Senate Education Committee 1
Amendment No. 1 to SB0893
Gresham
Signature of Sponsor
AMEND S e nate Bill No. 893 House Bill No. 368*
SA0901
01474462
-1-
by adding the following language as a preamble to the bill:
WHEREAS, 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
become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens;
(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects required to be taught under the
curriculum framework developed by the state board of education may cause debate and
disputation including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life,
global warming, and human cloning; and
(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectation concerning how they
should present information when debate and disputation occur on such subjects; now,
therefore,
AND FURTHER AMEND by deleting all language after the enacting clause and by substituting
instead the following:
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 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
Senate Education Committee 1
Amendment No. 1 to SB0893
Gresham
Signature of Sponsor
AMEND S e nate Bill No. 893 House Bill No. 368*
SA0901
01474462
-2-
scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by
the state board of education.
(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 assist
teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum taught under the
curriculum framework developed by the state board of education as it addresses
scientific subjects that may cause debate and disputation.
(c) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary
school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrators, or any
public elementary or secondary school principal or administrators 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 within the
curriculum framework developed by the state board of education.
(d) 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 2012-2013 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.

I understand the concerns, in a general sense. Can either of you explain how passing this law will make things worse, rather than better? (I think petsfed is on side that this could actually be a good thing).

Consider also: while there are doubtless some young earth creationist science teachers, in whom do you generally have more confidence to set science curriculum responsibly: the teacher or the local school board member?

The problem is that teaching intelligent design as science is a lot like teaching waffles as math. Sure, there may be something faintly math-like in waffles, but it really REALLY isn't math.

Likewise, the "controversy" in global warming stems from issues about the longevity of the warming trend, its specific causes (e.g. humans vs. cattles vs. volcanoes), and how it can be stopped. Anybody who says that the planet is not warming is lying. The drastic 50 year change in glacial coverage is not because the earth has stayed the exact same temperature over that same period, or that it is now the same average temperature as it was 5000 years ago.