the organization founded by conservative David Horowitz, “Students for Academic Freedom.” The motto of this organization is “You can’t get a good education if they’re only telling you half the story.” > > The core idea of this form of “Academic Freedom” is this: David Horowitz and his ilk define certain issues, or positions on issues, as legitimate perspectives even if the preponderance of evidence denies this legitimacy. > > …. > > Evolution or Darwinism has never explained the evolution of a single species, nature is too complex to be explained by Natural Selection, and “alternative theories” such as Intelligent Design Creationism are at least as valid as the Theory of Evolution. And so on. > > Both of these assertions contain aspects that politicize the issue at hand, and to varying degrees, inject religious belief into the relevant science. > > … > > The “academic freedom” laws are obviously written with language that can appear to be liberal-minded and helpful to both faculty and students. This is in a sense an implementation of the Wedge Strategy; Standards, policies, or legislation that appear to be protective of good education are introduced, whereby the language of these documents creates very permeable loopholes through which religious instruction or politically motivated ideas can easily pass. > > This is of course absurd. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects students from the imposition of religious instruction in public institutions. But the “Academic Freedom” movement insists on conservative, typically evangelical Christian dogma as part of the “spectrum of scholarly viewpoints.” Political movements or organizations are prohibited from using certain venues to promote their causes, but the “Academic Freedom” movement defines certain purely political views as being part of the “spectrum of scholarly viewpoints.” If every single administrator, teacher, everyone else involved in education, was uninterested in imposing Right-Wing religious or political beliefs on the students, then the wording of the Academic Freedom Bills would be irrelevant. They do not typically insist on any particular viewpoint being covered in the coursework. But any given teacher, administrator, or student who wishes to exploit the wording of these documents to indurate the educational process with Christian Fundamentalism or Right Wing Politics is suddenly, under these rules, allowed to do so. That is the Wedge Strategy. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/28 "2012-04-11T15:46:34Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > Or stomp it into submission? With great vehemence and satisfaction. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/29 "2012-04-11T16:02:56Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > But how many teachers do you think will actually be aware that speciation has been observed taking place? Or be able to explain the evolution of the eye? Lacking that knowledge they are going to “help students critique scientific weaknesses” in evolution by trotting out those exact chestnuts that are not in fact weaknesses at all. Er, me, for one. I mean, when I student-taught in fourth grade (the elementary grade in which animal adaptations appear), I taught them about the HMS Beagle and about Darwin’s journey, and I taught them about a recent news case in which crickets responded to the introduction of a predator bird species in Hawaii with a couple of delightful adaptations. I didn’t teach them about observed speciation, but I gave them a basic understanding of the mechanism of natural selection; and while I couldn’t right now tell you much about the evolution of the eye except to talk about light-sensitive cells on primitive aquatic organisms that aid in orienting the creature in water, I could certainly talk about eye evolution if it became necessary. [Edit: I’m on my lunch break, and it took me about 30 seconds to find a link to the relevant talkorigins article; ironically I couldn’t read it, as my webfilter blocks it as “political”. Consider the evolution of these eyes: :rolleyes:] I’m just saying, your brush is a little too broad. I do think that inquiry-based science in the way to go for almost all subjects (it’s a little hard to do inquiry-based science during the school-day when you’re working with astornomy, but even then it’s possible to do some stuff). However, as others have said, inquiry-based science doesn’t mean presenting students with a series of canned, dishonest objections to evolution. It means helping students ask real-world questions and then helping them figure out how to use rigorous scientific methods to find the answers to their questions. It’s orthagonal to the stuff being discussed in Tennessee, as near as I can tell. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/30 "2012-04-11T16:05:20Z")
I’m all for a special class devoted to explaining what utter nonsense ID is, and why it doesn’t even qualify as science. If that’s what this bill is about, I’m behind it 100%! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/31 "2012-04-11T16:25:34Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I appreciate that you want science to be taught properly, but I think the Creationists who support this bill would you as the equivalent of a useful idiot. It’s still a struggle to get evolution taught in science classes in some states, and bills like this are part of the reason. They’re not going to augment science classes with logic classes or deepen the teaching of evolution. They just want to be able to teach their distorted version of evolution and talk up Biblical creation in science classes. The question will be what happens to a student, who when the teacher is supportive of ID or some other crap, says “bull shit!” (Politely, of course.) Are they going to support both sides, or will nonsense be a protected class. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/32 "2012-04-11T16:28:44Z")
This bill is about as necessary as the ones forbidding Sharia law from being enacted. Teachers can teach controversy in science. They just can’t teach religion in science. Creationism and ID are religion, not science. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/33 "2012-04-11T16:28:51Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The question will be what happens to a student, who when the teacher is supportive of ID or some other crap, says “bull shit!” (Politely, of course.) Are they going to support both sides, or will nonsense be a protected class. The law says nothing about students. It only “protects” teachers from boards of education, administrators, and related officials who might want to point out that intelligent design isn’t science. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/34 "2012-04-11T16:31:34Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The law says nothing about students. It only “protects” teachers from boards of education, administrators, and related officials who might want to point out that intelligent design isn’t science. I know. But their supposed dedication to free and open discussion would be put to the test, wouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/35 "2012-04-11T16:33:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > This bill is about as necessary as the ones forbidding Sharia law from being enacted. > > Teachers can teach controversy in science. They just can’t teach religion in science. Creationism and ID are religion, not science. When I was in school we learned creationism. We also learned phlogiston and spontaneous generation. Not teaching that people used to believe in these things would be a mistake, but teaching that it still makes sense to do so would be a bigger one. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/36 "2012-04-11T16:34:08Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I know. But their supposed dedication to free and open discussion would be put to the test, wouldn’t it? Almost every word in this sentence should be in sarcastic quotes. ---
**Author:** ![yanceylebeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yanceylebeef/32/12290_2.png) [@yanceylebeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yanceylebeef)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/37 "2012-04-11T19:36:34Z")
Sigh. I really REALLY thought that after [Dover v. Kitzmiller](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) that schools and school boards specifically would shy away from these kinds of shenanigans. This is going to cost the district and the taxpayers a bundle, and then it will be thrown out by the courts. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/38 "2012-04-11T20:59:16Z")
> [@yanceylebeef](#): > > Sigh. I really REALLY thought that after [Dover v. Kitzmiller](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) that schools and school boards specifically would shy away from these kinds of shenanigans. > > This is going to cost the district and the taxpayers a bundle, and then it will be thrown out by the courts. And I see the same ending for this bill, using history as a guide the test for this will eventually come and they will lose in the courts. The cynical in me wants to think that they are smart enough to not press their luck and virtually nothing will change, and that is the reason why most political critters voted for it. Unfortunately, history tells me that many IDrs, climate change deniers, anti-vaccine people, homeopaths, chiropractors and the like are not so clever and they \*\*will \*\*push their luck and force others or themselves to take it to the courts, it would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that it is likely that millions in lawyers fees will be wasted by the time this is over. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/39 "2012-04-11T21:06:04Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Almost every word in this sentence should be in sarcastic quotes. If I ever started watching Fox News, I think I would mount sarcastic quotes on either side of my TV. If these clowns ever got exposed to real critical thinking, their heads would explode. I’m not seeing the downside of this besides the cleanup effort myself. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/40 "2012-04-11T21:57:45Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’m not seeing the downside of this besides the cleanup effort myself. Easy for you to say – my kids are in TN public school, so it’s a little more concerning. I did post on FB that I was glad teachers would be free to teach about phlogiston and bodily humors as valid scientific theories though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443.md?page=3)