Posted on 12/14/2005 6:23:06 AM PST by PatrickHenry
An education oversight panel has put off a final recommendation on the state's biology teaching standards at the urging of a state senator who wants alternatives to evolution - including creationism - taught in classrooms.
The Education Oversight Committee voted Monday to recommend approval of the state's biology content standards, but by an 8-7 vote, the panel removed for further study the wording that deals with teaching evolution.
The committee plans to put together a panel of scientists and science teachers to advise committee members on the biology standards dealing with evolution, JoAnne Anderson, the committee's executive director, said Tuesday.
State Sen. Mike Fair, a panel member, wants the education department to change the standards to encourage teaching alternatives to the theory of evolution. Fair, R-Greenville, also has proposed a bill that would give lawmakers more say on biology curriculum.
The Education Department writes standards teachers must follow in designing their daily lessons. The State Board of Education must give those standards final approval. The Education Oversight Committee can recommend the board approve or reject those standards.
The head attorney for the state Department of Education said he didn't think committee members are authorized to change the standards.
"This is unprecedented," attorney Dale Stuckey said. "It's my interpretation of the law that [EOC members] have no authority to change the standards."
Anderson said Tuesday that is not the committee's intent. The committee issued a news release clarifying that it does not have the authority to revise content standards.
"We are asking our colleagues at the State Department of Education for recommendations of individuals from the science community who can assist the committee in bringing about a resolution."
Fair said he wants to encourage "critical analysis of a controversial subject in the classroom."
State Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum, a Democrat, said Fair was trying to derail teaching standard revisions she said have wide support in academia. The agency recently conducted a yearlong review of key subjects and basic knowledge all science teachers in public schools must teach.
Current biology curriculum includes Charles Darwin's 19th century theory that life evolved over millions of years from simple cells that adapted to their environment. Creationism relies on the biblical explanation that mankind's origin is the result of a divine action.
In November, the S.C. Board of Education approved changes to science standards some teachers said needed clarification. The oversight committee put off voting on the rules in October to give Fair more time to lobby education officials.
Karen Floyd, a Republican candidate for state education superintendent, has said she will encourage the teaching of intelligent design.
Rep. Bob Walker, R-Spartanburg, said he supports Fair's efforts because "there are other ideas that can be addressed as to how this world came about."
One school official, Lexington-Richland 5 science supervisor Kitty Farnell, said the committee's questioning of educators' work sets "a terrible example for our students."
"It's an embarrassment," she said.
|
"One school official, Lexington-Richland 5 science supervisor Kitty Farnell, said the committee's questioning of educators' work sets "a terrible example for our students."
"It's an embarrassment," she said."
Indeed.
A conservative "pro-evolution" science list? Why don't you just call it the oxymoron list? There's nothing "conservative" about restricting debate and discussion in the classroom, unless you want to declare right here and now that you don't mind both theories being examined.
If you're interested in learning about evolution, visit The List-O-Links.
If you're serious about debating this issue, see How to argue against a scientific theory.
If you're permanently stuck on stupid, but determined to post anyway, use the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.
"It's an embarrassment," she said."
Indeed.
No, when you are talking about South Carolina's public education it is not an embarrassment. The only embarrassment is the public education itself!
"There's nothing "conservative" about restricting debate and discussion in the classroom, unless you want to declare right here and now that you don't mind both theories being examined."
Creationism/ID are not scientific theories. There is nothing conservative about lying to our children concerning what we know about science.
Long ago, before there were any people, the world was young and water covered everything. The earth was a great island floating above the seas, suspended by four rawhide ropes representing the four sacred directions. It hung down from the crystal sky. There were no people, but the animals lived in a home above the rainbow. Needing space, they sent Water Beetle to search for room under the seas. Water Beetle dove deep and brought up mud that spread quickly, turning into land that was flat and too soft and wet for the animals to live on.Could have happened that way. It should be seriously studied in science class. You can't prove to me that Water Beetle didn't dive deep bringing up the mud to create the land. This should seriously be discussed in geology class. What? Are you afraid of competing theories?
Grandfather Buzzard was sent to see if the land had hardened. When he flew over the earth, he found the mud had become solid; he flapped in for a closer look. The wind from his wings created valleys and mountains, and that is why the Cherokee territory has so many mountains today.
As the earth stiffened, the animals came down from the rainbow. It was still dark. They needed light, so they pulled the sun out from behind the rainbow, but it was too bright and hot. A solution was urgently needed. The shamans were told to place the sun higher in the sky. A path was made for it to travel--from east to west--so that all inhabitants could share in the light.
The plants were placed upon the earth. The Creator told the plants and animals to stay awake for seven days and seven nights. Only a few animals managed to do so, including the owls and mountain lions, and they were rewarded with the power to see in the dark. Among the plants, only the cedars, spruces, and pines remained awake. The Creator told these plants that they would keep their hair during the winter, while the other plants would lose theirs.
People were created last. The women were able to have babies every seven days. They reproduced so quickly that the Creator feared the world would soon become too crowded. So after that the women could have only one child per year, and it has been that way ever since.
I would personally adore Creationism to be ruthlessly examined in schools.
But that's because I'm mean, which is why my (or others) personal likings should not decide what is taugh in science classrooms.
The benefit of public schooling.
There is no theory of creationism or theory of ID. Neither one is scientific. Neither one has factual evidence for support. The reason so many conservatives get upset about this stuff is because it requires trashing science so it can include supernatural explanations. Based on your reasoning, should astrology be taught in schools along side astronomy? Science is not opinion based like other subjects. Science specifically does not permit debate on the supernatural, regardless of whether it's evolution or any other field.
Problems with evolution are not support for ID. Problems with evolution means your professor friend needs to spend more time doing research rather than saying that understanding the subject of evolution is too difficult. Sounds like it's over his head.
I know I've mentioned this before, but it still astounds me that supposedly "conservative" religious types don't see the inherent danger in encouraging the government to take up the business of teaching religious doctrine.
"He teaches at a prestigious public university, and he said the problems with evolution are so profound he feels ashamed mentioning it sometimes, but mentioning intelligent design would land him in hot water."
Everybody has an unnamed *expert* they can trot out, or a genius uncle. Can YOU tell us what these problems with evolution are?
"The more and more I see of the pro-evolution crowd, the more I appreciate the Inquisition. You are not a scientist. You are a liar."
If that was addressed to me I can see the level of debate you are capable of. If that is your best argument, then I have already won.
I disagree. I think they want it.
You win the lottery. You're the first to be called a liar by someone with a non-existent friend. The Creationists are out with their anti-science name-calling campaign early today.
> You dismissed a theory, creationism, out of hand
Creationism is *not* a theory. It doesn't even come close to fitting the definition.
Is quantum physics a science?
If so, then somebody needs to tell some quantum physicists I have read that they better quit mentioning things like intelligence.
I am sure it was the best argument he had. I feel sorry for him.
Note that Cotton Mather was a notorious witch-hunter. The Creationists do really wish to re-convene the Salem Witch Trials. I'd trust the moral compass of a gorilla to that of a Cottom Mather.
So then they should shut up.
I think they need to start including philosophy of science in grade school science classes.
Obviously not many people understand the nature of science and its limitations.
Like some of the evolution proponents around here who claim evolution is a fact.
Amazing that people can get graduate degrees in science and still do not know what science is.
This is sure making the Republican Party look bad. Sigh.
> You would prefer the moral compass of a teacher who claims gorillas in the family tree?
"I would rather be descended from an ape than a bishop."
Whether or not someone acknowledges who their blood relatives are doesn't change who their blood relatives are.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but ID and creationism are not scientific theories.
> That's the road you are trodding...
Ahhh..... no. You clearly do not even know what "theorize" means. "Guess" is not equivalent.
Care to cite any sources (peer reviewed of course) that show physicists support ID?
Agreed.
Time to tro this out again. :-)
Let me post my example of gravity:
A little history here: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”
F=Gm1m2/r2
Where:
F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m1 equals the mass of the first object
m2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)
(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)
Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.
A few of the problems are:
It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.
Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.
A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.
And finally:
From an NSF abstract:
“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.
In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
There's no such professor. No professor of genetics would be intimidated by fear of criticism. Science profs thrive on criticism. Now maybe if it were a sociology or theology professor....
A conservative "pro-evolution" science list? Why don't you just call it the oxymoron list? There's nothing "conservative" about restricting debate and discussion in the classroom, unless you want to declare right here and now that you don't mind both theories being examined.
High school science is NOT the place to debate theories really. After all, we dont sit down and debate whether 2+2=4. In high school kids get the basic science. And scientifically, the evidence points overwhelmingly towards evolutionary biology. Of course, in comparative religion classes, or in a lesson on the philosophy of science, then of course creationism and other myths could be discussed.
I'm not sure what the ID "movement's" perspective is, or even if there is just one or many. If it's a veiled attempt restate the world was created in 6 days by a cosmic potter, then it should be opposed. But (and here's where I'm going to raise the ire of both sides) if it's an attempt to understand why evolution happens, I believe it deserves inclusion and discussion in our classrooms! I'm not saying that the theory that everything happened by pure chance must be silenced, but when even the geneticists themselves start doubting the plausibility of that aspect of the evolution theory, I see no reason to oppose the idea that perhaps something else is involved. I'm coming to believe that organic evolution is governed by a set of universal natural laws that we have not yet discovered. If some want to call them the "hands of God" (as I do) what harm is there in saying that to our children? Only the dogmatic atheists could oppose that, and they should have NO SAY in the matter!
BTW, I've recently learned that Hebrew word for "DAY" can mean daylight, 24 hours, or an indeterminate period of time much like the English word "ERA". Just food for thought about the Genesis story.
Is quantum physics a science?
If so, then somebody needs to tell some quantum physicists I have read that they better quit mentioning things like intelligence.
I would assume here that you are talking about Penrose, as he is the only one I have read that actively talks about "intelligence", but he is not talking about intelligent design, rather the nature of intelligence on a quantum level.
Of course, you could be referring to the idea of observer-observed interactions at the quantum level, but that is not really about intelligent design either.
Creationism is *not* a theory.
Two men see a working clock, nailed to a tree in the forest. One man theorizes, "perhaps someone put it there." Another says, "that is not a scientific theory! I won't even discuss it! It doesn't qualify!"
That's the road you are trodding...
--
Piss poor analogy. We KNOW clocks are created. We know who created them. We have seen them be created. We know how they are created. Thus, when we see an object that we already KNOW is created, we can assume that it was probably placed there.
> there is something very curious about someone claiming a tribe of amoral, remorseless animals as kin when there is no observable evidence that anything remotely like this sort of parenthood could exist.
What's even *more* curious is that people smart enough to type grammatically correct sentences would be able or willing to so completely mis-state the level of evidence. Why is that, I wonder? Why does the idea of evolution fill you with such fear?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.