To me that is the interesting question here.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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)?
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.
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?
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?
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.
Scopes was found guilty but the verdict was overturned on a technicality. Not exactly a “win”.
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.
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.
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.
I think he’s just saying the law is so vague that it doesn’t really do anything, and he may be right.
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
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: