Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘Healthy skepticism’ bill appears to be ailing [Intelligent Design in Missouri]
Kansas City Star ^ | 02 April 2006 | KIT WAGAR and TIM HOOVER

Posted on 04/02/2006 9:35:52 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

A new tack for trying to introduce supernatural explanations for the origin of life into Missouri’s public school science classes appears dead this year.

Legislation backed by conservative Christian groups sought to discredit the theory of evolution by requiring instructors to spend at least half their time pointing out perceived flaws in the theory.

Called the Missouri Science Education Act, HB 1266 would require science instructors in sixth through 12th grades to promote “healthy skepticism” about any theory of biological origins. State assessment tests would be required to include a section on such criticisms and alternate explanations about the origins of life.

The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Wayne Cooper of Camdenton, was approved by the House Education Committee last month.

The committee’s chairwoman, Jane Cunningham, a St. Louis County Republican, cast the deciding vote in favor of the bill.

But each committee has a limited number of bills that it can move to the House floor. Cunningham said she simply doesn’t have room for Cooper’s bill.

“The bill had a very positive hearing,” Cunningham said. “I think that’s because it’s a different bill than has been introduced before, so it’s not as controversial. It basically says to teach theory as theory and fact as fact.”

Cunningham’s description understates the controversy surrounding the bill. The Education Committee approved the bill 7-6. The bill was opposed by a wide range of teacher groups and school organizations, and several faith-based groups.

Otto Fajen, chief lobbyist for the Missouri affiliate of the National Education Association, said the bill’s intention is to water down science education, which bodes ill for the nation’s economic future.

“We need to be doing our utmost to increase science literacy so our kids can compete,” Fajen said.

Cooper said the measure would improve the discussion of science by fostering open inquiry.

[Omitted a few paragraphs at the end about immigration proposals.]


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last
Gentle reminder: Now hear this: No personal attacks (title of thread posted 15 March 2006 by Jim Robinson).
1 posted on 04/02/2006 9:35:54 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 360 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

2 posted on 04/02/2006 9:37:08 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
IB4TC. (In before the "chat.")
3 posted on 04/02/2006 9:40:40 AM PDT by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
...supernatural explanations for the origin of life...

Exactly.

4 posted on 04/02/2006 9:41:37 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
requiring instructors to spend at least half their time pointing out perceived flaws in the theory.

At least half?

I've got a suggestion for parents worried about their kids learning about evolution:

Parochial school.

Home school.

Or just discuss it at home with them.

The battle to teach what is science and what is not is a guaranteed loser for the creationist side.

5 posted on 04/02/2006 10:02:08 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I wonder who gets to choose the list of problems, and whether the list gets peer reviewed.


6 posted on 04/02/2006 10:04:15 AM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Legislation backed by conservative Christian groups sought to discredit the theory of evolution by requiring instructors to spend at least half their time pointing out perceived flaws in the theory.

If they spent half their time pointing out the flaws in evolution, and the other half pointing out the flaws in intelligent design then when would any teaching get done?

7 posted on 04/02/2006 10:15:21 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Otto Fajen, chief lobbyist for the Missouri affiliate of the National Education Association, said the bill’s intention is to water down science education, which bodes ill for the nation’s economic future.

Yikes. I'd never thought I'd be on the same side of an issue as the teachers' unions. Oh well. Broken clocks and all that...

8 posted on 04/02/2006 10:16:42 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: PatrickHenry
Of course, I think we should spend a lot of time discussing some ""Healthy Skepticism" about the claims of fundamentalist Christians.

Like how about an example of a talking snake? Or even a fossil snake with vocal chords.

Or an example of a single human male who lives to 300 years and then has children, (even before the invention of Viagra.)

Or an equation of nuclear chemistry that can start with 100 lbs of woman and end up with a pillar of NaCl without blowing a chunk of earth out into space.

I wonder how a tower that collapsed could be the derivation of different languages.
Do they have a theory of that that can be tested? I wonder why they have a problem with modern Biology, when Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Medicine, Astronomy and Linguistics all point out how silly their ideas are.

We should demand some evidence of their claims and subject them to some rigorous testing. But why bother, they have no evidence and are simply silly.
10 posted on 04/02/2006 10:22:06 AM PDT by jexus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

"The battle to teach what is science and what is not is a guaranteed loser for the creationist side."


Really, the theory of evolution modeled upon the survival of the fittest, requiring the intervention of government programs has been the model followed by the public school system for decades. These children are taught they are just descendants of the rest of the global animals.

Too bad the evolutionists won't accept the test results of their system of education.


11 posted on 04/02/2006 10:27:54 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All
Here is a link to the full text of the bill being discussed. It applies to all science courses, but it singles out biology (the only science dealt with specifically) with this provision:
If a theory or hypothesis of biological origins is taught, a critical analysis of such theory or hypothesis shall be taught in a substantive amount.

12 posted on 04/02/2006 10:50:12 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

requiring instructors to spend at least half their time pointing out perceived flaws in the theory.

It's really annoying when ignorant conservative politicians make stupid proposals making all conservatives look like scientifically illiterate boobs.

13 posted on 04/02/2006 11:18:14 AM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

In related news, Missouri pubbies vote to repeal the law of gravity.


14 posted on 04/02/2006 11:35:35 AM PDT by MonroeDNA (Look for the union label--on the bat crashing through your windshield!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
It's really annoying when ignorant conservative politicians make stupid proposals making all conservatives look like scientifically illiterate boobs.

Or perhaps they think that the majority of their constituency is composed of scientifically illiterate boobs.

15 posted on 04/02/2006 11:38:26 AM PDT by balrog666 (Irrational beliefs inspire irrational posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jexus

1. God did it.

2. God did it.

3. God did it.

4. God did it.

5. God did it.

Understand? If not, you will burn for eternity in hellfire and limestone, or brimstone, or something.

If you have a problem with it, talk to the burning bush. It speaks, too.


16 posted on 04/02/2006 11:38:55 AM PDT by MonroeDNA (Look for the union label--on the bat crashing through your windshield!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
To me, the wording in that bill implies that science cannot be trusted...
Information that appears to be verified empirical data, but is not, shall be identified to distinguish it as separate from verified empirical data.

Since when is unverified empirical data presented as verified in a high school science class?

Teacher classroom instruction shall use the following best practices to support the objective teaching of scientific information and minimize dogmatism while promoting student inquiry, healthy skepticism, and understanding:

Since when is 'dogmatism' an issue in high school science classes?

When information other than verified empirical data is taught representing current scientific thought such as theory or hypothesis regarding phenomena that occur in the future or that occurred previous to written history, a critical analysis of such information shall be taught in a substantive amount.

'that occurred previous to written history' covers an awful lot of science that is now required to be critically analyzed.

This bill sounds like it's been written from the YEC playbook.

17 posted on 04/02/2006 11:45:58 AM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Or perhaps they think that the majority of their constituency is composed of scientifically illiterate boobs.

Think they can tell the difference?

18 posted on 04/02/2006 11:48:20 AM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Really, the theory of evolution modeled upon the survival of the fittest, requiring the intervention of government programs has been the model followed by the public school system for decades.

The theory of evolution is not, in any way, modelled on a requirement of government programs. In fact, governmnet programs are neither an element of the theory nor a logical outgrowth of the theory. I do not know where you have obtained your information, but it is clearly not from an informed source.
19 posted on 04/02/2006 11:49:24 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: ml1954
This bill sounds like it's been written from the YEC playbook.

In case you're wondering how a high school teacher is supposed to know "Information that appears to be verified empirical data, but is not," I think what they have in mind is the application of the Ken Ham "Were you there?" test.

21 posted on 04/02/2006 11:52:47 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

"Really, the theory of evolution modeled upon the survival of the fittest, requiring the intervention of government programs has been the model followed by the public school system for decades."

What government programs?


22 posted on 04/02/2006 11:54:10 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("Things are not what they always seem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I think what they have in mind is the application of the Ken Ham "Were you there?" test.

Sounds like it. The part about things 'that occurred previous to written history' sure sounds like a "Were you there?" test to me.

23 posted on 04/02/2006 11:56:41 AM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
"When information other than verified empirical data is taught representing current scientific thought such as theory or hypothesis regarding phenomena that occur in the future or that occurred previous to written history, a critical analysis of such information shall be taught in a substantive amount."

This sentence, while seemingly impervious to English translation, seems to be repeating the same old canard about evolution being *just a theory* and therefore not like all the rest of science, which is *verified*.
24 posted on 04/02/2006 11:58:06 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("Things are not what they always seem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
The whole public education is funded via level of supposed fitness of the students. The teachers union, feeding programs, medicating, testing, sex ed, self esteem classes and the curriculum selected are all modeled upon the TOE modeling system.
25 posted on 04/02/2006 12:01:10 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

This sentence, while seemingly impervious to English translation, seems to be repeating the same old canard about evolution being *just a theory* and therefore not like all the rest of science, which is *verified*.

The part that jumped out at me was the 'that occurred previous to written history' part. Sounds like it covers astronomy, cosmology, geology, archeology, anthropology, etc. as well as biology.

26 posted on 04/02/2006 12:04:11 PM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
The part that jumped out at me was the 'that occurred previous to written history' part. Sounds like it covers astronomy, cosmology, geology, archeology, anthropology, etc. as well as biology.

Well, that's all evolution. If it contradicts Genesis in any way it simply must be evolution.

27 posted on 04/02/2006 12:14:20 PM PDT by BMCDA (If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it,we would be so simple that we couldn't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
The part that jumped out at me was the 'that occurred previous to written history' part. Sounds like it covers astronomy, cosmology, geology, archeology, anthropology, etc. as well as biology.

It also rules out Genesis. No human observer was there for the six days of creation. Even Adam, who arrived on day six, didn't witness his own appearance, and he was asleep when Eve was created. So where does that leave us?

28 posted on 04/02/2006 12:22:06 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Yes, it covers everything previous to Sumeria.

Lovely.


29 posted on 04/02/2006 12:27:27 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
"Yikes. I'd never thought I'd be on the same side of an issue as the teachers' unions. Oh well. Broken clocks and all that..."

Console yourself, on this issue the ID-iots/Creationists are on the same side as the taliban/islamofacists

30 posted on 04/02/2006 12:31:54 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Fornicators! (tipping over my easy chair)

Abortion! (it surely must be in here somewhere)

Adultry! (can't think of anything)

Idol worship! (whatever)


31 posted on 04/02/2006 12:32:32 PM PDT by MonroeDNA (Look for the union label--on the bat crashing through your windshield!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

It also rules out Genesis. No human observer was there for the six days of creation. Even Adam, who arrived on day six, didn't witness his own appearance, and he was asleep when Eve was created. So where does that leave us?

I dunno. While it rules out teaching Genesis as scince it requires substantial 'critical analysis' of much of biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, archeology, anthropology, etc.

Sounds to me like the objective may be to indoctrinate that "science can't be trusted".

32 posted on 04/02/2006 12:39:27 PM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
scince = science
33 posted on 04/02/2006 12:40:47 PM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

"The whole public education is funded via level of supposed fitness of the students. The teachers union, feeding programs, medicating, testing, sex ed, self esteem classes and the curriculum selected are all modeled upon the TOE modeling system."

How is this organized? I have seen NOTHING like it where I have lived (NY and NC).


34 posted on 04/02/2006 1:09:29 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("Things are not what they always seem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

"Food stamps, halitosis and crab-grass is modeled upon the TOE modeling system." placemark


35 posted on 04/02/2006 3:17:33 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. Dying since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Glanders.


36 posted on 04/02/2006 3:22:32 PM PDT by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
The teachers union, feeding programs, medicating, testing, sex ed, self esteem classes and the curriculum selected are all modeled upon the TOE modeling system.

I do not understand how teachers unions, school lunch programs, medication programs, testing programs, sexual education, self-esteem courses or general school cirriculum are based upon improved reproductive success of biological organisms within a population based upon specific heriditable traits creating reproductive advantage when combined with specific environmental conditions. Perhaps you could elaborate. Thus far, your attempt at claiming a link does not appear valid.
37 posted on 04/02/2006 3:25:24 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; Baraonda; BereanBrain; ...
"Otto Fajen, chief lobbyist for the Missouri affiliate of the National Education Association, said the bill’s intention is to water down science education, which bodes ill for the nation’s economic future."

What a feeble argument. Nothing has 'watered down' science as much as pushing the statistically devastated philosophy of evolution as 'science.'

Teachers:
Those that can, do; those that can't, teach.

38 posted on 04/02/2006 3:29:53 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Is Chinese hard to learn? Because we'll all be having to learn at least a passing amount of Chinese if we're ever going to compete at this rate.


39 posted on 04/02/2006 3:34:15 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Getting to Yes by Fisher & Ury)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
"Since when is unverified empirical data presented as verified in a high school science class?"

When promoting the philosophy of evolution. A really good example is the plate of skulls that is frequently posted here by evo propagandists.

40 posted on 04/02/2006 3:35:41 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

This sentence, while seemingly impervious to English translation, seems to be repeating the same old canard about evolution being *just a theory* and therefore not like all the rest of science, which is *verified*.



SO?


41 posted on 04/02/2006 3:40:46 PM PDT by WKB (Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
"we'll all be having to learn at least a passing amount of Chinese if we're ever going to compete at this rate."

Compete at failure? Why would any sane person wish to compete at promoting error and failure? Learn all the chinese you want; remember their failed missle launches in the nineties? That was until the illiterate creationists taught them US merving technology. (Thanks Bill)

42 posted on 04/02/2006 3:46:33 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: WKB

"This sentence, while seemingly impervious to English translation, seems to be repeating the same old canard about evolution being *just a theory* and therefore not like all the rest of science, which is *verified*."(CG)



"SO?"(WKB)"




It's not true. That's why I called it a canard.


43 posted on 04/02/2006 4:01:35 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("Things are not what they always seem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: WKB

The problem is that it implies a false level of uncertainty regarding evolution. It is an attempt to use misleading semantics to cast doubt upon evolution, when in fact there is no more doubt with respect to evolution than there is for the rest of science.


44 posted on 04/02/2006 4:21:52 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Nothing has 'watered down' science as much as pushing the statistically devastated philosophy of evolution as 'science.'

You will forgive me if I am skeptical of your claim. I find it difficult to trust the scientific credibility of an individual who claims that insulin is a "dangerous drug" and suggests that diabetics would be better off without it.
45 posted on 04/02/2006 4:24:39 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Nothing has "watered down" science as much as "group think" within the "scientific community". True scientists have kept quiet in the whole debate out of fear of losing grant funds, because they don't recognize the dangers of undereducating the school-age population or out of fear of losing their jobs.

Scientific debate and quantitative analyses of natural phenomena has been effectively squelched by those who cling religiously to their beliefs in certain aspects of evolution, global warming, and natural selection.




Here is a great example of a BS degree that University of Texas grants--Bachelor of Science in Human Development and Family Sciences). These so-called "scientists" are graduating with only one semester of Calculus, 2 semesters of Biology or Chemistry and no Physics classes under their belts. Instead they attend Human Development Classes:

Human Development and Family Sciences: HDF
Lower-Division Courses

304. Family Relationships.
Same as Women's and Gender Studies 301 (Topic 4: Family Relationships). The process of family interaction over the life cycle. Application of research findings to the understanding of relationships. Only one of the following may be counted: Child Development 304, Human Development and Family Sciences 304, Women's Studies 301 (Topic 4: Family Relationships).

312. Family Resource Management.
Management concepts and theory in resource allocation used to meet family and life demands. Only one of the following may be counted: Human Development and Family Sciences 312, 321, Human Ecology 321. Prerequisite: Human Development and Family Sciences 304 (or Child Development 304).

313. Child Development.
Same as Women's and Gender Studies 301 (Topic 5: Child Development). Motor, language, cognitive, social, and emotional development in the family context. Only one of the following may be counted: Child Development 313, Human Development and Family Sciences 313, Women's Studies 301 (Topic 5: Child Development). Prerequisite: Psychology 301 and concurrent enrollment in Human Development and Family Sciences 113L (or credit for Child Development 113L).

113L. Child Development Laboratory.
Students observe children at the University Child and Family Laboratory and relate their observations to the issues discussed in Human Development and Family Sciences 313. One and one-half laboratory hours a week for one semester. Child Development 113L and Human Development and Family Sciences 113L may not both be counted. Prerequisite: Psychology 301 and concurrent enrollment in Human Development and Family Sciences 313 (or credit for Child Development 313).

315K. Field Experience I.
Fieldwork. Prerequisite: Six semester hours of coursework in human development and family sciences (or child development) and approval of written proposal by instructor and adviser.

119S, 219S, 319S, 419S, 519S, 619S, 719S, 819S, 919S. Topics in Human Development and Family Sciences.
This course is used to record credit the student earns while enrolled at another institution in a program administered by the University's Center for Global Educational Opportunities. Credit is recorded as assigned by the study abroad adviser in the Department of Human Ecology. University credit is awarded for work in an exchange program; it may be counted as coursework taken in residence. Transfer credit is awarded for work in an affiliated studies program. May be repeated for credit when the topics vary.
Upper-Division Courses

321. Principles of Resource Allocation.
Principles and methods for identification, analysis, and evaluation of economic and human resource management tools for individuals and families. Only one of the following may be counted: Human Development and Family Sciences 312, 321, Human Ecology 321. Prerequisite: Upper-division standing.

322. Personal and Family Finance.
Overview from the individual and family perspectives of financial planning tools, cash management, consumer credit, basic tax preparation, and insurance selection. Includes application of knowledge to hypothetical situations and case studies. Human Development and Family Sciences 322 and Human Ecology 322 may not both be counted. Prerequisite: Upper-division standing.

129S, 229S, 329S, 429S, 529S, 629S, 729S, 829S, 929S. Topics in Human Development and Family Sciences.
This course is used to record credit the student earns while enrolled at another institution in a program administered by the University's Center for Global Educational Opportunities. Credit is recorded as assigned by the study abroad adviser in the Department of Human Ecology. University credit is awarded for work in an exchange program; it may be counted as coursework taken in residence. Transfer credit is awarded for work in an affiliated studies program. May be repeated for credit when the topics vary.

333L. Research Methods in Human Development and Family Sciences.
Survey of research methods, including observational and experimental techniques. Three lecture hours a week for one semester, with variable laboratory observation hours to be arranged. Prerequisite: Human Development and Family Sciences 304, 312, 313, and 113L; and credit or registration for Psychology 418, Educational Psychology 371, or an equivalent statistics course.

335. Adult Development.
Adulthood and the development, changes, and maturation that occurs, including the impact of relationships in adulthood. Prerequisite: Upper-division standing and Human Development and Family Sciences 313 and 113L.

337. Personal Relationships.
The process by which a variety of intimate relationships are formed, maintained, and dissolved, as well as gender issues in communication and conflict, sexual aspects of relationships, division of labor, and the involvement of partners with their social networks. Child Development 337 and Human Development and Family Sciences 337 may not both be counted. Prerequisite: Human Development and Family Sciences 304.

338. Developmentally Appropriate Practices with Young Children.
Developmentally appropriate practices, the importance of play, arranging environments, material selection, and a basic understanding about centers and activities for young children. Three lecture hours a week for one semester, with an additional three to six hours of fieldwork sometime during the semester. Human Development and Family Sciences 338 and 348 (Topic 1: Art and Science) may not both be counted. Prerequisite: Upper-division standing; and Human Development and Family Sciences 313 and 113L, or Psychology 304.

339. Working with Children and Families.
The history, background, and various theoretical approaches of early childhood education; methods of assessments, planning for individuals and groups, and working with families and parents in various settings. Three lecture hours a week for one semester, with an additional 3 to 6 hours of fieldwork sometime during the semester. Human Development and Family Sciences 339 and 348 (Topic 2: Music and Literature) may not both be counted. Prerequisite: Upper-division standing and Human Development and Family Sciences 304, 313, and 113L.

345. Peer Relationships.
Children's peer relationships from toddlerhood to adolescence. Human Development and Family Sciences 345 and 378K (Topic: Peer Relationships) may not both be counted. Prerequisite: Upper-division standing; and Human Development and Family Sciences 313 and 113L, or Psychology 304.

347. Socioeconomic Problems of the Family.
An analysis of socioeconomic factors affecting the economic well-being of families and individuals. Human Development and Family Sciences 347 and Human Ecology 347 may not both be counted. Prerequisite: Upper-division standing and three semester hours of coursework in economics.

348. Development of the Young Child through Creative Activities.
Principles of selection and use of art, music, literature, and play equipment. May be repeated for credit when the topics vary. Child Development 348 and Human Development and Family Sciences 348 may not both be counted. Prerequisite: Human Development and Family Sciences 313 and 113L (or Child Development 313 and 113L).

351. Infant Development and Attachment Relationships.
The development of emerging social language and cognitive capacities during infancy and toddlerhood and the development and consequences in infant-caregiver attachment security. Only one of the following may be counted: Child Development 378K (Topic: Infant Development and Attachment Relationships), Human Development and Family Sciences 351, 378K (Topic 7: Social Development and Attachment Relationships). Prerequisite: Human Development and Family Sciences 313 and 113L, or Psychology 304.


46 posted on 04/02/2006 6:01:47 PM PDT by demoRat watcher (Keeper of the Anthropocentrism Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: demoRat watcher

"Here is a great example of a BS degree that University of Texas grants--Bachelor of Science in Human Development and Family Sciences)"

You've culled a sociology degree, not a hard science. Why didn't you look at a real science degree offered at UT, like Bachelor of Science in Biology (Option IV: Microbiology).

http://www.biosci.utexas.edu/bsac/PDF/04-06/mi0406.pdf

Oh, because it would have gone against your rant.


47 posted on 04/02/2006 6:17:09 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("Things are not what they always seem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

48


48 posted on 04/02/2006 6:57:31 PM PDT by Mushinronshasan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

, when in fact there is no more doubt with respect to evolution than there is for the rest of science.




So what you are saying is there are
doubts about the theory of evolution??


49 posted on 04/02/2006 7:26:38 PM PDT by WKB (Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

It's not true. That's why I called it a canard.



I thought that would be called a lie.


50 posted on 04/02/2006 7:28:17 PM PDT by WKB (Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson