UPDATE: The Guardian also reports on this ridiculous bill, and notes that the American Association of Biology Teachers (a big group) has weighed in against it:

But the National Association of Biology Teachers said the measure, would encourage non-scientific thinking – not critical thought. “Concepts like evolution and climate change should not be misrepresented as controversial or needing of special evaluation. Instead, they should be presented as scientific explanations for events and processes that are supported by experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision based on detectable and measurable data,” the organisation said.

___________

From the state that brought us the Scopes trial (and a state I’m visiting next week), the yahoos have returned. As the Knoxville News-Sentinel reports, the Tennessee state Senate passed a bill that tries to sneak anti-evolution and anti-global-warming sentiments into public-school classrooms. It’s the usual “teach-the-controversy” stuff. At the same time, the Tennessee House passed a clearly unconstitutional bill approving the display of the Ten Commandments on public property.

The Senate approved a bill Monday evening that deals with teaching of evolution and other scientific theories while the House approved legislation authorizing cities and counties to display the Ten Commandments in public buildings. The Senate voted 24-8 for HB368, which sponsor Sen. Bo Watson, R-Hixson, says will provide guidelines for teachers answering students’ questions about evolution, global warming and other scientific subjects. Critics call it a “monkey bill” that promotes creationism in classrooms. The bill was approved in the House last year but now must return to that body for concurrence on a Senate amendment that made generally minor changes. One says the law applies to scientific theories that are the subject of “debate and disputation” — a phrase replacing the word “controversial” in the House version. The measure also guarantees that teachers will not be subject to discipline for engaging students in discussion of questions they raise, though Watson said the idea is to provide guidelines so that teachers will bring the discussion back to the subjects authorized for teaching in the curriculum approved by the state Board of Education.

This is not surprising:

All eight no votes came from Democrats, some of whom raised questions about the bill during brief debate.

Here’s a summary of the bill from the Tennessee General Assembly:

Bill Summary 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. This bill also requires such persons and entities to endeavor to:

(1) 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; and

(2) Assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies.

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) reports on the opposition:

Among those expressing opposition to the bill are the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, the American Institute for Biological Sciences, the Knoxville News Sentinel , the Nashville Tennessean , the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, the National Earth Science Teachers Association, and the Tennessee Science Teachers Association, whose president Becky Ashe described (PDF) the legislation as “unnecessary, anti-scientific, and very likely unconstitutional.”

And, according to the NCSE, all eight members of the National Academy of Sciences who come from Tennessee have signed a statement opposing the bill (download their statement here).

I’m giving a talk on evolution at Vanderbilt in Nashville next week, and I encourage my hosts to take action against this travesty.

And here’s a summary of the Ten Commandments bill, which tries to insert religious dogma into public life by hiding it in a group of secular documents, much as a cat owner conceals a bitter pill inside a cat treat:

Public Buildings – As introduced, authorizes replicas of certain historically-significant documents, such as the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence and Ten Commandments, to be placed in local government public buildings. – Amends TCA Title 5, Chapter 7 and Title 6, Chapter 54.

The Knoxville News-Sentinel reports on that one:

The bill authorizing display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings — HB2658 — is sponsored by Rep. Matthew Hill, R-Jonesborough, who said it is in line with court rulings. In essence, courts have often declared displays of the biblical commandments unconstitutional standing along, but permissible as part of a display of “historic documents.” The bill authorizes all local governments to display “historic documents” and specifically lists the commandments as being included. Hill said the bill will prevent city and county governments from “being intimidated any further by special interest groups” opposed to displaying of the Ten Commandments. It passed 93-9 and now goes to the Senate.

Quiz:

a. The Magna Carta

b. The Declaration of Independence

c. The Ten Commandments.

Which of these things is not like the others?