Comprehensive coverage

Alan Leshner, Publisher of Science Explains to Tennessee Lawmakers Why Global Warming and Evolution Are Not in Scientific Controversy

According to him, the demand of the two to add criticism to the studies of the two fields in the schools, is out of place because criticism and skepticism are part of the scientific method and their place is before peer criticism and not towards articles that have already been published

Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and publisher of Science. PR photo
Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and publisher of Science. PR photo

Following the series of articles covering the lectures at the event "The threats to science and reason"The science website is flooded with responses from deniers, mainly global warming deniers and New Age believers. At least one of the claims directly related to the fact that apparently the scientific articles do not mention every time that the warming is man-made. This is exactly a similar requirement to write that the sun is shining in any scientific article. In light of the demand raised by one of the commenters, to prove to him that indeed Science and Nature take as a basis the fact that the Earth is warming as a result of human activity, I found a letter from March of this year in which the publisher of the journal Science, Alan Leshner, addresses the legislators in Tennessee who are trying to introduce doubts during my studies Science in schools in these two areas.
His words are unequivocal. Everyone should read them, so we decided to translate the letter.

Below is the content of the letter

In honor of Congressmen Lois DeBerry and Jimmy Knipe, Nashville Tennessee

On behalf of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest general scientific body, I am writing to provide you with an explanation of the scientific questions raised by HB 368. There is virtually no scientific disagreement among the vast majority of scientists about the basic facts of global warming and evolution. Claiming that there are significant differences of opinion about the overall nature of these concepts will not only confuse students, it will also diseducate them.

The basic principles of both evolution and global warming have been subject to intense scientific investigation. They have been tested over and over again for decades, and their scientific correctness has been proven over and over again. Claims to the contrary have been shown to be implausible after objective assessment by a vast body of peer-reviewed scientists.

The science of evolution is the basis of all modern biology and is supported by tens of thousands of scientific studies in fields that include cosmology, geology, palaeontology, genetics and other biological specialties. The concept of evolution provides knowledge to scientists in a variety of fields, including agriculture and medicine, fields that significantly affect our daily lives.
Scientific observations all over the world have made it clear that climate change is happening. And in-depth scientific studies have shown that the greenhouse gases emitted due to human activity are the main driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence. In fact our understanding of the greenhouse effect spans over a hundred years.

HB 368 argues that students should learn to think critically, but such thinking is already built into the way science is taught. To act on behalf of Tennessee students, teachers must present them with the best peer-reviewed research. Only in this way will students acquire the strongest understanding of the science needed to compete for skilled jobs in an increasingly high-tech global economy.
Alan A. Leshner, CEO and Chief Publisher, Science.

to the original letter (PDF)

The bill passed the Tennessee House of Representatives, but has yet to be approved by the Senate

But apparently appealing to the logic of the legislators did not help. The website of the National Center for Scientific Education It is reported on April 7 that the bill passed the Tennessee House of Representatives by a majority of 70 to 23 (probably a Republican majority).

The law, if approved by the Senate, would require the state and local education authorities to "help teachers find effective ways to present the scientific curriculum when it responds to scientific differences of opinion" and allows teachers to "help students understand, analyze, criticize and review in an objective way the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific theories present in the courses the students".

The examples given to explain "controversy" are the theory of evolution, the chemical origin of life, global warming and human cloning."
Proponent Bill Dunn (Republican, District 16) claims that the study of "intelligent design" will not be protected by law. The chief lobbyist, David Fuller of the Family Action Council in Tennessee, claims that it is the theory of intelligent design that will receive such protection.

The Tennessean newspaper in an editorial dated March 29, 2011, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Tennessee Civil Liberties Union all expressed opposition to HB 368, while the Tennessee Science Teachers Association, which represents those who should benefit from the law, characterized it as "unnecessary, anti-scientific, And almost certainly unconstitutional.

Becky Ash of the TSTA, who serves as director of curriculum and instruction in Knox County schools, told the Knoxville Metro Falls website (April 6) that in the decade she has been on the job, not a single teacher has been disciplined for not mentioning the alternative beliefs to evolution, adding that already today the standards of education Science encourages critical thinking, which makes the law unnecessary.
The (state) Senate version of SB 893 was discussed but not voted on at the Tennessee Senate Education Committee meeting on March 30, 2011 and is likely to be frozen for at least a year, at least according to the National Center for Science Education.

8 תגובות

  1. Avi Blizovsky,
    The phrase "Taking any drug is like Russian roulette" indicates your conservative and biased worldview.
    According to the weight of your words - every experience in life is like Russian roulette.
    Driving a car and even a heartbreaking farewell...
    5 percent of the public may become addicted to alcohol, so even a glass of wine at a Shabbat reception is like Russian roulette.
    As you expect people to understand the subject before me that they are reacting to, the same is expected of you

  2. And by the way conspiracy sites. Take for example the Israeli site KR8.
    Can someone explain why you always denied evolution (the website promotes the story of a professor
    Benjamin Payne from Tel Aviv University "The Poverty of Apostasy", which explains why God and not evolution)
    Comes along with conspiracy theories (Rabin killed himself, etc.) along with extreme right-wing
    and hatred of the other.
    And maybe you should check it out on the website dealing with psychology and not science…….

  3. David, that's exactly the problem, your Republicans have managed to fool the media into thinking there is a debate between scientists. It's just a lie. See also the words of Leshner, which are unequivocal (he compares evolution to not only me) and also the words of Prof. Yoav Yair.\
    As a follower of science, only the truth is important to me and not one or another interests.

    By the way, I also agree with Leshner about drugs. He should not be silent, those who want to harm the public are the ones who should be silent.
    People like you (aren't you a cover for Ron?) have several websites in Hebrew especially for them, the conspiracy websites.

  4. post Scriptum
    I mean, of course, the climate issue.
    There is a legitimate controversy, and there are world-renowned scientists who disagree on the anthropogenic warming hypothesis.
    To compare their opposition to the evolutionists is demagoguery for its own sake.
    And Mr. Blizovsky, to call them by the contemptuous nickname they deny is anti-science.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.