90 replies to this topic

[the L]

http://www.huffingto..._n_2733977.html

Introduced by Republican state Rep. Gus Blackwell, the legislation would "permit teachers, schools, and students to explore alternative theories without repercussions,"

[scowl]

That's what we did in my school.

We quickly saw that the alternative theories didn't hold up. Most kids who had thought man couldn't have evolved from other creatures were stunned at how weak other theories were.

[Sherapy]

the L, on 25 February 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

http://www.huffingto..._n_2733977.html

Introduced by Republican state Rep. Gus Blackwell, the legislation would "permit teachers, schools, and students to explore alternative theories without repercussions,"

Good grief, this simply is great to hear.  Way to go Oklahoma!

[green_dude777]

To be honest, I am unaware of any other theory on how life evolved to its current state.

[Sherapy]

scowl, on 25 February 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

That's what we did in my school.

We quickly saw that the alternative theories didn't hold up. Most kids who had thought man couldn't have evolved from other creatures were stunned at how weak other theories were.

I wouldn't even say it's that(although it could be), I think we have to inspire our children to see an idea from many perspectives , it is in this we encourage curiousity which is the impetuous that drives one to see in new ways  or to consider the old ideas in new ways, the ideas that once were the new ideas.

[ChloeB]

the L, on 25 February 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

http://www.huffingto..._n_2733977.html

Introduced by Republican state Rep. Gus Blackwell, the legislation would "permit teachers, schools, and students to explore alternative theories without repercussions,"

"The Oklahoma Common Education committee passed the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act Tuesday in a close 9-8 vote, Mother Jones reports.
Introduced by Republican state Rep. Gus Blackwell, the legislation would "permit teachers, schools, and students to explore alternative theories without repercussions," the Week columnist Dana Liebelson writes."

Yeah, alternative theories, in other words, creationism, which is religion and has no place in a science classroom at all.

[scowl]

Sherapy, on 25 February 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

I wouldn't even say it's that(although it could be), I think we have to inspire our children to see an idea from many perspectives , it is in this we encourage curiousity which is the impetuous that drives one to see in new ways  or to consider the old ideas in new ways, the ideas that once were the new ideas.

We need to teach critical thinking more than anything. New ideas are worthless if we are unable to judge them. When I was in school there were parents who were demanding that every idea (i.e. Creationism) should be presented equally and fairly. A school board member asked them if schools should start teaching Communism as an equal and fair economic system. The parents quietly stopped proposing this concept.

If I remember what my seventh grade teacher taught, we were given three theories to consider:

• Evolution through genetic mutation.
  
• Evolution through inherited adaptation.
  
• Creation, that all species were created at about the same time.

The second one sounds great: if you use a body part then it gets stronger and your offspring will inherit this strength. This seems far more likely than genetic mutation because there is direct transmission of adaptation -- no randomness is involved. If you survive by having strong leg muscles then your children will get stronger leg muscles. The problem is that we haven't discovered any system for a parent to pass this adaptation to their offspring. Your genes just don't change.

We were shown several holes in the Creation theory, mainly the problem of finding similar fossils in consistent layers and not finding fossils of existing species in them. It showed that species have disappeared and new ones have appeared. Something has to be creating those new ones.

That left genetic mutation. This one is hard to take because it involves randomness and random events rarely lead to good things. How can a series of accidents lead to anything good? Sadly, it's the most plausible theory.

[ChloeB]

Sherapy, on 25 February 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

I wouldn't even say it's that(although it could be), I think we have to inspire our children to see an idea from many perspectives , it is in this we encourage curiousity which is the impetuous that drives one to see in new ways  or to consider the old ideas in new ways, the ideas that once were the new ideas.

Sherapy, on 25 February 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

I wouldn't even say it's that(although it could be), I think we have to inspire our children to see an idea from many perspectives , it is in this we encourage curiousity which is the impetuous that drives one to see in new ways  or to consider the old ideas in new ways, the ideas that once were the new ideas.

Could you elaborate how this would work in a science class?

[ChloeB]

scowl, on 26 February 2013 - 12:28 AM, said:

We need to teach critical thinking more than anything. New ideas are worthless if we are unable to judge them. When I was in school there were parents who were demanding that every idea (i.e. Creationism) should be presented equally and fairly. A school board member asked them if schools should start teaching Communism as an equal and fair economic system. The parents quietly stopped proposing this concept.

That's awesome.  It's like when they argue about prayer in school, ask most of the if they want to allow all religions not just their own, Muslims to pray 5 times a day and to be fair, Satanist kids, all of them, then they don't like that.  It's always about pushing own religious agenda in while crying for equality, but if confronted with truly being equal and fair, they don't want it.

[scowl]

ChloeB, on 26 February 2013 - 12:35 AM, said:

That's awesome.  It's like when they argue about prayer in school, ask most of the if they want to allow all religions not just their own,

Our school system did try to push something like school prayer to make some pestering parents go away. For a while we had something like five minutes of "quiet time" every day. Of course the good Christian kids prayed to God during this time and some of them weren't quiet enough in my opinion. The bad kids quietly mocked God by reading comic books or magazines (I read Popular Electronics). Eventually this led to confrontations between kids and the school district gave up on it.

[Raptor]

Sherapy, on 25 February 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

I wouldn't even say it's that(although it could be), I think we have to inspire our children to see an idea from many perspectives , it is in this we encourage curiousity which is the impetuous that drives one to see in new ways  or to consider the old ideas in new ways, the ideas that once were the new ideas.

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.

[AquilaChrysaetos]

Sounds good to me. Open minded scientific inquiry is how science should be taught.

[Arbenol68]

AquilaChrysaetos, on 26 February 2013 - 03:00 AM, said:

Sounds good to me. Open minded scientific inquiry is how science should be taught.

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.

[redhen]

"A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations."

... but rather by a miracle? And that fits into a science class how exactly?

[Rlyeh]

So what are these other scientific theories?