All we are saying...
Is give alchemy a chance!
(repeat)
Posted on 05/07/2007 6:52:03 PM PDT by Between the Lines
Students, teachers flexible over new rules to explore life-origin theories.
Camden High biology teacher Mitzi Snipes confronted this year’s controversial new rules about teaching evolution head-on.
Snipes, a fourth-year teacher, told her students “to be open to new ideas.”
“I also let them know that each of them would have a personal opinion based on their own upbringing and moral and ethical values,” she said.
Her students did research and built Web pages outlining “Darwin’s theory as well as creationism. We talked about scientific inquiry and the necessity for science to be based on fact rather than personal values and beliefs.”
Snipes found “many students concluded that both stances have merit and that the two do not have to be mutually exclusive.”
Other teachers took a more measured approach when lecturing students about the origins of life this year — the first year since policymakers rewrote guidelines on how to teach evolution.
The new standards encourage teachers “to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.”
“I found myself hesitating a bit,” Gilbert High’s Valerie Waites said. “I try to watch what I say because I don’t want to offend anybody’s beliefs.”
Waites, who has taught for three decades, considers herself a religious person capable of separating personal beliefs from professional obligations.
“I have no problem balancing the two,” she said.
“I don’t say (to students), ‘What do you believe?’ God created the world and is all-powerful. I just believe evolution was His plan,” Waites said.
CRITICALLY ANALYZE
The phrase “critically analyze” sparks debate between scientists and those who believe life’s complexities cannot be explained by fossils, DNA, climate and the like.
High school biology teachers were caught in a crossfire last year when state Sen. Mike Fair campaigned to give educators flexibility in discussing theories that challenge “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” credited to Charles Darwin.
Gilbert High students generally gave Waites high marks for how she handled the topic.
“She was very flexible,” sophomore Edward Bell said. “If someone had a question about something that conflicted with what she was teaching, we had a full discussion. She didn’t emphasize one (theory) over another.”
Cameron Burch, another Gilbert High sophomore, said, “At first, I didn’t believe in evolution. But it sort of caught on with me after seeing all the evidence. It changed my mind. I was surprised.”
Burch and Bell did not recall any heated discussion about alternatives to evolution during class.
Across the country, however, educators have clashed with people who embrace a theory known as “intelligent design,” an alternative view that credits a larger intelligence — perhaps a divine hand — with influencing the diversity of life.
Opponents caution that could open the door to lessons with religious themes or overtones.
Fair, a Greenville Republican, lobbied for revisions to S.C.’s biology standards, backing language that challenges students to scrutinize how scientists arrive at conclusions about life’s origins. Fair insisted he was not pushing intelligent design and declined to be interviewed for this article.
NO BACKLASH
Nassim Lewis, a biology teacher at Blythewood High in Richland 2, said no students challenged her about Darwin’s theories that are the foundation of instruction about diversity of life.
“I’ve never had that happen,” the fourth-year teacher said. “They are smart enough, as young adults, to see the facts and understand them.
“They might not walk away from my class believing one side or the other, but they at least became educated about the scientific facts,” Lewis said.
Lewis’ district-level boss said he heard no criticism about the performance of Richland 2 teachers. Ed Emmer said he got no feedback from teachers relaying concerns or problems about student reaction to evolution lessons.
Matthew Pearce, a Blythewood High senior, was comfortable with how Lewis taught evolution.
“Some people do look at (evolution) differently because of their religion, but I don’t have a problem with what we’re learning. It’s all good,” Pearce said.
Kim Evans, a sophomore in the same class, found evolution lessons interesting but did not abandon what she learned about the origins of life in church and at home. “It’s OK to believe both sides, I guess,” she said.
‘AN OPEN MIND’
Dutch Fork High sophomore Amber Hutto said, “I was very apprehensive about studying evolution. It’s very controversial. I have my own religious beliefs, and they don’t match (what was taught).
“I tried to keep an open mind,” Hutto said, “because I know it’s something we have to study.”
Hilary Moore, also a sophomore at Dutch Fork High in Lexington-Richland 5, said her biology teacher told students “this is just an idea. It’s not something we’re trying to preach.” The teacher, Moore said, “let us debate (evolution), and there were people on both sides. That’s just part of the class.”
“I’m very religious,” Moore said. “I’m able to separate my ideas and beliefs.”
Dan Publicover, another Dutch Fork High sophomore, said students in his class “didn’t seem to make a big deal about (evolution). I believe God created everything. The scientific evidence is pretty strong, but my religion tells me differently. (The teacher) never forced evolution facts on us.”
A ‘UNIT OF SCIENCE’
Edna Jones of Hanahan High in Berkeley County said, “I teach evolution the way I understand evolution.
“I don’t go out of my way to make a big deal of it. It’s just another unit of science,” Jones said.
“A lot of students say, ‘God is responsible for everything.’ I don’t say, ‘That’s not right or wrong.’ I will tell them I don’t feel qualified to discuss theology. I’m not trained in that field,” said Jones, a teacher for 13 years.
Jones said she tells her students, “This is a science class. Everything is based on data, accumulating evidence, drawing conclusions, making predictions.
“Every now and then I get a student with very strong issues about the subject, and some have said they would leave the class. I just tell them, ‘How are you going to argue (for) or against something if you don’t know anything about it?’” Jones said.
I myself hold zero supernatural or religious beliefs, I really don't care if somebody chooses something else. Just as long as it is a choice. Science class should be about science. Philosophy or theology classes, church or whatever people choose, all those places are for specific things as well. put them in the appropriate class is all I ask. IF someone gets bent because they teach about evolution in a science class. Well? I don't have much pity on them. If someone gets bent because they teach about Islam, Buddhism or Christianity in a theology class. Too bad. I have seen people here fight like cats and dogs over evolution and creation. It is generally merely an excercise in debate at best as either the heart or the mind were won long ago. As long as she was not arguing for democrats. If you overlook and sleep with something like that, I've no mercy on you. ;)
Actually, science IS philosophy. The modern term "science" apparently obscures that connection for some people. The old term was "natural philosophy", signifying the love of knowledge about nature.
Holding "zero supernatural beliefs", whatever that means, is a philosophical position.
“Actually, science IS philosophy. The modern term ‘science’ apparently obscures that connection for some people. The old term was ‘natural philosophy’”
Google: “etymological fallacy”
“As long as she was not arguing for democrats. If you overlook and sleep with something like that, I’ve no mercy on you.”
Heh. The way I figured it, better to plunder the virtue of hot young female democrats and wait to marry a conservative virgin with a lot latent kink still waiting to be discovered and enjoyed ;-)
Besides, there are ... umm ... certain “things” I’d have a hot young female democrat do and knowing that they’re democrats while I’m having them do those “things” somehow makes them all the more pleasurable :=))
This has nothing to do with etymology. Word usage is what rules.
I know. I was thinking more on the lines of IDers wanting to ‘give alchemy a chance.’
“Word usage is what rules”
In that case we can delete your reference to ‘natural philosophy’, seeing as historical use isn’t relevant.
And your claim is a complete howler because people don’t use the words ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’ interchangeably.
Nobody describes Maxwell’s equations, for example, as an example of philosophy. Further examples are left as an (easy) exercise for the reader.
Meaning, history isn't relevant, either?
You’re finally catching on.
In that case, nothing is relevant. After all, eventually everything is history. Ask James Clerk Maxwell.
“In that case, nothing is relevant”
Non sequitur.
As you pointed out, current meaning is a function of current use, and it’s been about 200 years since it was common for people to use the words “science” and “natural philosophy” interchangeably.
“Holding “zero supernatural beliefs”, whatever that means, is a philosophical position.”
Call it what you wish.
I think it is pretty clear the meaning.
I will not debate it. That is not my point.
Respect of differing views in the appropriate venues, allowing people to be exposed to all that they wish to be exposed to, and excercising free choice to choose those views without being berated for it is my point.
Hardly.
LOL
Too bad high schoolers are ill equipped to critically analyze evolution. They don't have the scientific background. Anything puportedly supporting 'creationism' isn't science and should not be in that class. It is doing a disservice to the students and dumbing down their education.
Well 200 years predates Darwin so it isn't surprising there are people that want to turn science back to those days. Pesky facts and the modern scientific method just get in the way of evangelism.
I do science for a living and fequently have to tell the powers to be that they are wrong. But it's done with facts, not hyperbole.
That comment certainly demonstrates "critical thinking" or the lack thereof!
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.