New Tennessee education law

[ampaterry]

We are sure hearing a lot in the news about this new law in TN.
The TN House and Senate passed it by a HUGE majority -
Governor Haslam was presented with a petition signed by THOUSANDS of people asking him to VETO it.
He sidestepped the issue by doing a pigeon-hole pass; that means he simply does nothing one way or another, and the bill becomes law WITHOUT his signature.

The right press says it is an educational freedom bill.
The left press says it allows the teaching of religion in public schools.

It is time to look at the BILL and find out what it REALLY is.

Here is the FULL TEXT of this bill:

HOUSE BILL 368
By Dunn

SENATE BILL 893
By Watson
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49,
Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific
subjects in elementary schools.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, is amended by
adding the following as a new, appropriately designated section:
(a) The general assembly finds that:
(1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about
scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary
to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens;
(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to,
biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human
cloning, can cause controversy; and
(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how
they should present information on such subjects.
(b) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school
governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public
elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor 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 differences of opinion about
controversial issues.
(c) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school
governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public
- 2 - 00242666
elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist
teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses
scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help 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.
(d) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary
school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any
public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit 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.
(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not
be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination
for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination
for or against religion or non-religion.
SECTION 2. By no later than the start of the 2011-2012 school term, the department of
education shall notify all directors of schools of the provisions of this act. Each director shall
notify all employees within the director's school system of the provisions of this act.
SECTION 3. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring
it.

Note that this bill SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS the introduction of religion into the scientific debate -

As usual, the atheist naturalists are lying about it.
But if they told the REAL language of this bill, how could they convince anyone to oppose it?

Allow students to CRITICALLY approach scientific issues that the priesthood of science has declared to be true?
How can the republic survive??

[carver]

It can't survive, and it won't survive!

[rosierita]

(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to,
biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human
cloning, can cause controversy; and

it bugs me that creation isnt specifically listed. i know it says not limited to those listed...

but, troy & i didn't choose public education for our kids, they were homeschooled. no way would i ever trust someone else to teach my kids those things i find so important in life.

[whymememe]

Is this like a separation of church and state?

[ampaterry]

The law, as written, COMPLIES with the directive that government won't either PROMOTE nor HINDER a religion.

The Atheist heirarchy of science, however, is not satisfied with that; they want their pet theories taught as fact, unopposed and unquestioned.

All this law does is allow questioning of theories.

Evolution, meaning that living things change over time, is indeed a fact.

'Evolution', meaning we descended from monkeys as Darwin said, is not even a good theory, let alone a fact.

[yetiman]

Haslam has his head up his butt.....

[whymememe]

So its scientific theory vs religious theology? Can not the two co-exist, perhaps be intertwined?

[whymememe]

Originally Posted by yetiman

Haslam has his head up his butt.....

Are you on the correct thread? Your reply is totally abstract.

[yetiman]

Originally Posted by whymememe

Are you on the correct thread? Your reply is totally abstract.

You didn't read original post to well....

We are sure hearing a lot in the news about this new law in TN.
The TN House and Senate passed it by a HUGE majority -
Governor Haslam was presented with a petition signed by THOUSANDS of people asking him to VETO it.
He sidestepped the issue by doing a pigeon-hole pass; that means he simply does nothing one way or another, and the bill becomes law WITHOUT his signature.

[whymememe]

Originally Posted by yetiman

You didn't read original post to well....

We are sure hearing a lot in the news about this new law in TN.
The TN House and Senate passed it by a HUGE majority -
Governor Haslam was presented with a petition signed by THOUSANDS of people asking him to VETO it.
He sidestepped the issue by doing a pigeon-hole pass; that means he simply does nothing one way or another, and the bill becomes law WITHOUT his signature.

I'm sorry, I didn't know who the Gov of Tenneessee is. I quess I was expecting more substance in the replies.

[whymememe]

Originally Posted by yetiman

Haslam has his head up his butt.....

How old do you think the earth is? 6,000 years old or billions of years old

[yetiman]

Originally Posted by whymememe

How old do you think the earth is? 6,000 years old or billions of years old

Cant say, I was never invited to any of it's birthday parties.......

[whymememe]

[QUOTE=yetiman;907755]Cant say, I was never invited to any of it's birth
day parties.......[/QUO

Good one.

[One Shot]

Read Ken Ham's book "The Lie" if you want clarification on what the controversy is.

[whymememe]

Originally Posted by One Shot

Read Ken Ham's book "The Lie" if you want clarification on what the controversy is.

Thanks oneshot I did a quick scan.

[One Shot]

As far as the age of the earth, this true story about Apollo 11 pretty well sums it up.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/moon.htm

[ampaterry]

And that discussion, folks, such as what is the age of the earth - is ILLEGAL in the classroom until this law takes effect. Questioning the dogma of the day, be that one billion years as was taught a few decades ago, or multiple billions as is taught today, was seen as introducing religion into the classroom.
Completely idiotic, and an idiocy that is now corrected.
Students NOW can discuss such things, and ask WHY scientists used to say the earth was a billion years old and now claim it is 4.5 billion years old. They can discuss the evidence that it is not that old, such as the carbon dating of diamonds and coal.

But those whose careers are vested in being the unquestioned authorities are IRATE about it -

[whymememe]

I spent $100.00 with National Geographic to join the Genographic project. The genetic markers that define my ancestral history reach roughly 60,000 years to the first common marker of all non-African men. Later marker indicate I'm a direct descendant of people who dominated the human expansion into Europe, the Cro-Magnon. Time of emergence: around 30,000 years ago.

Now, if the earth is only 6,000 years old, which is what I hear some thumpers preaching, then National Geopgraphic is wrong.

Can I get my money back.

[ampaterry]

LOL - probly not.

Next time you are talking to one of those mitochondrial DNA folks who think they can set dates using genetic material, mention the work on the Czar's in Russia which proved it is WILDLY innacurate - -
That is the test case I present to Steven J. Goulde which stumped him.
He said he needed to do some more research into it, and would contact me when he got back from a lecture circuit.
He died before we got in contact again.
And today, he knows the truth.

Oh - I do not hold to a strict 6,000 year old date.
But absolutely positively NOT a date in even six digits -

[whymememe]

Thanks,Terry

[One Shot]

Whymememe

I bet you wish you could get your money back. Hope it wasn't a situation where you tested the depth of the Genome project with both feet.

As far as I'm concerned, National Geographic gets a lot more wrong than right.

Based on Ken Ham's book which worldview do you think they support?

[BlackEagle]

A truely critical examination of the issues mentioned in the bill will show the popular conclusions to be dubious in the case of evolution, and bogus in the case of global warming caused by human activity. However, teachers can slant the "objective" discussion to thier liking.

I had a good biology teacher in junior high who taught us the theories of evolution because he was required to, and opened the possibility that there might be another way--creation. In my final exam the question asked us to elaborate a theory of evolution. I did that, and said I thought it was all hooey and gave the creation account. I got full marks.

That was an objective, critical discussion of the theories of evolution. If creation replaces evolution, then Creation becomes the basis of science. It's not theology, any more than the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics are theology.

[CJ_56]

The anti-God forces have defined science as the absence of anything they don't think is possible. Under the guise of "the super natural" being the opposite of science they have essentially eliminated the possibility that anything other than their theories are correct. Their standard response to everything is "that's not science" when they might as well be defining science as "if we don't agree with it then it doesn't exist". If they exclude the real answers by the definition of science they have ruled out any possibility that science will accept creationism as an answer. Never mind that it is true. It can't be true because it isn't science. It's the worst kind of circular logic and it totally discredits science as a whole. In earlier times it was assumed that science wasn't done that way except in defining God out of the equations. Now other explanations are also being buried by exclusion. They claimed there was no slippery slope but with man caused global warming theories we are seeing the same kind of irrational thinking replacing the true quest for knowledge. We know it's true because we said it's true so therefore we know it's true. All the scientists say so except for those wackos that think it isn't. Didn't we have people claiming man would never fly using the same kind of crazy logic? If you define science by opinion it isn't science.

Well I have better proof that God did create the universe than they could ever possibly hope to attain in their attempts to rule God out of that role. But that can't be true because science says it isn't true. And since science says it isn't true it can't be true.

The whole process involved in studying the creation of this universe is hopelessly flawed from out inside the box point of view. We can't see the evidence because we aren't in a position to see it. We can see evidence that points to a conclusion but they will never "prove" that God didn't create the universe because they can't re-create the situation to test what happened.

Even with the massive flaws in their whole approach to studying the issue they have come across much evidence that points to a single conclusion. They have worked hard for 150 years to prove that God did not create things but all the evidence they find points to the conclusion that He did. In particular the study of the origins of life have led to proof that evolution did NOT create life. Life did NOT originate in a mud hole struck by cosmic debris. What they would have us believe now is that life originated somewhere else in the universe and somehow made it here either by traveling on a meteor or by aliens bringing it here. That's why organizations like NASA spend almost their entire budget trying to prove the existence of life elsewhere in the universe. If they can find the slightest hint of proof that it does they will claim that until we have explored the entire universe we will never know that life was not created by accident. And the universe is a very big place. As the head of the philosophers union in "The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy" said they will be able to play off arguments on both sides of that issue for millions of years under those conditions and they will be able to keep themselves in a job for all that time as a result. In other words if they find even a remote trace of a possibility of life on Mars kiss your tax money goodbye because every fruit loop on the planet will be able to get a job at some crummy university and collect a paycheck for arguing an un-winable argument for the rest of their lives. Where do I sign up for a job like that? I guess I need to become a radical leftist for a while first.

[whymememe]

Originally Posted by One Shot

Whymememe

I bet you wish you could get your money back. Hope it wasn't a situation where you tested the depth of the Genome project with both feet.

As far as I'm concerned, National Geographic gets a lot more wrong than right.

Based on Ken Ham's book which worldview do you think they support?

OS, I quess I did jump in with both feet on that one. They take the evolution view, of coarse.
I'm still trying to see God in both Creation and Evolution. I continue my search.

[One Shot]

Originally Posted by whymememe

OS, I quess I did jump in with both feet on that one. They take the evolution view, of coarse.
I'm still trying to see God in both Creation and Evolution. I continue my search.

He is there in both in a way. Micro-evolution has no conflict with creation. i.e. birds can adapt but when all is said and done they are still birds.

Macro-evolution on the other hand, only makes sense in the Humanist view.

Searching is good. I've been there and have found many of the answers to probably the same questions you have now.

Try this. Ask God if he used Creation or evolution. I did and now I know.