It is currently 11/21/24 4:18 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 13 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 02/24/13 9:05 am • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I have NO problem with students asking challenging questions ~ but I definitely DO have a problem with hiding political/religious ulterior motives in curriculum ~ Sooz

Insist That People Coexisted With Dinosaurs…and Get an A in Science Class!
— By Dana Liebelson | Tue Feb. 19, 2013 3:02 AM PST

UPDATE: On February 19, HB1674 passed through the Oklahoma Common Education committee on a 9-8 vote.

In biology class, public school students can't generally argue that dinosaurs and people ran around Earth at the same time, at least not without risking a big fat F. But that could soon change for kids in Oklahoma: On Tuesday, the Oklahoma Common Education committee is expected to consider a House bill that would forbid teachers from penalizing students who turn in papers attempting to debunk almost universally accepted scientific theories such as biological evolution and anthropogenic (human-driven) climate change.

Gus Blackwell, the Republican state representative who introduced the bill, insists that his legislation has nothing to do with religion; it simply encourages scientific exploration. "I proposed this bill because there are teachers and students who may be afraid of going against what they see in their textbooks," says Blackwell, who previously spent 20 years working for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. "A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations."

Stated another way, students could make untestable, faith-based claims in science classes without fear of receiving a poor mark.

HB 1674 is the latest in an ongoing series of "academic freedom" bills aimed at watering down the teaching of science on highly charged topics. Instead of requiring that teachers and textbooks include creationism—see the bill proposed by Missouri state Rep. Rick Brattin—HB 1674's crafters say it merely encourages teachers and students to question, as the bill puts it, the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of topics that "cause controversy," including "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

Eric Meikle, education project director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, California, says Oklahoma has proposed more anti-evolution legislation than any other state, introducing eight bills with academic freedom language since 2004. (None has passed.) "The problem with these bills is that they're so open-ended; it's a kind of code for people who are opposed to teaching climate change and evolution," Meikle says.

HB 1674 goes further than a companion bill under consideration in the state Senate by explicitly protecting students, teachers, and schools from being penalized for subscribing to alternative theories. It does, however, say that children may still be tested on widely accepted theories such as anthropogenic climate change. "Students can't say because I don't believe in this, I don't want to learn it," Blackwell says. "They have to learn it in order to look at the weaknesses."

"An extremely high percentage of scientists will tell you that evolution doesn't have scientific weaknesses," says the NCSE's Meikle. "If every teacher, parent, and school board can decide what to teach on their own, you're going to have chaos. You can't deluge kids with every theory that's ever been considered since the beginning of time."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/oklahoma-hr1674-science-evolution-climate-change


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 02/24/13 9:09 am • # 2 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
LMAO


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 02/24/13 9:49 am • # 3 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida
Quote:
Gus Blackwell, the Republican state representative who introduced the bill, insists that his legislation has nothing to do with religion; it simply encourages scientific exploration.


I agree completely and hope to see a scientific study soon on the remnants of voice box and legs of the talking and walking snake. Or "Human Survival in Common Whale Bellies".
So many things, ignored by main stream science, to explore....


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 02/24/13 10:29 am • # 4 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/05/10
Posts: 14093
ROFL jab! And then there's those pesky virgin birth and resurrection claims.


Top
  
PostPosted: 02/24/13 10:35 am • # 5 

Yet, I'm willing to bet that Sooz, Oskar, Jabra, and Roseanne believe other things the Bible claims to be true -- such as, for instance, that there is a God, and a son of God.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 02/24/13 10:41 am • # 6 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida
What's a "God"?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 02/24/13 10:45 am • # 7 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
SciFiGuy wrote:
Yet, I'm willing to bet that Sooz, Oskar, Jabra, and Roseanne believe other things the Bible claims to be true -- such as, for instance, that there is a God, and a son of God.

And I bet you'd lose that bet, SciFi ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 02/24/13 10:48 am • # 8 

That's good then! That's one bet I would be happy to lose! Image


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 02/24/13 12:29 pm • # 9 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
SciFiGuy wrote:
Yet, I'm willing to bet that Sooz, Oskar, Jabra, and Roseanne believe other things the Bible claims to be true -- such as, for instance, that there is a God, and a son of God.


You lose.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 02/24/13 1:11 pm • # 10 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
Rick Brattin—HB 1674's crafters say it merely encourages teachers and students to question, as the bill puts it, the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of topics that "cause controversy," including "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

So does this mean that, rather than just teaching evolution, a teacher or student could openly attack creationism without fear of reprisal from school, government or fundies.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 02/24/13 2:52 pm • # 11 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Personally I can't see any reason why a student shouldn't write a paper criticising evolution.

Of course, the paper should then be evaluated on its scientific merits and weaknesses.

I suspect that, except in extremely rare instances, the outcome would be an "F".


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 02/24/13 3:53 pm • # 12 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/04/09
Posts: 4072
Who are you gonna believe...your Savior or your lyin' brain?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 02/24/13 4:04 pm • # 13 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
grampatom wrote:
Who are you gonna believe...your Savior or your lyin' brain?


Don't have either one.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 13 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.