RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >   
  Topic: Opponents of Evolution Are Adopting New Strategy, NY Times article< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2008,17:00   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 05 2008,17:30)
I think we've come back around to where Skeptic made his board debut.

A semantic quibble:

In order to "come back around to" a given point, one must first leave that point.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2008,17:08   

Quote (Lou FCD @ June 05 2008,17:00)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 05 2008,17:30)
I think we've come back around to where Skeptic made his board debut.

A semantic quibble:

In order to "come back around to" a given point, one must first leave that point.

I stand corrected.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2008,18:51   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 05 2008,18:08)
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 05 2008,17:00)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 05 2008,17:30)
I think we've come back around to where Skeptic made his board debut.

A semantic quibble:

In order to "come back around to" a given point, one must first leave that point.

I stand corrected.

C'mon over to Janie's place later, and you won't be standing...

:D

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2008,19:02   

Quote (skeptic @ June 05 2008,13:56)
I appreciate you all missing the point.  I congratulate you as you continue to be part of the problem.

Then do us a favor, and make it clear. Apperantly you kind of failed at first, because we all missed it.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2008,21:32   

Quote
In yesterday's General Chemistry I lecture I pointed out that the atom is composed of a very small, heavy nucleus made up of protons and neutrons, with electrons distributed probabilistically, with lower density as the radial distance from the nucleus increases.  What are the weaknesses of that theoretical description that I should point out to these students?


No mention of quarks and gluons!!!1111!!!eleven!!

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2008,21:40   

Quote (skeptic @ June 05 2008,10:06)
Ask yourselves this question, what are the limitations of the current theory, what remains unanswered and more importantly why?  Can you answer the question?  

Skept, please don't tell us you think legislation addressing the teaching of "strengths and weaknesses" refers to anything resembling these questions.

"Strengths and weakenesses" is code, pure and simple, for the introduction of discredited creationist/ID chestnuts into the science classroom, and bears no relationship to the sort of inquiry you suggest.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2008,10:12   

Quote (skeptic @ June 05 2008,09:06)
you all demonstrate the problem and to illustrate it another way, when Bush was asked what mistakes he had made he couldn't come up with any.  Why?  Because to do so would just have lent ammunition to his critics.  
<snip>
For my part, with very little effort and preparation I could present an entire lecture on the limitations of the current theory and never once mention ID or creationism.  

Your Bush analogy would be fine if you were asking us for the weaknesses of MET. However, it is the other way round, and your failure to provide any weakness is convincing evidence you have nothing.

 
Quote (skeptic @ June 05 2008,16:57)
it's amazing to me how in two years nothing about this debate has changed.

But it could all change if you were only to describe some of these mythical 'weaknesses' to us. The discussion can't advance while you are stuck in the rut 'there are many weaknesses but I'm not going to tell you what they are because if you were competent you would be fully aware of them.'

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2008,21:28   

NEWSFLASH from Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education:

Quote
GOVERNOR VETO OF  KERN’S RELIGIOUS BILL, HB 2633 !!

Governor Henry's message on his veto of HB 2633:
 
Quote

"This is to advise you that on this date, pursuant to the authority vested in me by Section 11 and 12 of Article VI of the Oklahoma Constitution to approve or object to legislation presented to me, I have VETOED House Bill 2633. Under current state and federal law, Oklahoma public school students are already allowed to express their faith through voluntary prayer and other activities. While well intended, this legislation is vaguely written and may trigger a number of unintended consequences that actually impede rather than enhance such expression. For example, under this legislation, schools could be forced to provide equal time to fringe organizations that masquerade as religions and advocate behaviors, such as drug use or hate speech, that are dangerous or offensive to students and the general public. Additionally, the bill would presumably require school officials to determine what constitutes legitimate religious expression, subjecting them to an explosion of costly and protracted litigation that would have to be defended at taxpayer’s expense."

Henry could have waited a day and let this bill die as a pocket veto. It is important that he decided instead to veto it directly, thus sending an important message.

This is a major victory for supporters of separation of church and state and of quality in public education. LARGE numbers of individuals sent messages to legislators and the Governor in opposition to this bill as it worked its way through the process. To those, and to the organizations that fought this silliness, THANK YOU. This proves again that numbers do count and that organized efforts of citizens still work in our democracy.


HB2633 included language that was originally part of the "Religious Viewpoint Antidiscrimination Act" introduced by the infamous Sally Kern.

Many thanks to Dr. Victor Hutchinson, President, and all his associates in OESE.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2008,00:44   

Bill, I still think the way to go is to affect their accreditation.   It seems to me to make more sense as educators setting standards rather than legislators.  That would also remove the State by State problem and provide a broader basis for addressing the "weakness" issue.  In fact, in a scientific sense a theory weaknesses could be unanswered questions or conflicting data.  You could easily compare gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium or the relative influence of natural selection vs other mechanism or even explain from a historical perspective the lack of inheritance fixation until Mendel was rediscovered and what theories were prevalent in the during that period. This way the discussion stays completely oriented on science and any attempt to push it further becomes blatant and requires support that is non-existent.  This keeps scientists discussing science and nothing else.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2008,05:46   

Quote (skeptic @ June 07 2008,00:44)
You could easily compare gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium or the relative influence of natural selection vs other mechanism or even explain from a historical perspective the lack of inheritance fixation until Mendel was rediscovered and what theories were prevalent in the during that period.

In what way are these 'weaknesses'?
   
Quote
This keeps scientists discussing science and nothing else.

I find this a revealing comment. Why is it imporant to you to make sure scientists only discuss science? In the context of the proposed legislation, the problem is not to keep scientists discussing science, but to keep teachers teaching science in science classes.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2008,06:56   

I see that skeptic is back and apparently hoping that nobody notices his failure to answer a simple question, posed to him several times here.

Big surprise.

Moving on from that unproductive endeavor, we find an editorial, entitled The Cons of Creationism, in the NYT today. They get it right - "The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved."

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2008,07:53   

Quote (skeptic @ June 07 2008,01:44)
Bill, I still think the way to go is to affect their accreditation.   It seems to me to make more sense as educators setting standards rather than legislators.  That would also remove the State by State problem and provide a broader basis for addressing the "weakness" issue.  In fact, in a scientific sense a theory weaknesses could be unanswered questions or conflicting data.  You could easily compare gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium or the relative influence of natural selection vs other mechanism or even explain from a historical perspective the lack of inheritance fixation until Mendel was rediscovered and what theories were prevalent in the during that period. This way the discussion stays completely oriented on science and any attempt to push it further becomes blatant and requires support that is non-existent.  This keeps scientists discussing science and nothing else.

Skeptic, I don't understand your point vis accreditation. Can you restate?

More generally, your reply doesn't speak to my point. The discussions you are suggesting here (a genuine exploration of punctuationism; the role of natural selection versus other mechanisms in propelling evolution; a presentation of the history of these powerful scientific ideas) are long-standing features of discourse within evolutionary biology, are already part of good pedagogy and need no legislative protection.

Creationist/ID advocates have a long history of presenting distorted and dishonest caricatures of such genuine conceptual and empirical contests for the sole purpose of pressing their religiously motivated points of view (e.g. punctuationism supports "sudden appearance"). "Strengths and weaknesses" legislation seeks to give legal cover to public school teachers who want to introduce these religiously motivated, scientifically irrelevant creationist chestnuts into the science classroom (an otherwise illegal activity).

That's the purpose. That's the ONLY purpose. YOU KNOW THAT. Why would you support THAT?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2008,08:23   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 07 2008,15:53)
Quote (skeptic @ June 07 2008,01:44)
Bill, I still think the way to go is to affect their accreditation.   It seems to me to make more sense as educators setting standards rather than legislators.  That would also remove the State by State problem and provide a broader basis for addressing the "weakness" issue.  In fact, in a scientific sense a theory weaknesses could be unanswered questions or conflicting data.  You could easily compare gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium or the relative influence of natural selection vs other mechanism or even explain from a historical perspective the lack of inheritance fixation until Mendel was rediscovered and what theories were prevalent in the during that period. This way the discussion stays completely oriented on science and any attempt to push it further becomes blatant and requires support that is non-existent.  This keeps scientists discussing science and nothing else.

Skeptic, I don't understand your point vis accreditation. Can you restate?

More generally, your reply doesn't speak to my point. The discussions you are suggesting here (a genuine exploration of punctuationism; the role of natural selection versus other mechanisms in propelling evolution; a presentation of the history of these powerful scientific ideas) are long-standing features of discourse within evolutionary biology, are already part of good pedagogy and need no legislative protection.

Creationist/ID advocates have a long history of presenting distorted and dishonest caricatures of such genuine conceptual and empirical contests for the sole purpose of pressing their religiously motivated points of view (e.g. punctuationism supports "sudden appearance"). "Strengths and weaknesses" legislation seeks to give legal cover to public school teachers who want to introduce these religiously motivated, scientifically irrelevant creationist chestnuts into the science classroom (an otherwise illegal activity).

That's the purpose. That's the ONLY purpose. YOU KNOW THAT. Why would you support THAT?

I'll make it easy for you.....septik  supports lying liars but just to throw us off the scent gives lip service to creationists being wrong.

The truth is he is one of them, not because he agrees with creationism he doesn't, he supports their politics.

He is secretly homophobic or any other form of rampant hornynessphobic and seeks the tiniest glimmer of stuffed shirt connservative anti reality newspeak. Any lie to support his walled in tribal cloister is ok by him.

People like him are born with a wooden spoon up their rectum and an ice chip on their shoulder.

They can't help themselves, to let go of their facist worldview would mean instant death of their pathic egos.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2008,18:37   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 07 2008,05:53)
The discussions you are suggesting here (a genuine exploration of punctuationism; the role of natural selection versus other mechanisms in propelling evolution; a presentation of the history of these powerful scientific ideas) are long-standing features of discourse within evolutionary biology, are already part of good pedagogy and need no legislative protection.

Exactly. Biology teachers aren't campaigning for these bills so that can talk about this. If these ideas aren't discussed in high school level classes, it is likely due to time constraints, or the fact that evolution as a whole is frequently marginalized.

Why is evolution frequently glossed over at this level ? One hypothesis is that it has to do with the influence of creationists... the very same people campaigning for this "academic freedom". Hmmm. If people are hypocrites, why are there still hippopotamus ? Goddidit! QED!

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2008,18:53   

Or, if there are whales, why are there still hippopotami? :p

Henry

  
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2008,18:08   

Hi Albatrossity-

Thanks for passing on the NYT link; I might have not have read the piece otherwise.  The opening line offers the most succinct summary yet of what I've experienced the past couple of years:

"When it comes to science, creationists tend to struggle with reality."

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2008,20:29   

Sorry for the long delay, I've been busy.

No, I do not support the legislation but I would advocate a course of action that makes such attempts useless.  Back to that in a sec.  As far as accreditation, the process is approved at State levels but those are based upon national standards.  This dilutes the impact of any one State's attempt to dictate these standards.  Ultimately the endusers are the Universities as they review accreditations when determining placement and acceptance and that gives them tremendous power in setting these standards.  Here's how I propose it would work: first at the private university level, student records and course descriptions could be reviewed and students rejected or remedial courses required based upon course content.  In short, students from school systems teaching YEC or ID as science would be required to take a course in the scientific method the summer before acceptance or just rejected out of hand.  The next step would be to influence the accrediting boards to withhold accreditation from systems teaching YEC or ID as science or to break out science separately from other courses and give subject accreditation; such as, english, math, literature, science, etc.  This would also assist Universities in placement and remediation decisions.

On the other side, teach biology and evolution in the same way as chemistry and physics...without bias.  Discuss the pros and cons of the theories, describe the evolution of the theory itself, discuss the current unanswered questions and potential future discoveries.  Appropriately separate origin of life discussions from evolution.  In short, stop tweaking.  This would adequately satisfy the vague "strengths and weaknesses" clause and to just require robust scientific review of those areas would eliminate any YEC or ID material being added.  It then couldn't be said that evolution was being taught in a biased manner and the legislation loses any relevance.

That's my idea and it has flaws and it may not even be workable but that's the theme I'd love to see applied and an end to this meaningless, seemingly endless argument.

Wait...I think I hear "Kumbaya."

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2008,20:50   

Quote (skeptic @ June 10 2008,20:29)
Sorry for the long delay, I've been busy.

No, I do not support the legislation but I would advocate a course of action that makes such attempts useless.  Back to that in a sec.  As far as accreditation, the process is approved at State levels but those are based upon national standards.  This dilutes the impact of any one State's attempt to dictate these standards.  Ultimately the endusers are the Universities as they review accreditations when determining placement and acceptance and that gives them tremendous power in setting these standards.  Here's how I propose it would work: first at the private university level, student records and course descriptions could be reviewed and students rejected or remedial courses required based upon course content.  In short, students from school systems teaching YEC or ID as science would be required to take a course in the scientific method the summer before acceptance or just rejected out of hand.  The next step would be to influence the accrediting boards to withhold accreditation from systems teaching YEC or ID as science or to break out science separately from other courses and give subject accreditation; such as, english, math, literature, science, etc.  This would also assist Universities in placement and remediation decisions.

On the other side, teach biology and evolution in the same way as chemistry and physics...without bias.  Discuss the pros and cons of the theories, describe the evolution of the theory itself, discuss the current unanswered questions and potential future discoveries.  Appropriately separate origin of life discussions from evolution.  In short, stop tweaking.  This would adequately satisfy the vague "strengths and weaknesses" clause and to just require robust scientific review of those areas would eliminate any YEC or ID material being added.  It then couldn't be said that evolution was being taught in a biased manner and the legislation loses any relevance.

That's my idea and it has flaws and it may not even be workable but that's the theme I'd love to see applied and an end to this meaningless, seemingly endless argument.

Wait...I think I hear "Kumbaya."

That's funny; I think I hear "I Wanna Be Sedated".

Without going into all the details, all I can say is that this approach is based on some very naive notions of how universities can influence secondary education. In addition, why should universities be required to both accredit secondary school courses from the millions of high schools in the country, and offer remedial courses in situations where students have been ill-treated by their secondary school? I think we already have plenty of unfunded mandates, thanks.

I think it is abundantly clear to me (as a parent and as a college professor in a state that is prone to stupidity about science education) that strong standards at the state level, and vigilance at the local level, will do a LOT more for science education than any top-down policing by universities. This will also ensure that students who never go to a university (but who will probably vote) are well-educated, despite the forces of ignorance that want to bring us all back to the 17th century.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2008,21:01   

Quote (skeptic @ June 10 2008,21:29)
 In short, stop tweaking.  This would adequately satisfy the vague "strengths and weaknesses" clause and to just require robust scientific review of those areas would eliminate any YEC or ID material being added.  It then couldn't be said that evolution was being taught in a biased manner and the legislation loses any relevance.

The legislation has no relevance now. And those who now claim that evolution is being taught in a "biased manner" will pay no mind to the measures you suggest, because their efforts arise from religious and political motivations, not from a grounding in reality that is sensitive to the adjustments you suggest.

They can and will continue to say that evolution is being taught in a biased manner regardless, because from their view from the bottom of a cultural well, which attends only to a shallow and cartoonish presentation of human history, an accurate presentation of the reality of natural history appears biased. We owe it to our children not to compromise with these people.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2008,22:01   

a few points, Universities already require remedial courses for incoming freshman.  Typically these courses are taken in the fall semester and are not required for admission but major selection so that actually constitutes a small change.  Secondly, the Universities are the recipients of the products of those systems and it is in their own interest to influence or even demand certain standards.  I don't know this for a fact but it shouldn't be too hard to find out who the voting members of state education steering committees are.  My guess is they are loaded with state academia.  Also, in regards to those not attending college, I could really care less what the guy at Jiffy Lube knows about evolution, chemistry, physics or any other irrelevant subject in relation to his chosen career path.  In that same vein, evolution also has no relevance in a voting rights discussion.

As far as reaction to the manner in which evolution was taught, this method would actually eliminate the claim.  By adopting the "strengths and weaknesses" idea all kinds of ideas may be presented for consideration but only those affirmed by a robust scientific review would be included.  This would ensure legitimate topics would be included, satisfying the clause objective, and no topics presenting YEC or ID would.  The motivations for the legislation become unimportant when the only measuring stick is science.

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2008,22:04   

Quote (skeptic @ June 10 2008,18:29)
On the other side, teach biology and evolution in the same way as chemistry and physics...without bias.

You were asked provide evidence that this alleged bias exists. Instead, you have produced a great deal of irrelevant verbiage.

How about one concrete example of how current public school biology courses are biased* ?

For bonus points, explain why this alleged bias needs an explicit legislative action is required to allow this bias to be remedied.

* "bias" against religious gobbledygook posing as science doesn't count, since we are talking about a science course.

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2008,22:06   

Ugh, clearly my editing leaves something to be desired.

Try
Quote

For bonus points, explain why this alleged bias needs an explicit legislative action to be remedied.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2008,22:32   

please pay attention, there is no need for the legislation and bias is in the eye of the beholder.  Both sides see bias on the other.  The idea is not to address the bias but eliminate the ability to claim it exists.

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2008,23:06   

Quote (skeptic @ June 10 2008,20:32)
please pay attention, there is no need for the legislation and bias is in the eye of the beholder.  Both sides see bias on the other.  The idea is not to address the bias but eliminate the ability to claim it exists.

So when you said:
 
Quote

On the other side, teach biology and evolution in the same way as chemistry and physics...without bias.

You meant exactly like it's taught today ? Excellent.

The creos will continue to claim bias as long as anything that doesn't conform to their beliefs is taught. So you clearly aren't going to win that and still teach science.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2008,00:08   

it's good to see that you're capable of objectivity

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2008,06:38   

Quote (skeptic @ June 10 2008,22:01)
a few points, Universities already require remedial courses for incoming freshman.  Typically these courses are taken in the fall semester and are not required for admission but major selection so that actually constitutes a small change.  Secondly, the Universities are the recipients of the products of those systems and it is in their own interest to influence or even demand certain standards.  I don't know this for a fact but it shouldn't be too hard to find out who the voting members of state education steering committees are.  My guess is they are loaded with state academia.  Also, in regards to those not attending college, I could really care less what the guy at Jiffy Lube knows about evolution, chemistry, physics or any other irrelevant subject in relation to his chosen career path.  In that same vein, evolution also has no relevance in a voting rights discussion.

As far as reaction to the manner in which evolution was taught, this method would actually eliminate the claim.  By adopting the "strengths and weaknesses" idea all kinds of ideas may be presented for consideration but only those affirmed by a robust scientific review would be included.  This would ensure legitimate topics would be included, satisfying the clause objective, and no topics presenting YEC or ID would.  The motivations for the legislation become unimportant when the only measuring stick is science.

This is classic logic from skeptic. Say some things that are true but which are also irrelevant to the points being discussed. And at the end of it, say something that is idiotic and hope that nobody notices.

Yes, universities teach remedial courses already. The point is that we don't need to teach them if the secondary schools do their jobs, and we certainly don't need to teach more of them. Address that point, please, and quit stating the bleeding obvious.

Yes, universities have an interest in influencing the standards at the secondary level. And we do that already. But your suggestion goes beyond interest to active policing. Address that point, please, and quite stating the bleeding obvious.

Finally, voters vote not only for school boards, but for idjits like Santorum and Brownback. Voters ignorant about evolution would tend to vote for ignorant representatives. So even if you don't care about the guy at Jiffy Lube, it's important that he/she know enough to not fall for idjwitterry. Even if you already have.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2008,07:43   

Alba, I don't think that's quite fair.  If change is going to occur someone has to take the lead and the Universities are in the position to have the greatest impact, IMO.  Secondary schools are already failing our students in nearly every subject so why would science be any different.  IMO, it would be much more efficient and far-reaching to have Universities dictate top down then individual school systems attempting their own change.  It could even start with private science-oriented schools like MIT or CalPoly, etc not necessarily making a statement specifically about evolution but about the quality of the student and saying we're not going to accept substandard students.

As far as voters, I have so many concerns about the knowledge of the voter that evolution falls pretty low on that scale but changes in that area are a pipe dream, IMO.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2008,08:12   

I see we're still jogging in place.

Carry on.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2008,08:17   

Quote (skeptic @ June 10 2008,22:32)
please pay attention, there is no need for the legislation and bias is in the eye of the beholder.  Both sides see bias on the other.  The idea is not to address the bias but eliminate the ability to claim it exists.

You don't seem to understand. As far as the "other side" is concerned, the weakness of evolution is that it contradicts their religious belief of special creation. That's never going to change. (Barring the miraculous discovery of new evidence.)

Your proposal to adopt the "strengths and weaknesses" claim isn't going to eliminate the problem, because evolution will still contradict special creation. Religious fundamentalists want evolution "taught" in such a way that it doesn't contradict their belief (e.g. as "just a theory" or really watered down or, preferably, not at all). Unless you do that, the problem remains. In fact, it's worse, because you've gone along with the idea of legislating how a subject is taught due to religious beliefs.

The motivation for this legislation is religious. Specific religious beliefs should never dictate what is taught in public high school, nor how it is taught. Such legislation should be opposed and defeated.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2008,08:52   

Quote (skeptic @ June 11 2008,07:43)
Alba, I don't think that's quite fair.  If change is going to occur someone has to take the lead and the Universities are in the position to have the greatest impact, IMO.  Secondary schools are already failing our students in nearly every subject so why would science be any different.  IMO, it would be much more efficient and far-reaching to have Universities dictate top down then individual school systems attempting their own change.  It could even start with private science-oriented schools like MIT or CalPoly, etc not necessarily making a statement specifically about evolution but about the quality of the student and saying we're not going to accept substandard students.

As far as voters, I have so many concerns about the knowledge of the voter that evolution falls pretty low on that scale but changes in that area are a pipe dream, IMO.

It may not seem fair to you, but it is accurate.

Top-down strategies typically fail, and to ask that universities take over the task of accrediting secondary education classes nationwide is simple inanity. Perhaps of the breathtaking variety.

Furthermore, even if we accept your assertion that "Secondary schools are already failing our students in nearly every subject", your alleged solution is not going to address the problem. The problem that needs to be solved is not a question of education, but rather a question of how do you shut down the idiots who want to make all of our students as backwards as they are. A hashwork of university policies will have no effect on those folks; as noted previously, local vigilance and strict standards should do the job.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
  79 replies since June 03 2008,22:09 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]