Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Sept 2, 2012 12:01:03 GMT -5
I would be absolutely appalled if a SCIENCE teacher taught Creationism and/or ID, since the latter two things have absolutely no basis in science.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,522
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 2, 2012 12:01:03 GMT -5
Thanks Tenn... that is interesting, about an even split (not exactly, but closer than i would have assumed, putting the two different evolution catagories together) and fairly stablity... Edited Oped-my personal opinion is that it doesn't speak well for the United States and the sciences. We are falling behind other countries where once we were the leader.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Sept 2, 2012 12:12:37 GMT -5
Thanks Tenn... that is interesting, about an even split (not exactly, but closer than i would have assumed, putting the two different evolution catagories together) and fairly stablity... Edited Oped-my personal opinion is that it doesn't speak well for the United States and the sciences. We are falling behind other countries where once we were the leader.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,522
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 2, 2012 12:12:58 GMT -5
If anyone has the time (or inclination) they should read the legal case of Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et alJudge rules against ‘intelligent design’updated 12/20/20059:20:37 PM ET The Associated Press HARRISBURG, Pa. — In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state. The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas. Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,272
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 2, 2012 12:13:38 GMT -5
Tenn I 100% agree with you. It scares the shit out of me how easily pseudoscience is swallowed as fact as long as it is jazzed up with some legitmate scientific terms and tells people exactly what they want to hear.
It also makes me weep for science education in this country.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,272
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 2, 2012 12:16:27 GMT -5
putting the two different evolution catagories together
Just a pet peeve of mine but there are NOT TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF EVOLUTION!
There is one Theory of Evolution.
Then there is religion (Creationism).
Then there is a psuedoscience that makes a mockery of them both (Intelligent Design).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 11:52:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 12:24:19 GMT -5
I was taking about the poll drama... They had two lines for believe in evolution... One evolution alone, one evolution and God... I was combining them as a single group that believes in evolution.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Sept 2, 2012 12:26:16 GMT -5
...I'd think we could all agree that if ANY curriculum fails to teach accredited content (home schools/public schools, colleges/universities) then their student will be limited in some way/shape/form as they continue schooling or as they enter professional life... ...which begs the question, what path does the student want to take?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,272
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 2, 2012 12:30:10 GMT -5
Oh okay. Like I said it is a pet peeve of mine and seeing those words makes me stabby. Nothing against you. FWIW I don't think the two are mutually exclusive despite what aholes like Dawkins like to push. I think they are two sides of the same coin and both are important for people and make us well rounded adults. I also do think to an extent Creationism should be brought up in the science classroom because it is important to understanding scientific history and the scientific process. You can't understand the importance if you don't understand the backstory. But the idea that it or worse Intelligent Design, are valid scientific theories that should be taught and held up to the same level as the actual Evolution Theory makes me spit nails. It makes a mockery of the scientific process and IMO severely impacts critical thinking skills.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 11:52:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 12:35:02 GMT -5
I would be absolutely appalled if a SCIENCE teacher taught Creationism and/or ID, since the latter two things have absolutely no basis in science. You can be appalled all you want too. Let's present scientific papers from both sides.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Sept 2, 2012 12:38:58 GMT -5
%^&*$#* There aren't any scientific papers from the Creation/ID side!!
I think we should start teaching the Hopi science of creation.. I think it has a giant turtle in it. That'd be about as legitimate as the Christian version.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 11:52:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 12:39:29 GMT -5
I would be absolutely appalled if a SCIENCE teacher taught Creationism and/or ID, since the latter two things have absolutely no basis in science. You can be appalled all you want too. Let's present scientific papers from both sides. there are no scientific papers for creationism/ID because they have no basis in science. They are religious stories. Creationism has NO place in a public school science classroom.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 11:52:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 12:41:51 GMT -5
...I'd think we could all agree that if ANY curriculum fails to teach accredited content (home schools/public schools, colleges/universities) then their student will be limited in some way/shape/form as they continue schooling or as they enter professional life... ...which begs the question, what path does the student want to take? But if 40% of people don't believe in evolution, or don't know/understand the theory, one would assume it isn't holding them back much. I personally would think that an education should teach evolution to be accredited and acceptable, but it doesn't seem like it is. Just FYI, my pet peeve now... it brings up the question, it doesn't beg it ... that is a specific term.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 11:52:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 12:42:37 GMT -5
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Sept 2, 2012 12:46:38 GMT -5
Sorry but religion has no place in the classroom because it cannot be held up to testing. The whole point of faith is that you take these things to be true despite the fact that you will never able to prove it.
If they want to teach creationism in religion class I have no problem with that, but keep it out of my science classroom and I will raise holy hell if I ever find out my school system is teaching it in place of evolution or next to it. times 1000! My biggest problem with the OP is that the home school group seems to have been baited and switched. The way I read it they thought they had hired a biology teacher and got the religion teacher instead. I would have been mightily pissed! The homeschool groups around here seem to be either doing it because their religion doesn't jive with taking classes like science or history and this is their way to control it. The other group while not religios seems pretty "hippy dippy granola" types. (no offence just the most discriptive way I could come up with) So heavy on the liberal art type subjects and light on the math and science but not for any particular reason I have ever heard. are a few exceptions but 90% fall into one of the two. The local colleges answer to not having requirements met that are substantially the same is to require testing to prove they had the required materal. That goes for all students not just homeschool or out of state ones. Unless they can show an SAT score, or other proof, that is high on say math they are taking the math accuplacer etc. I always tell tell the local kids to make sure they study things like Algebra and English etc for the first day of classes because it is real hard to pass that thing after a few years of not seeing a subject and having to take a course because you were caught flat footed stinks.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 11:52:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 12:49:20 GMT -5
have these been peer reviewed?
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Sept 2, 2012 12:57:28 GMT -5
Yes, they were peer reviewed by other fellows in the Discovery Institute, a think tank that has registered nearly 200 domain names so it looks like there is lots of proof for ID.
Sadly, five minutes time shows the paper is bullshit, since it hinges on that one pesky little item - it requires the existence of an untestable and unprovable GOD.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 11:52:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 13:00:22 GMT -5
Yes, they were peer reviewed by other fellows in the Discovery Institute, a think tank that has registered nearly 200 domain names so it looks like there is lots of proof for ID. Sadly, five minutes time shows the paper is bullshit, since it hinges on that one pesky little item - it requires the existence of an untestable and unprovable GOD. I figured as much but had to ask the question.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Sept 2, 2012 13:05:12 GMT -5
Both court cases and legitimate science have held that ID is not science and therefore has no place in a decent education.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 11:52:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 13:05:32 GMT -5
I think the biggest problem in this case was trying to combine two groups under one co/op. I know that I am not even permited to view the registration materials of the other group (my reputation proceeds me... I mean, I actually have friends everywhere in homeschooling because, shocking as it may be, i'm known for being flexible and non-judgemental, but the leadership there are very strict in their doctrine). But the people who brought in the 'biology' teacher were not from the same core group as mine... who brought in the gay writing teacher. I just think they had different expectations, and it has been a struggle.
I know some homeschoolers do so to isolate and control content, but honestly have always found that to be the exceptions rather than the rule. Things like this make me wonder.
I personally don't like any stigma against homeschooling and feel like it reflects poorly on the movement if kids are at least given the knowledge to talk intelligently about things... so i hoped it would be a small minority.
On the other hand, if so many don't believe in evolution, then it has to be more than just the homeschooling population...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 11:52:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 13:07:45 GMT -5
I only skimmed shooby's list, but what i saw were also papers that maybe challenged a specific issue in evolution (as drama noted, we continually challenge scientific theory) which was then interpreted by the person who compiled the list as 'support for ID' .
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Sept 2, 2012 13:08:34 GMT -5
It's far more, but the public school system isn't allowed to teach ID/Creationism, and homeschoolers can.
I'd wager that non-religious private schools don't either.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Sept 2, 2012 13:09:05 GMT -5
I think the biggest problem in this case was trying to combine two groups under one co/op. I know that I am not even permited to view the registration materials of the other group (my reputation proceeds me... I mean, I actually have friends everywhere in homeschooling because, shocking as it may be, i'm known for being flexible and non-judgemental, but the leadership there are very strick in their doctrine). But the people who brought in the 'biology' teacher were not from the same core group as mine... who brought in the gay writing teacher. I just think they had different expectations, and it has been a struggle. I know some homeschoolers do so to isolate and control content, but honestly have always found that to be the exceptions rather than the rule. Things like this make me wonder. I personally don't like any stigma against homeschooling and feel like it reflects poorly on the movement if kids are at least given the knowledge to talk intelligently about things... so i hoped it would be a small minority. On the other hand, if so many don't believe in evolution, then it has to be more than just the homeschooling population... They can't possibly expect people to pay them for a course that they can't review the materials on, can they?
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Sept 2, 2012 13:09:29 GMT -5
...I'd think we could all agree that if ANY curriculum fails to teach accredited content (home schools/public schools, colleges/universities) then their student will be limited in some way/shape/form as they continue schooling or as they enter professional life... ...which begs the question, what path does the student want to take? But if 40% of people don't believe in evolution, or don't know/understand the theory, one would assume it isn't holding them back much. I personally would think that an education should teach evolution to be accredited and acceptable, but it doesn't seem like it is. Just FYI, my pet peeve now... it brings up the question, it doesn't beg it ... that is a specific term. ...ah, creative license... ain't it great?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 11:52:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 13:10:10 GMT -5
Yes, they were peer reviewed by other fellows in the Discovery Institute, a think tank that has registered nearly 200 domain names so it looks like there is lots of proof for ID. Sadly, five minutes time shows the paper is bullshit, since it hinges on that one pesky little item - it requires the existence of an untestable and unprovable GOD. And, that is different from Evolution how? In order to believe in Evolution you are ascribing intelligence to genes instead. You have to assume that genes are able to look ahead and forsee the future and make a value judgement of what will be more advantageous. You want it both ways. There is simply a lot of voodoo in Evolution that you don't want to admit. There is a lot of fuzzy nonsense in Evolution .
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Sept 2, 2012 13:12:10 GMT -5
Yes, they were peer reviewed by other fellows in the Discovery Institute, a think tank that has registered nearly 200 domain names so it looks like there is lots of proof for ID. Sadly, five minutes time shows the paper is bullshit, since it hinges on that one pesky little item - it requires the existence of an untestable and unprovable GOD. And, that is different from Evolution how? In order to believe in Evolution you are ascribing intelligence to genes instead. You have to assume that genes are able to look ahead and forsee the future and make a value judgement of what will be more advantageous. You want it both ways. There is simply a lot of voodoo in Evolution that you don't want to admit. There is a lot of fuzzy nonsense in Evolution . So you never actually took biology either.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 11:52:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 13:12:31 GMT -5
Oped,
I couldn't figure it out from the OP, is it a homeschool situation or a school setting?
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Sept 2, 2012 13:13:27 GMT -5
Err.. wow. Someone didn't pay attention in science class. The fundamental ignorance of how evolution works is what is truly terrifying.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 11:52:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 13:14:05 GMT -5
And, btw, you have the premise that a blob of chemicals got together and then "sparked" life somehow. Somehow nonliving produced living. And, then this chemical reaction occurred a man walked out the ocean. But, it couldn't just be a man, so i guess a man and a woman just simultaneously walked out of the soup. And, did an eye develop and then an ear? But, i guess the genes and chemicals that were previously non living suddenly developed some insight, intelligence and foresight and began reading the future and making value judgements. It is really absurd if you think about it logically.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 11:52:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 13:16:25 GMT -5
And, that is different from Evolution how? In order to believe in Evolution you are ascribing intelligence to genes instead. You have to assume that genes are able to look ahead and forsee the future and make a value judgement of what will be more advantageous. You want it both ways. There is simply a lot of voodoo in Evolution that you don't want to admit. There is a lot of fuzzy nonsense in Evolution . So you never actually took biology either. Um, yes i have. Evolution has become a religion to those subscribe to it. That is why they get so hysterical at any possible challenges to that position.
|
|