Comment Re:not-so-good? (Score 1) 646
"Are you being intentionally dense or do you really not understand what you're talking about? Do you really think elementary school students, in general, have the mental deveolopment [sic] and intellectual context to perform a rigorous scientific debate? Yes, kids are more clever than many people give them credit for but no, this does not mean that we can turn the Tevatron [sic] over to a bunch of 3rd graders."
and to that I sing the non-sequitur song! NON SEQUITUR, NON SEQUITER! It does not follow, that science need be taught the way it is for school kids to learn science in a critical way. in fact, I've yet to meet very many people (much less school students) that know how to approach science with a critically thinking mind. Instead, people blindly accept the current newtonion models of physics, and gravity, even ones who have heard of Einstein have no idea what he proved. I feel comfortable saying that half the kids in my 10th grade earth and space class have no idea what E=MC^2 is and or why it's important or really any of Einstein's theories of the universe especially in regards to relativity and gravity. It also does not follow that we should expect "3rd graders" in such a learning environment to suddenly be at the level of tackling such scientific debates as evolution or quantum physics... but how about some simpler quandaries? like maybe teaching kids very simple ideas about gravity, and then debating the model, (of course you would have to spend time also explaining competing theories (or making up a competing theory)). Kid's who are taught to think critically (especially ones who are taught from a younger age to do so) can indeed handle debate amongst themselves with the teacher moderating.
"Explaining the scientific method to these kids is the right thing to do. Letting their teachers stand at the front of the room and use rhetorical tricks honed over years by propagandists to brainwash those children is morally repugnant and puts the lie to everything these relgious [sic] people claim to believe in."
and I agree that explaining the scientific method is a good idea. As far as propaganda goes, the evolutionary side isn't so stellar. Ben Stein in his documentary Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed documented how scientists who have dared to question the theory of evolution (which is something that should happen consistently to all scientific theories through peer review and other means) or even so much as give Intelligent Design a fair reading (Again, what happened to "objectivity" and "critical thinking?"), have been expelled from their jobs. Teachers have been blacklisted from being offered teaching positions at other universities just for even mentioning the words Intelligent Design in a publication (not even kidding). Don't talk to be about propaganda when clearly your side won't even give a fair reading to the ideas.
"If you have to lie and decieve [sic] to spread the "gospel" of your religion, then it ISN'T THE RIGHT RELIGION. No omnipotent, omniescient [sic] being needs a bunch of sychophantic [sic] simpering weasels to slip pamphlets about its awesomeness into the lunch boxes of little kids. If it does, then it doesn't deserve to be worshipped."
NON SEQUITUR NON SEQUITUR! TRA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LAAAA! That's based on your assumption that Intelligent Design is false. It does not follow that for evolution to be true, intelligent design must be false, or vice versa. You have documented no evidence except the existence of a "competing theory" that Intelligent Design is false, You assume it and that is your flaw. I have examined the evidence for myself and I believe in evolution.. and I believe in intelligent design. I don't think that either explanation is sufficient to explain on it's own the origins of the universe. or that either theory can be discounted on it's own wholesale for it's flaws. As a Christian (which is apparently an insult these days like it was in the first century) I believe that my sovereign, all powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and trinitarian God is that designer. I also believe that not only did he design the whole lot in 3 dimensions (height, length, and width and he's just everywhere or somewhere else) but also in the fourth dimension (time: he knows and in fact has decreed all that has happened, is happening and will happen to every last detail, including this comment I've authored and his omnipresence is a function of the fact that he exists outside of time as time is a created thing) as well. As for my feelings on the article itself:
"The good news is that the board dropped a 20-year-old requirement that both 'strengths and weaknesses' of all scientific theories be taught"
Why is this good news? That's terrible, that opens the door for all discussions of the issue to become one sided and our kids to fall deeper into a lack of critical thinking skills.... don't we all love the pretty little sheep who just do what their told because they don't think. Very interesting that this trend began as evolution began to be taught as fact in the school and not as controversy for scientists to scrutinize and debate and study and experiment. Personally I think that takes all the fun out of science class.
"The not-so-good news is that in a 'compromise,' the board also voted to require that students 'in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations ... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.'"
That's not so good news? That's how science should be taught. I'm pretty certain that this is consistent with a skeptical worldview which is what science is supposed to have to begin with. Also it's inconsistent with the ideas of peer review and testing which are all a part of genuine science, this should disturb you as a scientist that you find this to be "not-so-good news", unless you're just a biased reporter who wishes to push the propaganda of your agenda. That's actually sounding quite accurate in your case.
"A Republican board member explained that the words 'strengths and weaknesses' have become 'code for creationism and [the similar theory of] intelligent design. So by being more clear in the language and using words that aren't seen as code words, we were able to get all of the 15 board members to agree that this is how we'll teach all sides of scientific explanation, using scientific evidence.'"
I would say that it's wrong for them to use "code words" except for the fact that indeed intelligent design illustrates the weaknesses in the theory of evolution and vise versa. Again why I believe them both in a complimentary way. Still, I find it funny that you the reporter take the bias of "evolution has no flaws and shouldn't be questioned and intelligent design is a dangerous idea that could challenge whatever moral weaknesses I indulge in... oops... did I say that out loud?"
"Reporting on the Texas vote is all over the map, as a US Today blog summarizes. Some reports claim that an amendment was passed that preserves a requirement that students study the 'sufficiency or insufficiency' of common ancestry and natural selection. Other reports claim that the board also adopted language that would have students study the 'different views on the existence of global warming.'"
I find it funny that after all that, some reporters still have no idea what's going on... oh well.
- Gino
and to that I sing the non-sequitur song! NON SEQUITUR, NON SEQUITER! It does not follow, that science need be taught the way it is for school kids to learn science in a critical way. in fact, I've yet to meet very many people (much less school students) that know how to approach science with a critically thinking mind. Instead, people blindly accept the current newtonion models of physics, and gravity, even ones who have heard of Einstein have no idea what he proved. I feel comfortable saying that half the kids in my 10th grade earth and space class have no idea what E=MC^2 is and or why it's important or really any of Einstein's theories of the universe especially in regards to relativity and gravity. It also does not follow that we should expect "3rd graders" in such a learning environment to suddenly be at the level of tackling such scientific debates as evolution or quantum physics... but how about some simpler quandaries? like maybe teaching kids very simple ideas about gravity, and then debating the model, (of course you would have to spend time also explaining competing theories (or making up a competing theory)). Kid's who are taught to think critically (especially ones who are taught from a younger age to do so) can indeed handle debate amongst themselves with the teacher moderating.
"Explaining the scientific method to these kids is the right thing to do. Letting their teachers stand at the front of the room and use rhetorical tricks honed over years by propagandists to brainwash those children is morally repugnant and puts the lie to everything these relgious [sic] people claim to believe in."
and I agree that explaining the scientific method is a good idea. As far as propaganda goes, the evolutionary side isn't so stellar. Ben Stein in his documentary Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed documented how scientists who have dared to question the theory of evolution (which is something that should happen consistently to all scientific theories through peer review and other means) or even so much as give Intelligent Design a fair reading (Again, what happened to "objectivity" and "critical thinking?"), have been expelled from their jobs. Teachers have been blacklisted from being offered teaching positions at other universities just for even mentioning the words Intelligent Design in a publication (not even kidding). Don't talk to be about propaganda when clearly your side won't even give a fair reading to the ideas.
"If you have to lie and decieve [sic] to spread the "gospel" of your religion, then it ISN'T THE RIGHT RELIGION. No omnipotent, omniescient [sic] being needs a bunch of sychophantic [sic] simpering weasels to slip pamphlets about its awesomeness into the lunch boxes of little kids. If it does, then it doesn't deserve to be worshipped."
NON SEQUITUR NON SEQUITUR! TRA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LAAAA! That's based on your assumption that Intelligent Design is false. It does not follow that for evolution to be true, intelligent design must be false, or vice versa. You have documented no evidence except the existence of a "competing theory" that Intelligent Design is false, You assume it and that is your flaw. I have examined the evidence for myself and I believe in evolution.. and I believe in intelligent design. I don't think that either explanation is sufficient to explain on it's own the origins of the universe. or that either theory can be discounted on it's own wholesale for it's flaws. As a Christian (which is apparently an insult these days like it was in the first century) I believe that my sovereign, all powerful, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and trinitarian God is that designer. I also believe that not only did he design the whole lot in 3 dimensions (height, length, and width and he's just everywhere or somewhere else) but also in the fourth dimension (time: he knows and in fact has decreed all that has happened, is happening and will happen to every last detail, including this comment I've authored and his omnipresence is a function of the fact that he exists outside of time as time is a created thing) as well. As for my feelings on the article itself:
"The good news is that the board dropped a 20-year-old requirement that both 'strengths and weaknesses' of all scientific theories be taught"
Why is this good news? That's terrible, that opens the door for all discussions of the issue to become one sided and our kids to fall deeper into a lack of critical thinking skills.... don't we all love the pretty little sheep who just do what their told because they don't think. Very interesting that this trend began as evolution began to be taught as fact in the school and not as controversy for scientists to scrutinize and debate and study and experiment. Personally I think that takes all the fun out of science class.
"The not-so-good news is that in a 'compromise,' the board also voted to require that students 'in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations
That's not so good news? That's how science should be taught. I'm pretty certain that this is consistent with a skeptical worldview which is what science is supposed to have to begin with. Also it's inconsistent with the ideas of peer review and testing which are all a part of genuine science, this should disturb you as a scientist that you find this to be "not-so-good news", unless you're just a biased reporter who wishes to push the propaganda of your agenda. That's actually sounding quite accurate in your case.
"A Republican board member explained that the words 'strengths and weaknesses' have become 'code for creationism and [the similar theory of] intelligent design. So by being more clear in the language and using words that aren't seen as code words, we were able to get all of the 15 board members to agree that this is how we'll teach all sides of scientific explanation, using scientific evidence.'"
I would say that it's wrong for them to use "code words" except for the fact that indeed intelligent design illustrates the weaknesses in the theory of evolution and vise versa. Again why I believe them both in a complimentary way. Still, I find it funny that you the reporter take the bias of "evolution has no flaws and shouldn't be questioned and intelligent design is a dangerous idea that could challenge whatever moral weaknesses I indulge in... oops... did I say that out loud?"
"Reporting on the Texas vote is all over the map, as a US Today blog summarizes. Some reports claim that an amendment was passed that preserves a requirement that students study the 'sufficiency or insufficiency' of common ancestry and natural selection. Other reports claim that the board also adopted language that would have students study the 'different views on the existence of global warming.'"
I find it funny that after all that, some reporters still have no idea what's going on... oh well.
- Gino
