Leave education to the experts, not creationists

[Michaelangelica]

Leave education to the experts, not creationists

* 01 April 2009

 

THERE is something badly wrong with the way standards for school science are set in the US. When the Texas State Board of Education voted in new standards last week (see "Texas vote leaves loopholes for teaching creationism") it left the door ajar for teaching creationism under the guise of science in federally funded schools.

These loopholes must be closed, and quickly.

 

Because standards are set at state level, students in one state might be learning different science and using different textbooks than students in another.

What is worse, the state boards of education that are responsible for standards and textbooks are made up of elected officials who need not have any expertise or credentials in the relevant areas of science or education.

Elected officials on state school boards often lack any credentials in science or education

 

As we saw in the 2005 trial over teaching intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania, and are now seeing in Texas, school boards have become a political battleground.

Many board members appear to be acting on behalf of religious groups like local churches or the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based standard-bearer of the intelligent design movement.

 

School science standards should be set by people who understand science and science education.

At the same time, it is dangerous to argue that the powers of democratically elected officials should be taken away if they don't produce the outcome you want.

 

Yet that is what may happen in Texas.

State senator Rodney Ellis and representative Garnet Coleman, both Democrats, have introduced legislation that would transfer authority for textbooks and curricula to the Texas Education Agency.

 

Is there a way out of this impasse?

Editorial: Leave education to the experts, not creationists - 01 April 2009 - New Scientist

[paigetheoracle]

Leave education to the experts, not creationists

* 01 April 2009

 

 

Editorial: Leave education to the experts, not creationists - 01 April 2009 - New Scientist

 

People who argue about reality and fight it are not scientific but idealists who defy reality instead of work in harmony with it. It is these people who continually mess up things that require the more practical people who deal in and with reality, to go in later and sort out the mess: Why do you think ignorance, illiteracy and stupidity are growing in popularity - people want a recount when reality tells them they're wrong and they refuse to accept it (GW).

[SamSpeedo]

I went to an American public school, they never taught me creationism or ID. Did any American posters learn any theory but evolution in school?

[Moontanman]

I went to an American public school, they never taught me creationism or ID. Did any American posters learn any theory but evolution in school?

 

How long ago did you go to school Sam? At one point it was illegal in some states to teach evolution, that was finally changed and evolution was taught but now many people yammering to teach creationism as science again which is not only stupid but in clear violation of separation of church and state. The drive to teach creationism or both is alive and well here in NC, ignorant people who want religion to be taught in place of science.

[SamSpeedo]

How long ago did you go to school Sam? At one point it was illegal in some states to teach evolution, that was finally changed and evolution was taught but now many people yammering to teach creationism as science again which is not only stupid but in clear violation of separation of church and state. The drive to teach creationism or both is alive and well here in NC, ignorant people who want religion to be taught in place of science.

 

 

Still in school, last 15 years. Know anyone who learned creationism or ID in public school? I dont.

[modest]

..many people yammering to teach creationism as science again...

 

Fortunately, it should be impossible by current legal precedent,

As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

and, I guess, McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard established "teaching "creation science" was ruled unconstitutional".

 

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a religious theory being taught as science (or, in a science class) as long as it's good science. If Newtonian gravity were in Genesis then I'd have no more objection to schools teaching from Genesis than I would schools teaching from the Principia.

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And God said, let the earth attract the heavenly bodies with a force directly proportional to the product of their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. And God felt the gravity—that it was good.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

Still in school, last 15 years. Know anyone who learned creationism or ID in public school? I dont.

 

Well Sam you are lucky, in some areas of the country it's a constant battle to keep that silly **** out of the classroom. Here in NC in an adjoining county they are teaching creationism. a big stink being raised because some don't want it but more do than don't

[HydrogenBond]

Why is evolution and education so insecure? Why is it necessary to block all opposition, even to what evolutionists describe as mythology? It makes no sense, unless it is a battle of philosophy, that can only work, if we can indoctrinate the young, by brain washing them with only one detergent. Is the evolutionary position too weak? If education does its job, we should end up with free thinking individuals capable of reasoning. Would the ability to reason still make evolution feel insecure?

 

One will not see physics complaining about Creationism, since it will teach things that the student can check and see for themselves. It does not need exclusive indoctrination to work. We can teach liberal arts, even ancient mythology and physics will pay no heeds, out of fear of losing students to the gods. Evolution seems to be the most afraid for some insecure reason.

 

I like the idea of both being taught, not because I am a Creationist or Evolutionist, but because it will leave a grain of doubt in both directions. If the teachers do their job, the students will find what is true. Is modern teaching unable to create students capable of finding the truth? Is it better making robots?

 

I have presented this idea elsewhere. Different species can not breed with each other. Breeding is a sure fire genetic way to determine separate species. To be of the same species, they need to be able to produce fertile offspring. The question becomes, when did the precursors of humans, become able to breed with the modern human species, and therefore be genetically called "the human species"?

 

This may not be easy data to obtain. But there is at some data available. It has to do with the genealogy in Genesis. This data may be the first human recorded instances of the human species based on smoking gun breeding data (genealogy). This data does not refute evolution, and the dawn of pre-humans, just the date stamp of the beginning of human species. It may go further back, but we would need proof. This is a valid discussion for students and would be lost with censor and indoctrination.

[Moontanman]

I see where you are coming from HB, it's a good idea to teach both ideas and let the students make up their own minds. Maybe teach the geocentric solar system, along with a sun centric solar system, possibly that stars are just the windows of the light of heaven shining through along side standard cosmology. Air, fire water and earth as the elements of the universe along side standard chemistry. Oh yeah maybe the Earth sucks instead of the theory of gravity.

[SamSpeedo]

Well Sam you are lucky, in some areas of the country it's a constant battle to keep that silly **** out of the classroom. Here in NC in an adjoining county they are teaching creationism. a big stink being raised because some don't want it but more do than don't

 

You know anybody who learned creationism in public school? I know no science teacher who would teach creationism and no school where creationism is taught.

[Moontanman]

You know anybody who learned creationism in public school? I know no science teacher who would teach creationism and no school where creationism is taught.

 

Why do you keep saying this Sam, you have admitted your experience is limited, I've never seen an elephant in the wild but I sure they exist. I raised two children and i had to fight several times to stop creationism from being taught in school as science.

[CraigD]

You know anybody who learned creationism in public school?

I was taught the biblical (Genesis) account of creation in a southern WV public school in the 1973 and 1974, in the 7th and 8th grades. The class was elective – I could have chosen not to attend it, but when one exercised this option, one was required to spend the class period cleaning the school bathrooms. Only a few of my classmates consistently chose bathroom cleaning over Bible class, most of them because they were observant Jews.

 

One of my children, who attended public school in western WV public school, also studied the Genesis account in a room physically within the school. However, this study was offered after school hours, and the alternative to attending was leaving the school grounds at the usual dismissal time. My other child, who attended metro DC area public schools, received not religious instruction of any kind within the school. Both attended public schools in the 1990s through 2000s.

 

In neither my case or my child’s case was Bible class taught by a school faculty member. In my case, it was taught by a non-paid volunteer. In my child’s, it was taught by a Baptist minister, who received a salary from his church conference.

[paigetheoracle]

Why is evolution and education so insecure? Why is it necessary to block all opposition, even to what evolutionists describe as mythology? It makes no sense, unless it is a battle of philosophy, that can only work, if we can indoctrinate the young, by brain washing them with only one detergent. Is the evolutionary position too weak? If education does its job, we should end up with free thinking individuals capable of reasoning. Would the ability to reason still make evolution feel insecure?

 

One will not see physics complaining about Creationism, since it will teach things that the student can check and see for themselves. It does not need exclusive indoctrination to work. We can teach liberal arts, even ancient mythology and physics will pay no heeds, out of fear of losing students to the gods. Evolution seems to be the most afraid for some insecure reason.

 

I like the idea of both being taught, not because I am a Creationist or Evolutionist, but because it will leave a grain of doubt in both directions. If the teachers do their job, the students will find what is true. Is modern teaching unable to create students capable of finding the truth? Is it better making robots?

 

I have presented this idea elsewhere. Different species can not breed with each other. Breeding is a sure fire genetic way to determine separate species. To be of the same species, they need to be able to produce fertile offspring. The question becomes, when did the precursors of humans, become able to breed with the modern human species, and therefore be genetically called "the human species"?

 

This may not be easy data to obtain. But there is at some data available. It has to do with the genealogy in Genesis. This data may be the first human recorded instances of the human species based on smoking gun breeding data (genealogy). This data does not refute evolution, and the dawn of pre-humans, just the date stamp of the beginning of human species. It may go further back, but we would need proof. This is a valid discussion for students and would be lost with censor and indoctrination.

 

This is an extremely well reasoned, adult argument because it allows 'choice'. The problem is where something is forced down somebody's throat and they are not allowed to think for themselves (who can really stop this?) or at least discuss counter ideas with others, which is the scientific attitude.

 

The real problem is not ideas but a defensive knee jerk reaction, to protect 'an idea' from further scrutiny (closed minds that fear the light of reason getting in i.e. calm examination not rash response).

 

The following quote relates to this defensive position (Frank Herbert's 'Dune')

 

"I will face my fear

I will allow it to pass over me and through me

And when it is gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain"

 

In other words, people try to shut out what they fear because they are afraid it will change them and it is this that causes them to resist it, like holding your breath to keep out noxious vapours and we all know where that leads if we haven't got a mask!:rolleyes:

[Michaelangelica]

[Michaelangelica]

and

[Theory5]

Why is evolution and education so insecure? Why is it necessary to block all opposition, even to what evolutionists describe as mythology? It makes no sense, unless it is a battle of philosophy, that can only work, if we can indoctrinate the young, by brain washing them with only one detergent. Is the evolutionary position too weak? If education does its job, we should end up with free thinking individuals capable of reasoning. Would the ability to reason still make evolution feel insecure?

 

Good idea and you are probably right, except for that little statement "if education does its job". That's the hang-up. Our (USA) public education is laughable. Plus there is that whole thing about not teaching religion in school, and Im not sure if that falls into that catagory or not.

I'm sure that most of our (USA) population could not be described as "free thinking individuals capable of reasoning".

I dislike all this discussion about what to teach, we first need to fix the public school systems, make them effective and able to produce able-minded people.

 

clear violation of separation of church and state.

I have heard of this, mostly in passing. Apperently this supposed separation happened before I became aware of the world I live in. But, let me put it this way, the President is sworn in on a bible, a convict is sworn to tell the truth on the bible. So where is this seperation I keep hearing about?

[Turtle]

Why is evolution and education so insecure? Why is it necessary to block all opposition, even to what evolutionists describe as mythology? It makes no sense, unless it is a battle of philosophy, that can only work, if we can indoctrinate the young, by brain washing them with only one detergent. Is the evolutionary position too weak? If education does its job, we should end up with free thinking individuals capable of reasoning. Would the ability to reason still make evolution feel insecure?

Good idea and you are probably right,

no; he is not right & it's not a good science idea. he is a creationist promoting his unfounded anti-evolution crap yet again here. :confused:

 

That's the hang-up. Our (USA) public education is laughable. Plus there is that whole thing about not teaching religion in school, and Im not sure if that falls into that catagory or not.

I'm sure that most of our (USA) population could not be described as "free thinking individuals capable of reasoning".

I dislike all this discussion about what to teach, we first need to fix the public school systems, make them effective and able to produce able-minded people.

 

 

I have heard of this, mostly in passing. Apperently this supposed separation happened before I became aware of the world I live in. But, let me put it this way, the President is sworn in on a bible, a convict is sworn to tell the truth on the bible. So where is this seperation I keep hearing about?

 

so what's taught in public school isn't important, but your heard-in-passing is!!?? :shrug: as to the bible, it is not a legal requirement under the constitution or in any court. some presidents have not used a bible, and you can look that up yourself if you think facts matter, or not if not. :naughty: