STF na Mídia - MyClipp

Reuters General/ ­- Article, Sex, 13 de Abril de 2012
CLIPPING INTERNACIONAL (Supreme Court)
Tennessee teacher law could boost
creationism, climate denial
By Deborah Zabarenko Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:53pm EDT
(Reuters) ­- A new Tennessee law protects teachers
who explore the "scientific strengths and scientific
weaknesses" of evolution and climate change, a move
science education advocates say could make it easier
for creationism and global warming denial to enter U.S.
classrooms. The measure, which became law
Tuesday, made Tennessee the second state, after
Louisiana, to enable teachers to more easily teach
alternative theories to the widely accepted scientific
concepts of evolution and human­-caused climate
change. At least five other states considered similar
legislation this year. The heart of the law is protection
for teachers who "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." Science education advocates say this leaves
latitude for teachers to bring in material on creationism
or climate change denial, which they consider unsound
science. The law was billed as a triumph of academic
freedom by proponents of creationism or intelligent
design, who reject the concept that human beings and
other life forms evolved through random mutation and
natural selection. The Tennessee measure "protects
teachers when they promote critical thinking and
objective discussion about controversial science
issues such as biological evolution, climate change
and human cloning," said a statement from the
Seattle­-based Discovery Institute, which promotes
intelligent design. But Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of
Concerned Scientists saw a risk to education: "We
need to keep kids' curiosity about science alive and not
limit their ability to understand the world around them
by exposing them to misinformation." Tennessee's
action came 87 years after the 1925 "monkey trial" in
which John Thomas Scopes was tried for teaching
evolution in Tennessee. The state legislature
overwhelmingly approved it, and Governor Bill Haslam
let it become law without his signature, tacitly
acknowledging that a veto would not be sustained. In a
statement, Haslam said the legislation did not change
the state's scientific standards or school curriculum, or
do anything unacceptable in Tennessee schools. On
such controversial subjects as "biological evolution, the
chemical origins of life, global warming and human
cloning," the law stipulates that teachers cannot be
barred from helping students understand "the scientific
strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing
scientific theories." The law protects the teaching of
scientific information, not religious or non­-religious
doctrine, which is important, since that could stray into
unconstitutional territory. But science educators worry
that teachers could offer unsound science, or
non­-science, and be protected by this legislation.
CREATIONISM IN THE CLASSROOM Josh Rosenau
of the National Center for Science Education said the
law could easily come between administrators and
teachers, if science teachers bring creationist or
climate change denial ideas into their classes. The
U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that requiring that
creation science be taught in public schools alongside
evolution is unconstitutional as a violation of the First
Amendment right to freedom of religion. The
Tennessee law might make it harder for administrators
to prevent the introduction of creationism in the
classroom, Rosenau said by telephone. And any legal
challenge by parents or others would be "tricky," he
said. He cited a survey of U.S. high school biology
teachers published in the journal Science in 2011 that
found about 13 percent of those surveyed "explicitly
advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending
at least one hour of class time presenting it in a
positive light." The survey found only about 28 percent
consistently followed National Research Council
recommendations for introducing evidence that
evolution occurred. The rest, about 60 percent,
avoided controversy by limiting evolution instruction to
molecular biology, telling students they need not
believe in evolution to score well on tests, or exposing
students to all positions, scientific and otherwise, to let
them make up their own minds, the article said. ( here )
In teaching climate change, Ekwurzel said the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences offered useful
classroom information in a May 2010 report that
affirmed the reality of climate change, its largely
human cause and the significant risk posed to human
and natural systems. But James Taylor of the
Chicago­-based free­-market Heartland Institute, which
plans to offer a global warming K­-12 curriculum
pointing up scientific disagreement about the impact of
climate change, questioned the academy's
assessment and those who advocate it. "To gloss that
disagreement over, to pretend that it does not exist, is
misrepresenting the science and doing a disservice to
students and teachers alike," Taylor said by phone.
(Reporting By Deborah Zabarenko; Editing by Marilyn
W. Thompson and Cynthia Osterman)
43