Educational laws (relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools)

[CaffeineHat]

Those experts are failing miserably when it comes to boys.

I'm not sure what that means....but the experts are failing in ways that they haven't before and some will tell you that this is in large part to the proliferation of standardized tests.

In many states, the curriculum is being manipulated in order to make test taking skills the priority for mastering state tests. Now many districts are seeking to tie student achievement to teacher salaries.

[jezcoe]

This type of legislation exists to drain money away from the taxpayers. The second it gets challenged in court it will be struck down, all payed for by the public.

[jezcoe]

"encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues"

If science today is drink the kool-aid instead of think critically, then yes this would be anti-science.

It encourages creationists to teach nonsense in science class. What this bill opens the door for is the teaching of Astrology, Phrenology, Intelligent Falling, or any other discarded "theory" about how the world works. I do hope that some wise ass teacher in order to test the limits would hold a sceance because it seems to me it is protected by this bill.

[LittleNipper]

This bill is not abut children thinking and researching. It merely attempts to create a semantical and cynical backdoor to enable individual teachers to introduce Intelligent Design into the classroom without repercussion.

SCIENCE class is not about the values, opinions or feelings of Christians (or other theists). It is about SCIENCE. Intelligent Design is not science. Intelligent Design in merely a rehash of Creation Science, which itself is a rehash of Biblical Creationism. At the very best, it is pseudo science and has absolutely no business being taught in or anywhere near a science classroom.

Now, if somebody wants to mention it in a religion survey course or a comparative religion course (with the disclaimer that it is pseudo science) that would be find. Just keep the load of **** out of science classrooms.

As for your last comment regarding God, it is irrelevant. Anyhow, your just going to have to get over the fact that not everybody buys into either the Christian God or any other God.

In science class, it would be ok to say that many people accept a THEORY of evolution as how man came about. However, this in no way means that the scientists are correst in that scientific ASSUMPTION. Many also understand that there appears to be Intelligence in our design and not just haphazard chance involved. Your job is to consider both and do your homework ---- not everyone buys into atheism.

[LittleNipper]

It encourages creationists to teach nonsense in science class. What this bill opens the door for is the teaching of Astrology, Phrenology, Intelligent Falling, or any other discarded "theory" about how the world works. I do hope that some wise ass teacher in order to test the limits would hold a sceance because it seems to me it is protected by this bill.

Sorry, I don't buy this at all. It was not true PRIOR to 1963. If it wasn't true then, it will not happen in the future. Besides, Christians allowed evolutionists, agnostics, and atheists, to teach all sorts of theories, as long as, said Christians were allowed to share the hot air. Beside, Christians promoted education --- the opposite does not seem to have been true. Name the schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, and orphanages founded exclusively by atheists. In FACT, we NOW have gay activists practically insulting Bible believing students, and the students are left WITHOUT a voice ---- they are taunted even when they simply walk out...

[WorldWatcher]

Sorry, I don't buy this at all. It was not true PRIOR to 1963. If it wasn't true then, it will not happen in the future. Besides, Christians allowed evolutionists, agnostics, and atheists, to teach all sorts of theories, as long as, said Christians were allowed to share the hot air.

You may have forgotten about quite a few laws like the Tennessee Butler Act which forbid the teaching of evolution in any public school. You may remember it more by the court case which it resulted in - "The Scopes Monkey Trial" in the 1920's.


............... P.S. IIRC John Scopes was found guilty at trial.

........................P.S.S. IIRC the State Supreme Court upheld the law.

...............................P.S.S.S. IIRC the conviction was overturned on a techicallity having nothing to do with the content of the case.



>>>>

[jezcoe]

Sorry, I don't buy this at all. It was not true PRIOR to 1963. If it wasn't true then, it will not happen in the future. Besides, Christians allowed evolutionists, agnostics, and atheists, to teach all sorts of theories, as long as, said Christians were allowed to share the hot air. Beside, Christians promoted education --- the opposite does not seem to have been true. Name the schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, and orphanages founded exclusively by atheists. In FACT, we NOW have gay activists practically insulting Bible believing students, and the students are left WITHOUT a voice ---- they are taunted even when they simply walk out...

Quick question.... what group started the push to secularize public schools in the late 1800's?

[jezcoe]

In science class, it would be ok to say that many people accept a THEORY of evolution as how man came about. However, this in no way means that the scientists are correst in that scientific ASSUMPTION. Many also understand that there appears to be Intelligence in our design and not just haphazard chance involved. Your job is to consider both and do your homework ---- not everyone buys into atheism.

One does not need to be an atheist to accept the scientific validity of evolutionary biology. The many who understand that there is the appearance of intelligence in design failed to make their case in Kitzmillar v Dover and had their butts handed to them. They had a golden oppurtunity to state their case but failed. Why is that?

[Clintville]

In science class, it would be ok to say that many people accept a THEORY of evolution as how man came about. However, this in no way means that the scientists are correst in that scientific ASSUMPTION. Many also understand that there appears to be Intelligence in our design and not just haphazard chance involved. Your job is to consider both and do your homework ---- not everyone buys into atheism.

You don't seem to know what a scientific theory is. It does not mean "guess".

Evolution also has nothing to do with atheism. Or anything not having to do with life.

[historynut]

In science class, it would be ok to say that many people accept a THEORY of evolution as how man came about. However, this in no way means that the scientists are correst in that scientific ASSUMPTION. Many also understand that there appears to be Intelligence in our design and not just haphazard chance involved. Your job is to consider both and do your homework ---- not everyone buys into atheism.

You also have the theory that meteorite impacts may have may have planted seeds of life on Earth and been the reason that life forms changed (meteorite with new DNA lands causes changes in current life forms).

I learned both theories in school with the theory of evolution being called the most likely to be correct.

I have no problem with the theory of evolution being taught as the most likely to be correct. When it's taught as the only possible correct theory, problem.

[WorldWatcher]

You also have the theory that meteorite impacts may have may have planted seeds of life on Earth and been the reason that life forms changed (meteorite with new DNA lands causes changes in current life forms).

Never heard that theory before.

This theory requires that life already existed here and that it was unchanging and that it was a meteorite that had to land that started the ability to change. Correct?


>>>>

[DC1346]

Basically, the object of this bill is to permit teachers to present pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design bull **** and other pseudo-scientific ****.

Section 1(3)f of the law clearly states that religious beliefs may not be taught.

[historynut]

Never heard that theory before.

This theory requires that life already existed here and that it was unchanging and that it was a meteorite that had to land that started the ability to change. Correct?


>>>>

No.

The theory was that meteorite's carried life to earth and it was later meteorite's with different DNA that caused that life to change.

[WorldWatcher]

No.

The theory was that meteorite's carried life to earth and it was later meteorite's with different DNA that caused that life to change.

So the first meteorite brings life to Earth, that life is unchanging.

A second meteorite strikes the earth thousands, millions of years later and brings new life and this new life's DNA causes all life on Earth that is unchanging to now start changing?

During the time from 1st Meteor to 2nd Meteor what was the life status on Earth all one type of Virus or Bacteria?



>>>>

[historynut]

So the first meteorite brings life to Earth, that life is unchanging.

A second meteorite strikes the earth thousands, millions of years later and brings new life and this new life's DNA causes all life on Earth that is unchanging to now start changing?

During the time from 1st Meteor to 2nd Meteor what was the life status on Earth all one type of Virus or Bacteria?

>>>>

It has been a while since I went to school and I don't remember.

What I was doing was pointing out that when I went to school more then one theory was taught.

The theory of evolution was taught as being the most likely but you also had the panspermia theory being mentioned because the known evidence could be used to prove either theory.


Panspermia is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids.


I was also taught that with science you needed an open mind. You come up with the best theory (hypothesis) based on the known facts. But you have to be ready to change the theory when you learn new facts.

Based of what we know now the theory of evolution seems like the best theory, based on what we know 100 years from now it may not seem the best theory.