Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Teachers must explain theory of evolution


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#16    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,532 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:27 PM

There aren't any other theories. There are a bunch of irrational hypotheses. So I can't see this bill creating any issue at all.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#17    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,382 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:13 PM

I don't know why creationists would be celebrating.  This is something that evolutionists wish they'd thought of - a head-to-head comparison.

The big problem is finding teachers who know enough about both subjects to be able to competently teach about them.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#18    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,940 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • Dysfunctional you can fix, ******** can't be.

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:05 PM

View PostRaptor, on 26 February 2013 - 01:29 AM, said:

Should we also teach schoolchildren to consider malevolent spiritual curses as an alternative to the germ theory of disease? No, because the former is an impracticable fabrication with no bearing on reality and the latter is accurate.

There are plenty of good opportunities for teaching critical thinking skills in the science classroom that don't involve substituting sense for lunacy.

At least, perhaps, this might grant the teachers who possess at least an elementary understanding of the subject they teach the freedom to fairly consider the innumerable flaws of creationism et al. in their class without certain groups throwing a fit.

@ Raptor,
You have good points. I am at this point only suggesting how viable cultivating curiousity is-- meaning that if we limit our kids to a fixed mindset, we limit options for intellectual growth. I think being grounded in reality is a must. I do not support creationsism as viable. My position is to encourage curiousity as it tends to drive people to question and look/consider at new ideas.

@ Scowl, I agree having an informed opinion is key.

@Chloe, In a science class there will be kids that come from all kinds of  enviornments that believe all kinds of things, but what should be taught is the discipline of science ( inductive and deductive logic, evidence etc..). I have never been involved, nor support  a science curriculum that teaches creationsism as science, nor am I positioning for it.

Edited by Sherapy, 26 February 2013 - 05:05 PM.




#19    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,209 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:21 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 26 February 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

I don't know why creationists would be celebrating.  This is something that evolutionists wish they'd thought of - a head-to-head comparison.

The big problem is finding teachers who know enough about both subjects to be able to competently teach about them.
Doug

Thats the issue religion now has a foot hold in a science classroom.  Huge win for creationists as now evolution can be taught as false and a big boat full of animals true.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#20    J. K.

J. K.

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,551 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:44 PM

Critical thinking ability is one of the disciplines that schools endeavor to stimulate in students.  Perhaps a short unit on creation stories from around the world could be examined, asking students to identify common elements, and compare/contrast the other elements.  This could also function as an interdisciplinary unit with social studies.  

Science deals with information built on previous information, so why ignore the previous information on beginnings?

One's reality is another's nightmare.

#21    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:55 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 26 February 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

There aren't any other theories. There are a bunch of irrational hypotheses. So I can't see this bill creating any issue at all.

It helps to address those irrational hypotheses though. Then students won't graduate thinking that Creationism is some kind of great secret that scientists don't want kids to learn about. We went over it and by the end of the hour it was clear that it didn't fit in with any evidence.


#22    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,209 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 26 February 2013 - 08:05 PM

View Postscowl, on 26 February 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

It helps to address those irrational hypotheses though. Then students won't graduate thinking that Creationism is some kind of great secret that scientists don't want kids to learn about. We went over it and by the end of the hour it was clear that it didn't fit in with any evidence.

And yet some still believe in Fairys ;)

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#23    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 February 2013 - 08:11 PM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 26 February 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

And yet some still believe in Fairys ;)

That's because we have pictures of them. You can't argue with a photograph taken by a teenaged girl.


#24    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,382 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 26 February 2013 - 08:13 PM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 26 February 2013 - 05:21 PM, said:

Thats the issue religion now has a foot hold in a science classroom.  Huge win for creationists as now evolution can be taught as false and a big boat full of animals true.
One big problem we face with evolution is finding teachers who know enough about it to feel comfortable teaching about it.  The same with creationism.  How many people out there can explain how the fundies came up with their 6000-year-old earth idea?  And that's only one Bible-based guess on the earth's age.  There's another one that supports Jesus' birth in the 5200th year of the world.  That is the one used by The Annals of the Four Masters book on Irish history.

The crucial issue is explaining how these ideas were derived so that students can do their own estimates.  Once they can reporduce both processes and see exactly what they're based on, which one do you think they'll choose?

Much the same applies to global warming.  If you're going to show that warming is fact, there are a half-dozen data sets you can use.  But there aren't any that don't show warming.  So if the assignment is to use any dataset you want and calculate change (or lack of it) since 1900, what do you think will be the result?

One project I would like to do if I taught high school science is to reproduce some of the famous experiments from history.  Allow the opposition to reproduce any experiments they have that support their ideas.  Who do you think will win?

Each science has a fundamental theorem around which it is built.  What happens when some religion wants its ideas taught in class?  If it's a science class, they must adhere to observation and reason.  What would be a student's reaction to the discovery that some idea has no theoretical basis?

If they're really thinking about this, the fundies will defeat this bill.

We need to put more effort into educating our teachers.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 26 February 2013 - 08:15 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#25    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,940 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • Dysfunctional you can fix, ******** can't be.

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:50 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 26 February 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

One big problem we face with evolution is finding teachers who know enough about it to feel comfortable teaching about it.  The same with creationism.  How many people out there can explain how the fundies came up with their 6000-year-old earth idea?  And that's only one Bible-based guess on the earth's age.  There's another one that supports Jesus' birth in the 5200th year of the world.  That is the one used by The Annals of the Four Masters book on Irish history.

The crucial issue is explaining how these ideas were derived so that students can do their own estimates.  Once they can reporduce both processes and see exactly what they're based on, which one do you think they'll choose?

Much the same applies to global warming.  If you're going to show that warming is fact, there are a half-dozen data sets you can use.  But there aren't any that don't show warming.  So if the assignment is to use any dataset you want and calculate change (or lack of it) since 1900, what do you think will be the result?

One project I would like to do if I taught high school science is to reproduce some of the famous experiments from history.  Allow the opposition to reproduce any experiments they have that support their ideas.  Who do you think will win?

Each science has a fundamental theorem around which it is built.  What happens when some religion wants its ideas taught in class?  If it's a science class, they must adhere to observation and reason.  What would be a student's reaction to the discovery that some idea has no theoretical basis?

If they're really thinking about this, the fundies will defeat this bill.

We need to put more effort into educating our teachers.
Doug

I agree but I'd add as a parent who has been persoanlly invovled with  the virutal online academy's since 2005, the bottom line is it was my responsibility to educate myself, learn what I didn't know  and I have and continue to. I think this should apply to our teachers too. I think and know teachers who stay informed and put a lot into their learning and I know teachers who do not.

I tell my kids they will get great teachers along the way and there will be times they will not,but regardless we are responsible for our own learning , Education is a great freedom and as a parent I do my part, and encourage my kids to do theirs, which is stay informed and do what it takes to learn.

Edited by Sherapy, 26 February 2013 - 09:52 PM.




#26    ChloeB

ChloeB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,161 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Female

  • “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” — Leonardo da Vinci

Posted 27 February 2013 - 12:01 AM

View PostSherapy, on 26 February 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

@Chloe, In a science class there will be kids that come from all kinds of  enviornments that believe all kinds of things, but what should be taught is the discipline of science ( inductive and deductive logic, evidence etc..). I have never been involved, nor support  a science curriculum that teaches creationsism as science, nor am I positioning for it.

Two antiscience bills in Oklahoma

Second, House Bill 1674 (document), styled the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, would, if enacted, similarly require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies"

HB 1551 passed the House of Representatives on March 15, 2012, by which time it managed to attract condemnation from national scientific and educational organizations. The American Association for the Advancement of Science's chief executive officer Alan I. Leshner expressed his concerns with the bill, for example, writing (PDF) in a March 21, 2012, letter, "There is virtually no scientific controversy among the overwhelming majority of researchers on the core facts of global warming and evolution," and adding, "asserting that there are significant scientific controversies about the overall nature of these concepts when there are none will only confuse students, not enlighten them." HB 1551 died in the Senate Education Committee in April 2012.

The new bill, HB 1674, is apparently identical to the final version of HB 1551 as passed by the House of Representatives and unconsidered by the Senate, and only slightly different from Oklahoma's Senate Bill 320 from 2009, which a member of the Senate Education Committee memorably described to the Tulsa World (February 17, 2009) as one of the worst bills that he had ever seen. Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education argued, "Promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy is just plain dishonest." With respect to the supposed "weaknesses" of evolution, OESE added, "they are phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don't like evolution."

http://ncse.com/news...klahoma-0014686

Edited by ChloeB, 27 February 2013 - 12:35 AM.

“You've gotta dance like there's nobody watching,
Love like you'll never be hurt,
Sing like there's nobody listening,
And live like it's heaven on earth.”
― William W. Purkey

#27    ChloeB

ChloeB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,161 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Female

  • “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” — Leonardo da Vinci

Posted 27 February 2013 - 12:16 AM

double post

Edited by ChloeB, 27 February 2013 - 12:33 AM.

“You've gotta dance like there's nobody watching,
Love like you'll never be hurt,
Sing like there's nobody listening,
And live like it's heaven on earth.”
― William W. Purkey

#28    bacca

bacca

    Puppet master of Vision

  • Member
  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • Allasourous
    Jan 2003-Sept 25 2005
    Have a SUPER SPARKLEY DAY

Posted 27 February 2013 - 01:20 AM

View PostSherapy, on 26 February 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

I agree but I'd add as a parent who has been persoanlly invovled with  the virutal online academy's since 2005, the bottom line is it was my responsibility to educate myself, learn what I didn't know  and I have and continue to. I think this should apply to our teachers too. I think and know teachers who stay informed and put a lot into their learning and I know teachers who do not.

I tell my kids they will get great teachers along the way and there will be times they will not,but regardless we are responsible for our own learning , Education is a great freedom and as a parent I do my part, and encourage my kids to do theirs, which is stay informed and do what it takes to learn.

The problem here is how to teach something that should if anything be no more than a passing comment in a science class. Science should be teaching the scientific method, and things that have some basis such as evolution. Throwing ideas that have no basis other than a church is opening a can of worms that in no way can have a good ending. I could learn enough about creationism to teach it, but I could not take it seriously. And I could not tell a student who didn't believe in it and thought it was hokey that they were wrong, and there is nothing to say that they are. The old idea is that you don't talk about politics or religion....it would seem that adding a religious belief into science can only end badly.

I don't think that this would be a good teacher bad teacher issue, but asking a science teacher to learn about creationism is like asking an English teacher to learn ebonics, it is just wrong

Edited by bacca, 27 February 2013 - 01:21 AM.

Commit random acts of kindness


Careful what you wish for, you just might get it!!!

#29    MysticStrummer

MysticStrummer

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 890 posts
  • Joined:15 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central Texas

  • The great path has no gates. Thousands of roads enter it. When one passes through this gateless gate, he walks freely between heaven and earth.

Posted 27 February 2013 - 02:56 AM

View PostArbenol68, on 26 February 2013 - 03:39 AM, said:

I agree, absolutely.

But that's not what this is about. This is about pushing unscientific, supernatural explanations into an arena where it just does not belong. Religious agendas have nothing to contribute to open-minded scientific enquiry.

Yes. Talk about creationism all you want in school, but keep it in a class other than science. Comparative Religions, World Religions, or something along those lines. I'd have no problem with that.

Ummon asked : "The world is such a wide world, why do you answer a bell and don ceremonial robes?" ~ Zen Flesh Zen Bones

#30    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,940 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • Dysfunctional you can fix, ******** can't be.

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:24 AM

View PostChloeB, on 27 February 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

Two antiscience bills in Oklahoma

Second, House Bill 1674 (document), styled the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, would, if enacted, similarly require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies"

HB 1551 passed the House of Representatives on March 15, 2012, by which time it managed to attract condemnation from national scientific and educational organizations. The American Association for the Advancement of Science's chief executive officer Alan I. Leshner expressed his concerns with the bill, for example, writing (PDF) in a March 21, 2012, letter, "There is virtually no scientific controversy among the overwhelming majority of researchers on the core facts of global warming and evolution," and adding, "asserting that there are significant scientific controversies about the overall nature of these concepts when there are none will only confuse students, not enlighten them." HB 1551 died in the Senate Education Committee in April 2012.

The new bill, HB 1674, is apparently identical to the final version of HB 1551 as passed by the House of Representatives and unconsidered by the Senate, and only slightly different from Oklahoma's Senate Bill 320 from 2009, which a member of the Senate Education Committee memorably described to the Tulsa World (February 17, 2009) as one of the worst bills that he had ever seen. Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education argued, "Promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy is just plain dishonest." With respect to the supposed "weaknesses" of evolution, OESE added, "they are phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don't like evolution."

http://ncse.com/news...klahoma-0014686



I do not support creationism taught as science.

I posted in error originally, I read the OP wrong.







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users