# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/41 "2012-04-11T22:10:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We already have the SCOTUS telling us we can’t teach Creationism or ID in schools. To me that is the interesting question here. > [@](#): > > In recent years, the Discovery Institute, an intelligent-design advocacy group based in Seattle, Washington, has championed this approach as a strategic way around a prohibition on promoting religion in US public schools. That barrier, based on the separation of church and state in the US constitution, has thwarted previous efforts to mandate the teaching of creationism-like alternatives alongside evolution but it has not yet been tested against an ‘academic freedom’ law. The Tennessee measure is only the second such law to be passed in the United States — Louisiana enacted the first in 2008 — but ten states have considered them in the past two years. > > SOURCE: [Tennessee ‘monkey bill’ becomes law | Nature](http://www.nature.com/news/tennessee-monkey-bill-becomes-law-1.10423) As noted the attempts to insert ID into schools has been shot down repeatedly in the past. So now they are trying to open the door for it while not explicitly stating that they want to insert religion into science. Will the courts buy it? (I hope not.) ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/42 "2012-04-11T23:45:02Z")
> [@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. Except going by the linked stories, that is not what the statute actually does, because it only protects teachers who point out “scientific weaknesses”. It isn’t going to protect teachers who “point out” weaknesses that are religiously based. And, Og willing, the first court this issue comes before is going to point this out, to the detriment of the fundie teacher who tries to rely upon it. ---
**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 12, 2012, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/43 "2012-04-12T00:09:27Z")
Eh, these are people that think “entropy means things can’t get more complex over time” is a scientific weakness of evolution, so certainly they’re not actually discussing scientific weaknesses. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/44 "2012-04-12T03:21:10Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Eh, these are people that think “entropy means things can’t get more complex over time” is a scientific weakness of evolution, so certainly they’re not actually discussing scientific weaknesses. Exactly. So let’s say a teacher attempts this argument on their pupils. School board says “you are incompetent, bye bye”. Teacher says “statute says you can’t sack me because I am just teaching the pupils a scientific weakness”. School board says “We aren’t sacking you because you are teaching a scientific weakness, we are A-OK with that. We are sacking you because any teacher who can’t even recite the complete second law of thermodynamics isn’t fit to teach science.” Court, Og willing, says “we agree”. Goodbye, Teach. ---
**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 12, 2012, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/45 "2012-04-12T03:28:41Z")
You assume that someone knows they’re being taught bullshit, and that they’re motivated enough to take it to court, and that they have standing to sue, and that the court is competant to judge scientific relevance, and - even with a good result - we’re looking at tax money spent on lawsuits. This is the ideal case. Why not just reject the law instead? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/46 "2012-04-12T03:39:24Z")
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not supportive of the law at all, I’m just pointing out that it is likely to be overturned and/or be ineffective at achieving fundie goals. My impression based on what little I know of past such issues is that there is a sufficient of a core of people (even if they are in the minority) who feel strongly enough about fundie inroads into science that these things are taken to court. And at least from what little I know, so far the pro-science forces are 2 for 2 on wins aren’t they (Scopes trial, ID trial)? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/47 "2012-04-12T04:07:36Z")
In other news, nearby Kentucky passed a law requiring all chemistry classes give equal weight to the controversial EWAF theory. They must post, next to the periodic table, an equal-sized chart showing the four classic elements Earth, Water, Air and Fire. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/48 "2012-04-12T04:29:58Z")
I see a slight difference between this law and _Dover._ The Dover school board _required_ teaching intelligent design. This one only permits it. How might this play out if it comes to trial? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/49 "2012-04-12T05:11:40Z")
As I’ve been saying, I don’t think it does permit teaching intelligent design. Why do you think it does? Do you think ID shows “objective” and “scientific” weaknesses in evolution? Of course you don’t. ---
**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 12, 2012, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/50 "2012-04-12T05:28:50Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > As I’ve been saying, I don’t think it does permit teaching intelligent design. Why do you think it does? Do you think ID shows “objective” and “scientific” weaknesses in evolution? Of course you don’t. Okay, let’s do this the other way - what does this law allow that isn’t currently permitted? Do you think that teachers are unable to explain the process of scientific inquiry to students, and that this law would allow them to? No, of course not, they can teach the scientific method, and actual scientific controversies are part of normal teaching. Who, then, needs this law? Just people who want to add an extra layer of protection to people who want to teach bullshit. You say that ID doesn’t show “objective” and “scientific” weaknesses, but they sure do. Look at the talkorigins link I posted up thread - they have dozens of arguments that they feel are scientific, even if they’re easily debunked and actually unscientific. I haven’t read the entire language of the bill, but there’s almost certainly a deliberate ambiguity in the language to protect teachers who teach bullshit, otherwise why pass this law? If it passes, the creationist folks would consider it a victory. Since it has no upside (science classes already teach scientific inquiry, this law doesn’t help that), and only downside (embolden and possibly protect the teaching of unscientific bullshit), what possible case can be made to pass it? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/51 "2012-04-12T09:41:03Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Okay, let’s do this the other way - what does this law allow that isn’t currently permitted? Quite probably nothing. You seem to be operating on the premise that politicians don’t pass laws to pander to their constituency, knowing that their constituency probably won’t understand that the law won’t actually change anything and/or will probably be struck down by courts anyway. This premise is, of course, to laugh. As John Mace said above, the bill is probably like those passed to prevent the imposition of sharia law in the US. Was anyone going to impose sharia law? No. Did that stop some politician pandering to the boneheaded assumptions of some of their constituents? No. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/52 "2012-04-12T13:14:43Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > And at least from what little I know, so far the pro-science forces are 2 for 2 on wins aren’t they (Scopes trial, ID trial)? Scopes was found guilty but the verdict was overturned on a technicality. Not exactly a “win”. > [@](#): > > Nevertheless, having found the statute to be constitutional, the court set aside the conviction on appeal because of a legal technicality: the jury should have decided the fine, not the judge, since under the state constitution, Tennessee judges could not at that time set fines above $50, and the Butler Act specified a minimum fine of $100. > > SOURCE: [Scopes trial - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial#Appeal_to_Supreme_Court_of_Tennessee) ---
**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 12, 2012, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/53 "2012-04-12T13:56:14Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > I see a slight difference between this law and _Dover._ The Dover school board _required_ teaching intelligent design. This one only permits it. How might this play out if it comes to trial? Same result. It wasn’t the requirement that was the key in _Dover_, it was the religious content. Whether it’s taught as a requirement or at the teacher’s whim, it’s still religion. The only proper way to insert ID into a science class is to use it as an example of what science isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/54 "2012-04-12T15:26:16Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > As I’ve been saying, I don’t think it does permit teaching intelligent design. Why do you think it does? Do you think ID shows “objective” and “scientific” weaknesses in evolution? Of course you don’t. Are you making a distinction between Intelligent Design and Creation Science? I’m not. “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.” I’ll admit that is (probably deliberately) ambigious, but it seems (weasel words) to allow or encourage “alternative” explanations to evolution. The language used here is devilishly close to that used by IDers. I think the bill’s crafters meant to straddle the line and not explicitly state what they really meant. Which suggests that it may end up in court with a Dover-like trial. Hopefully there is another Judge Jones out there. ---
**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 12, 2012, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/55 "2012-04-12T16:23:49Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Scopes was found guilty but the verdict was overturned on a technicality. Not exactly a “win”. Actually the loss was that the verdict was overturned. Everyone knew that Scopes was going to be convicted - he was clearly guilty under the terms of the law. The plan was to appeal it high enough to get the law declared unconstitutional. That didn’t happen because the conviction was overturned on other grounds. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/56 "2012-04-12T16:26:38Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Are you making a distinction between Intelligent Design and Creation Science? I’m not. I think he’s just saying the law is so vague that it doesn’t really do anything, and he may be right. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/57 "2012-04-12T16:36:38Z")
In a vacuum, I don’t have a problem with the text of bill at all. Unfortunately, we couldn’t survive in a vacuum. I learned that in science class. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Capt\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/58 "2012-04-12T16:46:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > In a vacuum, I don’t have a problem with the text of bill at all. Unfortunately, we couldn’t survive in a vacuum. I learned that in science class. 🙂 Nice, I wonder what the rest of the World thinks about this, do they look at us and go “Oh S\*\*\*, the most powerful nation on Earth is intentionally making itself dumber” need to ask my German friends:p ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/59 "2012-04-12T16:54:46Z")
> [@Becky2844](#): > > Being from TN originally, I was disappointed and embarrassed by this at first. Then I thought about what I’ve learned since being on the Dope, and personally, I don’t think truth fears questions. That’s how we learn. Being in TN now I am regularly embaressed by why we’re in the national news. Fortunately AZ is in close competition for first place. ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Capt\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443/60 "2012-04-12T17:16:23Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Being in TN now I am regularly embaressed by why we’re in the national news. Fortunately AZ is in close competition for first place. Don’t forget my great state Texas, we are hurdling towards the 12th century with gusto:eek: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/promote-critical-thinking-or-introduce-religion-into-science-class/618443.md?page=4)