More Creationism Bills Advance

Republicans in Tennessee are reviving a measure from last March that is designed to gut public school science curriculum in the name of “freedom” of teachers to help students think critically about evolution.

HB 368 overwhelmingly passed the Republican-dominated House of Representatives by a vote of 70-28. While the bill doesn’t promote any particular doctrine per se, the motivation and thrust of the proposed law would elevate creationist theories about human evolution to the same status as Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The Tennessee Science Teachers Association has gone on record attacking the bill as “unnecessary, anti-scientific, and very likely unconstitutional.”

The bill calls on state schools and administrators 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 difference of opinions about controversial issues.” That sounds fine and all, except that the mandate does not apply to a philosophy or critical thinking curriculum, but instead to the discipline of science which already has a process built-in to resolve differences of opinions. It’s called the scientific process.

And the “science” Republican sponsors want to promote is not science at all. It’s religion.

Presumably this bill would also set the stage for teaching climate change denial and the idea that abortions cause breast cancer. My guess is that is precisely the point.

Related Stories:

Louisiana Lawmaker Wants Evolution Taught In Science Classes

Failing Grades In Science Standards For US Schools

Indiana Republicans Push Creationism In Public Schools

Photo from RDECOM via flickr.


William E.
William Eaves5 years ago

OK. So Noah saved a few animals on a boat if the Creationsist Nutters are to be believed. Now just how many species can you fit in a boat - ignoring obviously ones that live in the sea. Answer not that many.

There are now hundreds of millions of different species so there must have been evolution since Noah for that to happen. So even the Bible says there MUST have been evolution ! Why can't Creationist Nutters see that.

Of course we could just assume that evolution has been ongoing for much longer and the Noah stuff like the rest of the Bible is just a myth.

Barbara U.
Barbara U5 years ago

Well said Geoffrey. Even as a child in elementary school, I could see Darwin's natural-selection, evolution all around me in nature. Even then, as a child, for me the Adam and Eve story did not compute- if that were the case, wouldn't we all be in-bred? Same with Noah Ark - he took a male and female of each species. How on earth did they fit on the boat? What did he feed them? Wouldn't their offspring be imbred? These stories did not make sense to me when I was 5 years old, I'm still amazed that there are adults that really believe this stuff - so much so that they want to impose it on the rest of us through the public school system. We are so screwed if Romney/Ryan win this election. I really fear for the future of this country............

Geoffrey Jones
Geoffrey Jones5 years ago

I really don't understand Creationists. They can't grasp the concept of an ape-like creature evolving into a human, yet they have no problem with a rib turning into a woman.

Dan B.
Dan Brook5 years ago

The regressive Republican Party of No is obstructionist, mean-spirited, thuggish, religiously fanatical, scientifically ignorant, corrupt, hypocritical, xenophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, evolution and global warming denying, oily, anti-environment, anti-health, anti-consumer, anti-choice, anti-birth control, anti-education, anti-99%, union busting, Medicare mashing and Social Security slashing, fiscally irresponsible, authoritarian, selfish, greedy, out-of-touch, dishonest, lacking compassion, warmongering, and otherwise dangerous.

NEVER vote for Republicans.

Carolyn Steven
Carolyn Steven5 years ago

Bonobos. Everyone watch the study of Kanzi the Bonobo. How can you deny evolution after watching that? I'm serious!

Frank Hanline
Frank Hanline5 years ago

@ Brenton P: As for the bird's feather, yeah, the first feathers were not for flying.

See that is where creationists always screw up. Nothing started out fully formed. The feather, which is made of the same proteins as reptilian scales, was never "created" for a purpose. The "purpose" of the pre-proto-feather came after it appeared. All it took was a gene to be a bit scrambled and instead of a smooth, flat scale, the scales were off, "fuzzier", if you will.

Feather evolution:

There's lots more

Frank Hanline
Frank Hanline5 years ago

@ Brenton P: "found using faulty measurements (do a google search on "problems with carbon dating")"

One thing that is really infuriating are those who not just misrepresent science but talk on it without knowing what or how it's used. The sites that report the issues and that radio dating is flawed are all from sites who can't do Half-Life calculations

C14 is not for paleontology but archeology. C14 will give incredibly accurate ages of TERRESTRIAL artifacts. For fossils older than 100k years, there are other techniques and their limitations are discussed here:

Hint, if you go looking for things that only support your preconceived notions, you can. Look up "Flat Earth", "Astrology" and more on the internet

Frank Hanline
Frank Hanline5 years ago

@ Brenton P: Wow, me polite? I don't get that much. But to answer your post

"All evidence that I have seen presented in favor of evolution has been either speculative" you never followed up with an "or" here

But let's look at this part: "dolphins have bones in their fins that resemble phalanges" that is because the ancestors of dolphins (and I might add other modern species) was once a land animal

But that strikes me as odd that you think that isn't how evolution works. Of course if there is a relationship, distant, that there will be vestigial organs (after all, why would whales, et al, have any "hip bone"?). As for "fingers", of course as the bones in the fin were from an animal who hand bones in their paw. As evolution doesn't "all of a sudden" evolve a fully lung, it changes what it is available and the incremental changes that allow the organism to survive and pass on its changes to its offspring

So that is how evolution works, small changes such as covering of the front paw bones by skin making it a better fin. If there were no relationship, one would expect the bones in the fin of a dolphin to be a solid bone, not bones found in terrestrial animals

Brenton P.
Brenton Potts5 years ago

sorry I haven't been following this post for a long time..
1. too much spamming
2. too many aggressive replies. I am not an aggressive person and I prefer not to reply when
I see that the other person (or people) are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
3. It was taking up too much of my time and I have a lot of work to do.

having said that I'm back to leave a reply for Frank H. because his question was relatively polite.

1. All evidence that I have seen presented in favor of evolution has been either speculative (i.e. dolphins have bones in their fins that resemble phalanges (finger bones) therefore they must have once had fingers), found using faulty measurements (do a google search on "problems with carbon dating") and in fact... I never cease to be overwhelmed by the lack of evidence that evolutionists use to back up their claims. to use as an example the book "Why evolution works" by Young and Strode uses the example of a bird's feather (creationists maintain that something such as a birds feather needs to be as it is to function and could not have developed over time through series of evolutionary prototypes)
Young and Strode (not sure which wrote this particular excerpt, if i had the book with me I would put up the exact quote) say that the feather's could have been used for insulation, then perhaps as a tactical advantage for flight (aids to run quicker) then with natural selection favoring the one who could run faster, scale higher (he suggests t

Frank Hanline
Frank Hanline5 years ago

@ Brenton P: Really? There's more evidence against evolution than there is for it? Could you provide us with the very best 1, 2 or 3 evidence that you believe falsifies evolution?

As for "many scientists against evolution", really? Are you referring to those who signed a paper that stated "evolution a theory in crisis"?

Check out "Project Steve"

some butt munch spammed so I thought I'd ask you again guy