iPhone 4. Verizon. It begins.
02.10.11
(from www.verizonwireless.com)
Monday, January 24, 2011
Scientific controversy my... toe...
From Evolution education update: January 21, 2011, an email newsletter from NCSE:
House Bill 1551, prefiled in the Oklahoma Senate and scheduled for a
first reading on February 7, 2011, is apparently the fourth
antievolution bill of 2011, and the second in Oklahoma, joining Senate
Bill 554. Entitled the "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom
Act," SB 320 would, if enacted, require state and local educational
authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present
the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies"
and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique,
and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and
scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the
course being taught." The only topics specifically mentioned as
controversial are "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life,
global warming, and human cloning."
Scientific controversies. I have a problem with this wording (I have so many problems with such legislation that I'm not even going there). It implies that there is question within the scientific community. There isn't. Scientists the world over agree. The controversy arises when politics and religion enter the picture. If you as an individual chose not to believe that evolution occurs, that's up to you. But that does not turn the issue into a "scientific controversy."
The same is true of global warming and human cloning. Global warming is a fact of life on Earth. It has happened in the past, is happening now, and will happen in the future. The controversy, once again and as usual, arises when politics and religion get involved. Sure, we can talk until the cows come home about whether/how much humans impact global warming. But to debate it's very existence? Again, scientists the world over agree on this point.
Human cloning as a scientific controversy? Please. The controversy here is all about politics and religion. What I find the most interesting about this particular controversy is how "they" always manage to connect cloning and abortion. Given that you can do the first without doing the latter makes it quite clear that those opposed to cloning are arguing for the sake of either politics or religion, not science.
Let's reserve "scientific controversy" for those issues upon which the scientists themselves are actually unsure or disagree. For the other issues, let's call them what they are: political-religious controversies. Then try to get your bill passed!
House Bill 1551, prefiled in the Oklahoma Senate and scheduled for a
first reading on February 7, 2011, is apparently the fourth
antievolution bill of 2011, and the second in Oklahoma, joining Senate
Bill 554. Entitled the "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom
Act," SB 320 would, if enacted, require state and local educational
authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present
the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies"
and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique,
and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and
scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the
course being taught." The only topics specifically mentioned as
controversial are "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life,
global warming, and human cloning."
Scientific controversies. I have a problem with this wording (I have so many problems with such legislation that I'm not even going there). It implies that there is question within the scientific community. There isn't. Scientists the world over agree. The controversy arises when politics and religion enter the picture. If you as an individual chose not to believe that evolution occurs, that's up to you. But that does not turn the issue into a "scientific controversy."
The same is true of global warming and human cloning. Global warming is a fact of life on Earth. It has happened in the past, is happening now, and will happen in the future. The controversy, once again and as usual, arises when politics and religion get involved. Sure, we can talk until the cows come home about whether/how much humans impact global warming. But to debate it's very existence? Again, scientists the world over agree on this point.
Human cloning as a scientific controversy? Please. The controversy here is all about politics and religion. What I find the most interesting about this particular controversy is how "they" always manage to connect cloning and abortion. Given that you can do the first without doing the latter makes it quite clear that those opposed to cloning are arguing for the sake of either politics or religion, not science.
Let's reserve "scientific controversy" for those issues upon which the scientists themselves are actually unsure or disagree. For the other issues, let's call them what they are: political-religious controversies. Then try to get your bill passed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)