Throw out the facts, lets teach myths

[adoucette]

No protection is afforded, as it has no enforcement or remedies provision.

Absolutely it provides protection via civil suit for being fired for teaching Science under the Framework

Nope, "objective Discussion" is legally meaningless.

Not in a civil suit.

Now you admit they are teaching creationism.

Of course they are.
Duh!

But this law offers no protection to those who do and it does protect those teachers in small towns who DO teach according to the Framework.

And THIS is why this protection is important:

opposition to evolution can be especially intense at the local level, where teachers live and work. This may occur through the election of “stealth” school board candidates [18], or when teachers face organized and unorganized opposition and questioning of their curriculum from religiously motivated members of the community [19,20].

Community pressures place significant stress on teachers as they try to teach evolution, stresses that can lead them to de-emphasize, downplay, or ignore the topic

You miss the fact that without this law the teachers had no protection at all.
Or do you think YOUR source wasn't telling the truth?

Yes it is in the framework now, and in the text.

No, it is NOT in the Framework now.

 

[quadraphonics]

And THIS is why this protection is important:

opposition to evolution can be especially intense at the local level, where teachers live and work. This may occur through the election of “stealth” school board candidates [18], or when teachers face organized and unorganized opposition and questioning of their curriculum from religiously motivated members of the community [19,20].

Community pressures place significant stress on teachers as they try to teach evolution, stresses that can lead them to de-emphasize, downplay, or ignore the topic.

You miss the fact that without this law the teachers had no protection at all.

So you are telling us that the reason these teachers needed a creationist-written "teach the controversy" bill was to protect them from... creationists who want to attack teachers who instruct students in the theory of evolution?

You should consider subjecting your assertions to a cursory "sniff test" before posting them.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Absolutely it provides protection via civil suit for being fired for teaching Science under the Framework

Nope. To sue, they need to plead venue and jurisdiction. That requires a statutory cause of action, which this law does not contain. They will instead sue under existing laws protecting against wrongful termination, retaliation, civil rights and/or constitutional violations. Even if this law had an enforcement provision, the existing laws would form the cause of action, since that's where the legal standards have been established under common law.

Even if this law had an enforcement provision, it would be redundant. Therefore this law is unneccessary.

("objective discussion" is legally meaningless)
Not in a civil suit.

What suit / cause of action / legal theory?

"now you admit they are teaching creationism" Of course they are. Duh!

You lose the bet, I mean.

But this law offers no protection to those who do and it does protect those teachers in small towns who DO teach according to the Framework.

Wrong again. Creationism is enabled in the framework, discussed in the text, and demonstrated in their pattern of practice. According to your paradigm the creationist teachers will be protected against employer sanctions. Again, the scientist teachers have a state grievance mechanism, leading to a claim under existing law. Nothing new is afforded here and this law is therefore unnecessary.

And THIS is why this protection is important:
(small town creationist school boards, etc.)

If it were the intent of this law to protect against supervisor misconduct, the assembly would have crafted the law to penalize supervisors for retaliating against the teaching of evolution. If it were the intent to protect scientist teachers from creationists in the staff, it would have also penalized teachers for the teaching of creationism. For example: by weeding them out.

You miss the fact that without this law the teachers had no protection at all.

You miss the fact that they have existing laws to protect them from wrongful termination. You also miss the fact that this law has no teeth, and that it does not punish the creationists in the administration or teaching staff for insinuating religion into the schools.

Or do you think YOUR source wasn't telling the truth?

It's not my source, it's in the public domain, and it speaks for itself.

No, it is NOT in the Framework now.

Yes it is. Here are some:

"Evaluate the scientific and ethical issues associated with gene technologies: genetic engineering, cloning, transgenic organism production, stem cell research, and DNA fingerprinting."

"Conduct research on how human influences have changed an ecosystem and communicate findings through written or oral presentations."

"Trace the historical development of a scientific principle or theory, such as cell theory, evolution, or DNA structure." This enables the teaching from the text topic, which includes the war on science by creationism and ID, and/or by substituting the same subtopic from the teacher's personal perspective, aided by her creationist framework:

As a teacher, you are a unique minister of "light." Your work will "salt" the education process. ICR materials have helped our CEE parents' groups win scores of creation/evolution-policy battles across America. Those same materials will strengthen every teacher's resolve and technical abilities.

The creation/evolution war is for the soul of our nation. Every person will be affected by its outcome.
(etc.)

 

[wellwisher]

Maybe this discussion should be about personal psychology. Why do certain people get so irrational when exposed to some aspects of human knowledge? It appears to me that an objective person, when confronted with new information and alternatives, can figure out one from the other. The irrational person may not have this skill and may need to be told what to think. Does this irrationality mean the students within the education system lack objective skills such that if alternatives were presented, they are not trained to tell the difference?

Education is partly objective studies like math and science. I always had an affinity for this area of education. There are also subjective studies which are called liberal arts and social science. If the goal of education was objectivity and only facts, why don't we get rid of liberal arts since these are subjective? We do not get rid of them because it is not about objective versus subjective. It is about human irrationality due to lack of objectivity training. There is also brainwashing.

If I needed to brain wash you, to believe all cats are mean,i might show you videos of mean cats If I needed you to stay brainwashed, my fear would be any videos that might show playful kittens. The problem for me would be, the most objective people might question and doubt the original analysis of cats. This might spread to those who like being told what to think. I would need to restrict this information. I might even need to attack anyone, as insane, if they dare suggests kitten are playful.

On the other hand, if I wished my students to learn about the world around them and be able to mold and shape their world, I would show them both sides of cats in the videos, so they know they are aware of the limits of our knowledge of cats. I would have no fear if someone showed all the cats in the middle. These students are not robots programmed to do my bidding, but free thinkers. The more information they get exposed to, the more adaptive they become. Adaptation is the ability to go into an unknown information environment and come out smelling roses. Brainwashing and propaganda need information restriction and work best with only half of the data, so you the draw the curve you need for the propaganda.

 

[Cai]

Nice!! I would love to have 2 of those.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Maybe this discussion should be about personal psychology. . . irrational . . . objective person. . .told what to think. . . objective skills. . . I always had an affinity . . . subjective studies . . .get rid of liberal arts. . .It is about human irrationality. . .objectivity training. . .brainwashing. . .I needed to brain wash you. . .cats. . .my fear. . .kittens. . . analysis of cats. . .restrict this information. . .attack anyone, as insane. . .I would show them both sides of cats. . .I would have no fear. . .cats in the middle. . .robots programmed to do my bidding, but free thinkers. . .Adaptation is . . .smelling roses. Brainwashing and propaganda. . .so you the draw the curve you need for the propaganda.

:shrug:

Since the 1925 trial of John Scopes, which investigated the legality of a Tennessee law that forbade the teaching in public schools of “any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible,” a number of court cases have looked at laws involving the teaching of creationist ideas. Several court decisions, including the 1987 Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard and, more recently, the 2005 federal district court case (in central Pennsylvania) of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, have ruled that the various forms of creationism, including intelligent design creationism, are religion, not science, and that it is therefore unconstitutional to include them in public school science classes.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Nice!! I would love to have 2 of those.

You want the brainwash soup with the side order of propaganda, or the cat steak on a bed of roses?

Also, for today's special we have a tossed word salad with the poo poo platter.




Meanwhile, back at the ranch. . .

[The] primary purpose [of the Louisiana ‘Creation Act,’ which required the teaching of ‘creation science’ together with evolution in public schools] was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment.”

 

[wellwisher]

I am not defending either side. I don't understand why insecure people, whose knowledge and understand is so tentative, get to decide the path for all? I, like many others, are not backed into an insecure corner if alternate ideas are put forth. Oh No, they are talking about creation or evolution, my head will explode!!! Or they are deviating from the dogma, we must destroy them!!!!!!

Religion does not claim to be about reason . Atheism claims to be rational but this demonstrates the irrationality of a closet religion. It is not all of science that is insecure, just the atheist religious cult, segment within science. They use bully tactics so sane people don't speak up.

There should be separation of church and state, with church redefined to include atheism so they can come out of the closet. It is not what they say that counts but one is judged by their actions; irrational atheists claiming to be rational. The irrational theist are at least honest with themselves and others.

 

[billvon]

I don't understand why insecure people, whose knowledge and understand is so tentative, get to decide the path for all? I, like many others, are not backed into an insecure corner if alternate ideas are put forth.

True! We should teach children than 2+2=4 but sometimes 5 and sometimes cat. They're smart people; they should get to make up their own minds. It's only the insecure types who rigidly insist on 2+2=4; it's their way or the highway. I guess they are so uncertain of their math that they can't accept any alternatives - it might reveal the flaws in their way of thinking.

 

[wellwisher]

Like I said, liberal arts are not about cause and effect. If one music teacher likes jazz but the other music teacher likes classical, this comes down to subjectivity. There may not be any science basis, for either music style being the best. Won't this confuse the children who need to be told what to think? Or do they seem to figure it all out for themselves?

Political opinion and agenda are other categories that are not supported by science. These are based on subjectivity, spin and the art of manipulation. Politics should not be in school either, since it not about facts, but usually about propaganda than will confuse and manipulate, since that is the goal. If the liberal party is teaching its propaganda can this confuse since it is not fully objective? This is not 2+2=4, since sometimes it can equal 5, but only for the chosen ones who support the party.

Because politics is subjective and manipulative, there is no place for politics in science, since science is about objective facts. There should be separation of science and politics, analogous to church and state. This will separate smoke and mirror from facts so science is pure again. Once the political subjectivity of atheism was added to science, it is not pure science but a pseudo religion based on semi-logic and manipulation.

Should politics be banned from science? Can the subjectives within PC override and control science, while allowing science to remain pure to objectivity?

I just learned something about myself. I was never against pure science, like in the golden age of science. I was against impure science, that was tainted with politics which render science less than objective to facts. I called it corrupt science or mercenary science. If the shoes fit, there may have been confusion.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Like I said, liberal arts are not about cause and effect. If one music teacher likes jazz but the other music teacher likes classical, this comes down to subjectivity. There may not be any science basis, for either music style being the best. Won't this confuse the children who need to be told what to think? Or do they seem to figure it all out for themselves?

No, the teaching of religion during a class on evolution is not akin to a teacher's choice of putting on jazz or classical music. It's akin to teaching the students that God created music on the nth day.

Political opinion and agenda are other categories that are not supported by science. These are based on subjectivity, spin and the art of manipulation. Politics should not be in school either, since it not about facts, but usually about propaganda than will confuse and manipulate, since that is the goal. If the liberal party is teaching its propaganda can this confuse since it is not fully objective? This is not 2+2=4, since sometimes it can equal 5, but only for the chosen ones who support the party.

Over the last six years, several major documents have been released that describe what students from kindergarten through twelfth grade should know and be able to do as a result of their instruction in the sciences. These include the National Science Education Standards released by the National Research Council in 1996,1 the Benchmarks for Science Literacy released by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1993 and The Content Core: A Guide for Curriculum Designers released by the Scope, Sequence, Coordination project of the National Science Teachers Association in 1992.

These documents agree that all students should leave biology class with an understanding of the basic concepts of biological evolution and of the limits, possibilities, and dynamics of science as a way of knowing. Benchmarks for Science Literacy, for example, states that ''the educational goal should be for all children to understand the concept of evolution by natural selection, the evidence and arguments that support it, and its importance in history." For biology educators, these documents offer significant support for the inclusion of evolution in school science programs.

"Evolution and the National Science Education Standards"
National Academy of Sciences
​

Because politics is subjective and manipulative, there is no place for politics in science, since science is about objective facts. There should be separation of science and politics, analogous to church and state. This will separate smoke and mirror from facts so science is pure again.

When was science "pure"? Before the discovery of evolution?
:shrug:

Once the political subjectivity of atheism was added to science, it is not pure science but a pseudo religion based on semi-logic and manipulation.

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways.

Science, Evolution, and Creationism
National Academy of Sciences
​

Should politics be banned from science? Can the subjectives within PC override and control science, while allowing science to remain pure to objectivity?

You mean "PC" and "control" are the reasons evolution is taught in science class?

Thus, evolution is the central organizing principle that biologists use to understand the world. To teach biology without explaining evolution deprives students of a powerful concept that brings great order and coherence to our understanding of life.

The teaching of evolution also has great practical value for students. Directly or indirectly, evolutionary biology has made many contributions to society. Evolution explains why many human pathogens have been developing resistance to formerly effective drugs and suggests ways of confronting this increasingly serious problem (this issue is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2). Evolutionary biology has also contributed to many important agricultural advances by explaining the relationships among wild and domesticated plants and animals and their natural enemies. An understanding of evolution has been essential in finding and using natural resources, such as fossil fuels, and it will be indispensable as human societies strive to establish sustainable relationships with the natural environment.

"Why Teach Evolution?"
National Academy of Sciences
​

I just learned something about myself. I was never against pure science, like in the golden age of science. I was against impure science, that was tainted with politics which render science less than objective to facts. I called it corrupt science or mercenary science. If the shoes fit, there may have been confusion.

If the confusion fits, wear it.
:shrug:

 

[iceaura]

I just learned something about myself. I was never against pure science, like in the golden age of science.

This is the golden age of science.

You are against it.

Because politics is subjective and manipulative, there is no place for politics in science, since science is about objective facts. There should be separation of science and politics,

That's what we're talking about, yep - an intrusion into high school science classes of political pandering to a religious faction.

 

[quadraphonics]

Like I said, liberal arts are not about cause and effect.

I don't think you know what "liberal arts" means.

Here's a hint: it includes "math" and "science."

If one music teacher likes jazz but the other music teacher likes classical, this comes down to subjectivity.

Music instruction worth paying for typically focusses on topics other than the personal tastes of the instructor.

There may not be any science basis, for either music style being the best.

That's why the subject of "which style of music is 'the best'" is not one you'll find in a liberal arts cirriculum.

Instead, you'll deal with the history of the development of music, the theory of composition, the physics and acoustics of instruments, the interplay between all these things, etc.

Won't this confuse the children who need to be told what to think? Or do they seem to figure it all out for themselves?

Liberal arts education is, first and foremost, exactly about teaching people how to think critically for themselves. This sort of skill is essential to being a citizen in a free society. That's why it's call liberal arts.

Political opinion and agenda are other categories that are not supported by science.

Except for the ones that are, you mean?

Only one side of the political debate about global warming, or evolution, etc. is lacking in scientific support.

There should be separation of science and politics, analogous to church and state. This will separate smoke and mirror from facts so science is pure again.

And who, exactly, gets to determine what is "pure science" and what is "politics?"

Because that person will end up with enormous (political) power.

Once the political subjectivity of atheism was added to science, it is not pure science but a pseudo religion based on semi-logic and manipulation.

That statement is a dozen different kinds of quackery. You blame "atheists" for bringing religion into science? Are you oblivious to the ongoing, organized attack the religious fundamentalists have been waging, for many generations?

 

[Cavalier]

Several possible future co-workers in Tennessee confirmed what I began to suspect after this thread started: only a minority of people where I may work (if I accept their offer) send their children to TN public schools. The exceptions are mostly (1) those who can't afford private school and (2) those who don't mind their children receiving furtive instruction in Christianity (the Protestant variety, Catholics also send their kids to private schools) from certain teachers.

An interesting anecdote came up. One of my potential co-workers (who's Jewish) sent his child to public school until grade 6, when a teacher (apparently unprompted, save for some reference in class by the child to her Jewish faith) asked the girl to remain after class, whereupon he suggested she look into "Jews for Jesus." Later that night, the teacher e-mailed her the Jews for Jesus website and some other links about conversion to Christianity. When her father complained to the teacher, the teacher said that it was important for Jews to learn more about Jesus, and accept him as the messiah. The father then complained to the school, and he was told that the teacher has the right to speak freely on his own time. When the father pointed out that the initial discussion of Jews for Jesus was done during school hours, the response was that teachers have first amendment rights, and that no action would be taken against that teacher. The father then asked to have his daughter switched out of that teacher's class, but that request was denied. So he finally transferred her into a private school beginning with the 7th grade (because the new school would not take her mid-year).

I hope that is not indicative of the general attitude of the Tennessee school system, but it further undermines my newly-weakened faith in their standards.

 

[Bells]

An interesting anecdote came up. One of my potential co-workers (who's Jewish) sent his child to public school until grade 6, when a teacher (apparently unprompted, save for some reference in class by the child to her Jewish faith) asked the girl to remain after class, whereupon he suggested she look into "Jews for Jesus." Later that night, the teacher e-mailed her the Jews for Jesus website and some other links about conversion to Christianity. When her father complained to the teacher, the teacher said that it was important for Jews to learn more about Jesus, and accept him as the messiah. The father then complained to the school, and he was told that the teacher has the right to speak freely on his own time. When the father pointed out that the initial discussion of Jews for Jesus was done during school hours, the response was that teachers have first amendment rights, and that no action would be taken against that teacher. The father then asked to have his daughter switched out of that teacher's class, but that request was denied. So he finally transferred her into a private school beginning with the 7th grade (because the new school would not take her mid-year).

Are you serious?!

They actually found nothing wrong with a teacher trying to preach 'Jews for Jesus' to a Jewish child in the class and then went so far as to impose on their beliefs by emailing the family a phamplet on it. That's appalling.

 

[Aqueous Id]

And of course, the kid got caught in the middle, having to be separated from lifelong friends. I think that speaks volumes for the way the dialogue has gone here. Some folks just can't handle reality, so they go into denial, and to support their sense of propriety they blaze off into rationalizing like we've seen here.

Jews for Jesus. Bah, humbug.