Revamped "Anti-Science" Education Bills in U.S. Finally

Back-door approach

>The Florida legislation, for example, does not try to change state or district education standards. Instead, it enables any tax-paying resident of a given county to file complaints about the curriculum of the schools in their district. A complaint would trigger a public hearing to determine if the material in question is “accurate, balanced, noninflammatory, current, free of pornography … and suited to students’ needs”, according to the legislation.

>“But who decides what ‘balanced’ and ‘noninflammatory’ mean?” asks Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, based in New York City. Currently, instructional materials come from an approved list provided by the state, she says.

>State Representative Byron Donalds (Republican, Florida District 80), who sponsored the bill, does not think that it is anti-science. Instead, he says, it gives parents the power to hold school districts accountable for what their children are learning. “One of the key things about this bill, and why I think it passed, is that we didn’t target any one subject matter.”

>But to Branch, it seems clear what sorts of issues might come up. “The people pushing the bill have been complaining about evolution and climate change,” he says. “It’s obvious that a strong motivation is getting that out of the textbooks.”

>Many groups, including the NCSE, Florida teachers’ organizations and local school boards, have called for Governor Rick Scott to veto the bill; without his approval, it will not become law. But science advocates say that a veto doesn’t seem likely given Scott’s known beliefs — such as his scepticism about climate change.

>Branch worries that the success of the Florida bill could open the door to measures in other states that adopt the same back-door approach to altering science education by means of broader academic censorship.

Missing information

>Already this year, Indiana and Alabama have both passed non-binding legislation urging teachers to embrace academic freedom. Although they don’t require educators to ‘teach the controversy’ and treat topics including evolution and climate change as scientifically contentious, Branch says that the legislation encourages teachers to “mis-educate” students.

>Other states, including Oklahoma and South Dakota, also introduced academic-freedom bills this year. Oklahoma’s passed in the Senate, but was never voted on in the House, and could be revived next year. South Dakota’s passed in the Senate, but was defeated in the House. Both bills were closer to becoming law than similar state legislation has been in years past.

>Idaho’s House and Senate education committees temporarily altered the state’s science standards in February to remove mentions of human impacts on the environment — including climate change. Those standards could be made permanent in 2018 if the full legislature passes a final review bill.

>Branch says it’s unlikely that more legislation altering state science education standards will be introduced in 2017. Most state-level bills are introduced by late spring. And he’s not sure why these bills now seem more likely to pass. It could be due to renewed anti-evolution and anti-climate change sentiment; confidence that a country led by US president Donald Trump — who has expressed doubts about climate change — is more hospitable to such views; or an increase in climate-change denial. Alternatively, the phenomenon could be a statistical anomaly that will vanish by next year.

>Regardless of the reason, all is not lost, says Branch. “It cuts both ways, I think. The opponents of science education may feel newly invigorated — but so do its defenders.”

I still have images saved from the early 00's about "teach the controversy" jokes for phrenology and astrology and so on.
Seems like a subject that will be tethering us for a while, huh?

>>144332
I don't see how evolution and intelligent design are nessesarily in conflict. One describes the initial act and the other one is a proven process over time.

>>144332
>Anti-Science
So it's science that liberals don't like (biology and climatology)

>>144357
You've got it almost exactly backwards. Evolutionary biology and climatology are science fields that match what liberals are saying.

>>144361
There's only two genders tho

>>144364
This article is about climate change and evolution. I'm not going to get into an argument with you about gender.

>>144369
Ok. But there's only 2 btw

>>144332
>or to present climate change as scientifically contentious
it is though,
sure everyone can agree that were fucked if it gets worse, and other simple things
but theres plenty of details that dont have such agreement.

>>144397
Not climate change itself though.
That's not even a prediction, it's very well established to have been occurring.

The main issue isn't people questioning established science; it's that a primary or secondary school classroom isn't equipped to convincingly challenge scientific consensus on these matters, but a typical student is not likely to know any better. And it's going to be very uncommon that your typical elementary or high school teacher or parent is going to be questioning a curriculum based on expert consensus because they have something scientifically meritorious to add to established science.

I guess it's conceivable that something good could come of leaving it to the discretion of teachers and parents in charge of deciding what "alternatives" to teach and how and to provide "balanced" coverage of material. But very obviously this is going to open the door to abuse in allowing unscientific ideas masquerading as convincing alternatives to fact to be taught to students.

>>144361
>Evolutionary biology
Really? So liberals admit racial differences now?

>>144364
SHIT
>>144385
LORD

>>144429
>Really? So liberals admit racial differences now?
I said liberals admit evolutionary biology, not /pol/ red pills.

>>144436
See you don't like biology, that's what I said in the first place.

How do you think humans evolved on different continents but somehow have the exact same brain? That would make me religious it is so preposterpus.

>>144332
Liberals/leftists are pick and choosy about science.

Theyre like "cafeteria scientists". The science that supports their foundations like environmental sanctity, humanism, and global tolerance get special treatment in the academic world.

If a finding came out tomorrow that had some sort of hard truth that violates this it won't be given any support. Garanteed. Transgender therapy has abysmal results for society and the patient? Bury it.
Homesexuality results in higher rates if STD transmission? Bury it. Islamic countries have the highest rates of incest in the modern world? Nope. Women and men are inclined to different jobs? Nope.

Everything has to be lockstep with the neomarxist world view. Science isn't so much the leftist creedo as it is the veneer of a sick ideology that uses science as a talking point for social change and propoganda.

>>144441
Do you have a single study from an evolutionary biologist that supports what you're saying?

>>144441
>>144449
Because if not, then my earlier point stands. You don't want liberals to be in line with scientific studies, what you're talking about is wanting liberals to be in line with your own personal beliefs.

>>144441
/pol/ idea of evolution assumes so much. Yes, there are ethnic and racial differences in biology. But many of these differences are still poorly understood. Our best understanding of how the brain differs between racial groups is still primarily related to hormones. /pol/ just takes the idea and runs way off to confirm their biases. I should hope that someone scientifically minded, whether left or right, believes that differences in biology exist between racial groups, and that these differences are worth studying. But what we know so far is not nearly enough to make any sort of eugenics theory out of, or to inform policy or sociology.

And even if our knowledge grew to that point it would be nearly impossible to apply this understanding of genetics to sociology.

>>144449
Yes

All of them

>>144460
So you can produce one, or concede your point. Just one study by an evolutionary biologist that supports what you're saying.

>>144455
>>144457
So, yes there are racial differences, but its complicated, and I'm overly racist so there are no racial differences?

>>144465
You're replying to two different people, so I don't really know what to say.

>>144464
What do even think I said, you annoying faggot? Fucking idiot. Are you actually denying there are racial differences?

I only brought that up to mock liberals

>>144468
So you can't produce even one. Do you admit defeat?

>>144467
>I don't really know what to say.
Fantastic. Go away.

>>144470
You are a science denying lunatic, but worst of all, a coward.

>>144473
>a coward.
But you're the one refusing to back up your claims that you're passing off as scientific.

>>144448
>If a finding came out tomorrow that had some sort of hard truth that violates this it won't be given any support. Garanteed. Transgender therapy has abysmal results for society and the patient? Bury it.
>Homesexuality results in higher rates if STD transmission? Bury it. Islamic countries have the highest rates of incest in the modern world? Nope. Women and men are inclined to different jobs? Nope.

what the flying fuck does any of this have to do with teaching evolution and climate change is schools

fuck off retarded trumpkin

>>144475
I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate someone who denies racial differences. It's more better imo to call you the retarded asshole you are.

And another thing, I'm tired of people pretending to be ignorant to bait information out of people. Use your own google.

>>144477
>It's more better imo to call you the retarded asshole you are.
This is turning into the real life equivalent of that ms paint "I AM SILLY!" comic. This is the problem with your side. You always try to act like you're revealing hard truths that others won't admit, and then when called on to back up your claims, you resort to name calling to hide the fact that you have no evidence.

What is wrong with you guys?

What controversy? Why are debating?

We are talking here about primary school. We are talking about saying outloud world is not 5000 years old.

Any many questioning evolution needs to look in their garden. Said the guy who worked on theory of evolution. Who was a priest.

We had this talk 200 years ago.

WTF?

>>144487
Adam and Eve not Adam and STEVE

>>144491
Hearty kek

Good ol fashioned southern education:

https://youtu.be/MpKUBHz6MB4

>>144487
its the left that brought those topics up from what i can see in the article,
probably a distraction to keep people from talking about the nonsense they are trying to introduce into education.

>>144332
Don't really care. Public education shouldn't exist to begin with.

>>144354
Intelligent design is unscientific in that it is not a disprovable hypothesis. You can't prove or disprove a creator deity.

>>144354
depends who you ask. most people wont think too deeply about it, and read between the lines of the bible. Many ultra conservatives however adamantly deny the scientific view because it contradicts what is literally written in the bible.

There's also other outside groups, like jehova's witnesses who believe that when the end times come, Jesus will literally come down, take us to heaven, and we will have better versions of our earthly lives with houses and cars etc in heaven.

>>144361
>Evolutionary biology
>matching liberals

only in that they believe we evolved from apes, considering they deny the basic biology of reproduction and how it is intrinsically tied to gender

>>144509
There's a big difference between fundamentalist Baptists and most Christians. Most don't see a conflict in the US, let alone globally.

Can't make up their minds, can they... these scientists? They keep grasping for one theory after another, while we Christians NEVER waver in our belief that God alone is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. Truth is not relative.... it's absolute.... and Truth's Source is the Holy Scriptures and God. In man, there is no truth ....only lies, deception and deceit.

>>144354
In a classroom environment they're in conflict because intelligent design isn't science. Discuss it in a theology class where it belongs.

>>144527
Nothing is true, everything is permitted. If God is the diviner of truth then nothing is true because God, the omnipotent, decides what is true so everything is permitted. He can change the truth whenever and to whatever so nothing is ever true if everything is always true.

Oh boy, I can't wait for American education to become even more of a laughingstock than it already is. Anything to keep the masses stupid enough to easily control, I guess.

>>144527
>the word of the bible is the one truth
>don't trust in the words of man
The bible was written by fucking mortal human beings you stupid cunt. On top of that, they were a bunch of slave owning, sexist cunts that likely wiped their asses with their left hand. I'll stick to peer reviewed articles in scientific journals. Thanks

>>144624
Slave owning? Sexist? Muslims didn't show up till later

School should encourage other opinions no matter how absurd. It's imperative to help maintain healthy discussion. If there is an idea challenging yours listening to it is the only way to get to the truth. Which is the main goal.

>>144630
see
>>144427

>
The main issue isn't people questioning established science; it's that a primary or secondary school classroom isn't equipped to convincingly challenge scientific consensus on these matters, but a typical student is not likely to know any better. And it's going to be very uncommon that your typical elementary or high school teacher or parent is going to be questioning a curriculum based on expert consensus because they have something scientifically meritorious to add to established science.

>I guess it's conceivable that something good could come of leaving it to the discretion of teachers and parents in charge of deciding what "alternatives" to teach and how and to provide "balanced" coverage of material. But very obviously this is going to open the door to abuse in allowing unscientific ideas masquerading as convincing alternatives to fact to be taught to students.

>>144624
>tips fedora

Oh, wow, I'm sure euphoric.
>>>r/atheism

>>144527
Gr8 b8 m8 I give it an 8/8

If they are not not equipped for this basic nessity then they have no business teaching our children

And evolution if I'm not mistaken is still a theory and not proven

>>144647
So you don't know what a theory is? Got it.

>>144332
AKA the confederacy is pushing the narrative that their products and powers should never be questioned.

>>144647
Yes I do and it's not fact but people like to act like it is.

>>144673
Gravity is a theory too. I wouldn't jump out a plane though.

What is the alternative to evolution any way? What would you teach? 6000 year earth, that is retarded.

>>144681
When I'm talking about gravity though and I'm not trying to validate either point I'm just saying that you should have conflicting arguments it makes for healthy discussion especially in school

Besides falling out of a plane is not Theory what makes you fall out of it is

>>144647
Actually, it's a theory with quite a lot of proof behind it, an idea that may seem strange to you as you don't sound like you know what a scientific theory is.

>>144506
Intelligent design doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution, but the primary story including it, the story of creation, directly conflicts with evolution. In genesis, man was man, there was nothing before that.
Now if that changed and somebody suggested life was seeded on Earth a la Prometheus, that's something that could be a possibility. It's not in any way provable right now, but it's possible.

>>144706
This is one stated before no one is giving me a definition. So please enlighten me. Give me a valid argument instead of an insult

>>144711
Once again I'm not trying to validate creation I'm just saying that it has its place to be discussed in school

>>144713
What argument? You want the scientific definition of a theory you illiterate paste-eating retard? Didn't pay attention in middle-school science class?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Took me all of two seconds to find this. A theory is not just a "guess", it's an idea that has to align with the available observations to continue being accepted. And evolution has mountains of proof in its favor. Carbon dating, fossil records, observation of genetic drift in populations, genetic differences and similarities between species. It's not just A theory, it is THE theory that actually takes into account what we've learned rather than pretending there were dinosaurs in the garden of eden.

>>144725
LMFAO you had to look it up....the augument is it should be included in the discussion

>>144728
Great, you're not just a moron, you're a pedantic moron.

>>144730
Your going to have to do better than that handsome lol:) you tried

>>144731
You're still here? You already got insulted and shown to be wrong, what more are you looking for?

>>144732
Insulted yes
Proven wrong....you've only Bashed intelligent design I'm only saying that it should be included nobody has yet to give me a good reason why not

>>144734
>nobody has yet to give me a good reason why not
Because it's not science. It's religion with a different name. The US government has a responsibility not to enact establishment of religion. Teach kids about the flying spaghetti monster on your own time, and your own dime, not as part of the government which is supposed to be secular.

>>144734
>I'm only saying that it should be included nobody has yet to give me a good reason why not
Give me a good reason why it should be included.

>>144736
It's important to include all view points even if it's stupid so you can have the deepest understanding of a topic. That's all I'm saying.

>>144506
so is "more than 30 genders"
and "man made globa.... I mean climate change"

>>144369
>>144361

Mad made climate change is not settled science. It's not even real science.

>>144734
Intelligent design is not falsifiable. That makes it not science, which means it has no place in science class.
The theory of evolution is falsifiable. If you can show good evidence to contradict it, then it melts. You won't be able to do this though, because way smarter people than you have tried for a long time. Evolution wasn't just accepted, it underwent decades of heavy scrutiny and revision before gaining wide acceptance. If you can show it's wrong then you have a nobel prize in biology waiting for you.

The point of teaching science is teaching objective reasoning skills, and teaching ID as a valid alternative to evolution is contradictory to that. I'm all for teaching how to kill evolution, but just saying you can ignore it is the wrong way to go. We should teach how to form a counter hypothesis, and develop experiments to try and support that hypothesis with evidence. If evidence can be found for the counter hypothesis then that's a weak contradiction to evolution. That hypothesis then needs peer review to become stronger, so fellow classmates can try to kill your hypothesis with their own tests. This is the scientific method and, guess what? It's what science classes already teach. Did you pay attention in school?

I understand all that. What your saying is so far from the point I'm trying to make. I'm not denying any of that. I agree with you. Still, should here the other side is all

>>144740
Explain why you think that.

>>144748
That's the point of school dealing in in dangerous even stupid ideas. Without this very important practice. Your left with dogma. Which stops growth and learning

>>144748
He heard it on AM radio and his pastor confirmed it.

>>144739
Why do you think that you have to believe in the 30 genders if you also accept the scientific consensus on evolution and climate change?

>>144831
As bill nye explains:

Sperm cells are a spectrum. They range from having an x chromosome to a y chromosone.
>mah sex junk is is so oh oh oh

Don't be a bigot.

>>144354
It's likewise not disprovable that all life emerged randomly through single-celled organisms and has not seen occassional intervention from, say, sufficiently advanced aliens. Evolution as a process can be directly observed and provides a potential naturalistic explanation for the emergence of life. It does not posit that it is the only possible path worth considering in terms of origins. People who rant otherwise are natural materialists butthurt that people don't automatically subscribe to their religion.

>>144477
>It's more better
Don't call someone retarded with grammar like that

>>144862
Bill Nye usually doesn't know what he's talking about and is just a media whore. He's no better than those who "raise awareness" about serious issues without actually doing anything about it.

>>144865
Evolution refers specifically to speciation and adaptation through natural selection. The genesis of life is an entirely different matter but the mounds of genetic evidence we have point towards common ancestry for all life.

>>144923
>responding to a false flagger instead of any of the actual arguments
I'm confident you made that post.

>>144927
Then I must be playing the long con because those posts are 8 hours apart.

>>144929
/news/ is a very slow board so yes, you could easily have waited and then replied yourself when you saw your bait wasn't getting any replies.

>>144831
nonsensical gender ideology is being pushed quite hard lately.
progressives treat it just as valid as climate change and evolution.
and its not just some crazy minority either, this shit is already becoming the law in some countries.

>>144715
It doesn't though, because it can be covered in a wide range of places outside of school. Christians hear the story of creation before they attend their first science class. There's no science behind it, so it doesn't belong there.

At best, it would belong in an elective theology class, but at the rate education is going most schools likely won't be able to afford a theology teacher. You can thank Betsy for that.

>>144495
>implying that the moonlanding wasn't faked
>implying that scientific consensus isn't a sham
>implying that passion doesn't trump thought
>implying that action doesn't trump thinking

>>144935
Or I just get tired of seeing him brought up as some science representative when he's just a showboat and decided to voice my displeasure.