It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Potential creationist curriculum in Texas schools

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


I DON'T support Creationism or ID being taught in schools. You get that? I've never said I did, because I DON'T.

If you are going to teach kids ANY theory, you should also teach them about the weaknesses. It's only right.

What my personal beliefs are is irrelevant to whether information about established theories should be fully presented. It's called censorship, plain and simple.

If you support censorship for ANY reason, you might as well throw all your rights down the toilet. Next you won't be able to teach kids about the weakness of a law, or government policy, or infrastructure, or anything else. Make sure you don't teach them about the weakness of the economy either, we don't want them getting any wild ideas about reality.

And you wonder why your government walks all over you? Wow.




[edit on 26-3-2009 by B.A.C.]




posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Update:


It was a mixed bag of victory and defeat for science on Friday when the Texas Board of Education voted on their state science standards. In a move that pleased the scientific community, the board voted to not include proposed changes that would call for the teaching of the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories – code words for allowing creationist views into the classroom.

However, additional amendments that were voted through provide loopholes for creationist teaching. "It's as if they slammed the door shut with strengths and weaknesses, then ran around the house opening windows to let it in a bunch of other ways," says Dan Quinn, who was on site at the hearings. Quinn is communications director of the Texas Freedom Network, a community watchdog organisation.
www.newscientist.com...

6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
If you are going to teach kids ANY theory, you should also teach them about the weaknesses. It's only right.


It might be right in your mind, but it's not rational in practice.

Take the theory of special relativity, for example. The physics curriculum in most schools aims for a basic understanding of the concept and a basic application of the concept in practice.

The concepts being discussed take a significant amount of time - and a multi-disciplinary approach to allow the students to grasp the concept. By the time it's been introduced, they have a background in enough of the mathematical and philosophical basics to understand that theory.

What you're proposing is that the teacher - after the students have gained a basic understanding of relativity - should then launch into a lecture on the relativistic Euler equations. Sure, it'd be great - but it's completely out of range for the students. It's a higher level altogether - it requires significantly more background in physics and mathematics than (most) high school students have or will ever need. And that's just one of a couple of dozen points the teacher would have to go into to accomplish what you're proposing.

The same is true of every scientific theory that kids are exposed to in high school. Teaching them nothing is unacceptable and irresponsible, and teaching them everything is overloading the students to the extreme - also unacceptable, and also irresponsible.

There is a time and a place to discuss the flaws of scientific theories: it's called a University.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
I have to go with B.A.C on this.

Alot of people complain how the public education system doesn't allow students to think for themselves. This would have allowed them to be able to debate the good and bad in certain theories. Making the class more of a student friendly enviroment and teach them alot more.

If a debate had come about from a discussion then the teacher could have acted as the moderator and kept the kids in line and on topic.

I think they missed out on a good thing here because some parents are scared that someone may mention the G word.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
That's what I call the "dumbing-down of the USA".
Creationism belongs in Literature classes filed under "science fiction".
Unless of course, your kid goes to a private, religious school, then they can teach whatever they want.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442

Originally posted by B.A.C.
If you are going to teach kids ANY theory, you should also teach them about the weaknesses. It's only right.


It might be right in your mind, but it's not rational in practice.

Take the theory of special relativity, for example. The physics curriculum in most schools aims for a basic understanding of the concept and a basic application of the concept in practice.

The concepts being discussed take a significant amount of time - and a multi-disciplinary approach to allow the students to grasp the concept. By the time it's been introduced, they have a background in enough of the mathematical and philosophical basics to understand that theory.

What you're proposing is that the teacher - after the students have gained a basic understanding of relativity - should then launch into a lecture on the relativistic Euler equations. Sure, it'd be great - but it's completely out of range for the students. It's a higher level altogether - it requires significantly more background in physics and mathematics than (most) high school students have or will ever need. And that's just one of a couple of dozen points the teacher would have to go into to accomplish what you're proposing.

The same is true of every scientific theory that kids are exposed to in high school. Teaching them nothing is unacceptable and irresponsible, and teaching them everything is overloading the students to the extreme - also unacceptable, and also irresponsible.

There is a time and a place to discuss the flaws of scientific theories: it's called a University.


Let's face it Evolution isn't exactly Quantum Theory, but this still applies to Quantum Theory as well. You can teach the basics of a theory in a few sittings. I'm not saying they have to delve into advanced topics or anything, but a mention and discussion of the weaknesses would be in order. I don't think you're giving high schoolers enough credit. My 12 year old can speak about quite advanced topics with ease, including things he spots as weaknesses.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by haika
That's what I call the "dumbing-down of the USA".
Creationism belongs in Literature classes filed under "science fiction".
Unless of course, your kid goes to a private, religious school, then they can teach whatever they want.


The vote wasn't for teaching Creationism. It was for discussing the strenghts and weaknesses of scientific theories.

The title of this thread is a little misleading.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


Oops. I was lazy and didn't read the whole thing.


Then, I support an intelligent debate on strengths and weaknesses carried out in schools. It'll teach students to think in a critical manner, make intelligent arguments, read all theories that are around, and learn a little bit of science, philosophy, history, and religious beliefs (as philosophies).



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by haika
 



Glad to help out.

By your past posts I figured we would have been in agreement on this.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Let's face it Evolution isn't exactly Quantum Theory. You can teach the basics of evolution in one sitting. I'm not saying they have to delve into advanced topics or anything, but a mention and discussion of the weaknesses would be in order. I don't think you're giving high schoolers enough credit. My 12 year old can speak about quite advanced topics with ease, including things he spots as weaknesses.


First, you can't teach the basics of evolution in one sitting - at least, you can't teach them properly.

Furthermore, you can't teach students the basics of evolution and expect them to be able to be able to follow the concept of specified complexity (one of the ID alternatives). You need to a strong foundation in the theory itself - perceived flaws and all - to be able to make an informed judgment on what is being presented as an alternative.

And once you've devoted time to that, you can start into the criticisms of specified complexity. And, in fairness, the rebuttals. And so on. And at that point, the class is completely devoted to the evolutionary theory vs. ID debate. And that's utterly useless to anyone.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


You may find this hard to believe, but I don't agree with some of these amendments. I think it's a sneaky way of slipping information into the text books, stuff that should be discussed at home, not school. I agreed with the "Strength & Weaknesses" part, but some of these amendments are a little too much, there was no information about these amendments earlier.

Teaching Creationism in school isn't right IMO. Why would I as a Christian want an Atheist who was forced to teach something they didn't want to in the first place , teaching my kids (think they'd be bias? heck ya)? Even if it wasn't an Atheist, it's just pushing it too far.

I DO agree with teaching "Strengths and Weaknesses" though, bah well, lost the vote.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
First, you can't teach the basics of evolution in one sitting - at least, you can't teach them properly.


Well, maybe not one sitting, but there's a lot of time for it through the course.



Furthermore, you can't teach students the basics of evolution and expect them to be able to be able to follow the concept of specified complexity (one of the ID alternatives). You need to a strong foundation in the theory itself - perceived flaws and all - to be able to make an informed judgment on what is being presented as an alternative.


This vote wasn't about teaching "alternatives". It was about discussing Strengths and Weaknesses in already taught theories like Evolution. They don't teach ID in school.



And once you've devoted time to that, you can start into the criticisms of specified complexity. And, in fairness, the rebuttals. And so on. And at that point, the class is completely devoted to the evolutionary theory vs. ID debate. And that's utterly useless to anyone.


Again, they would NEVER be discussing ID, it's not even allowed to be discussed and wouldn't be according to this vote. Only accepted and already taught theories like Evolution.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
This vote wasn't about teaching "alternatives". It was about discussing Strengths and Weaknesses in already taught theories like Evolution. They don't teach ID in school.


Sorry, I got confused there.

It's just that the overwhelming majority of "weaknesses" I've ever heard of with regard to evolutionary theory tend to be tied very closely to the ID movement.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442

Originally posted by B.A.C.
This vote wasn't about teaching "alternatives". It was about discussing Strengths and Weaknesses in already taught theories like Evolution. They don't teach ID in school.


Sorry, I got confused there.

It's just that the overwhelming majority of "weaknesses" I've ever heard of with regard to evolutionary theory tend to be tied very closely to the ID movement.



Oh yea you're right there, but that's just because ID'rs like to bring up the weaknesses in arguments



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


The problem is, all of the issues brought up with regard to evolutionary theory boil down to a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology, as well as the other sciences involved.

In other words - they tend not to be weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Draw your own conclusions as to why.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Teaching Creationism in school isn't right IMO. Why would I as a Christian want an Atheist who was forced to teach something they didn't want to in the first place , teaching my kids (think they'd be bias? heck ya)? Even if it wasn't an Atheist, it's just pushing it too far.


Science teachers aren't automatically atheist just because they're in science. Most christians in the world are secular and so augment their faith with science. Ergo, most christians are in fact believers of evolution and most "evolutionists" are christians - at least according to the Gallup polls.

I wouldn't want atheistic ideas pushed on any children either, or any religion. Denying children the opportunity to grow up and come to their own conclusions is important. That's why I hate in principle, 'Sunday school' or equivalent. It's taking advantage of the naive trust of children.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 

Wow! This thread is what I've heard called a "dog's breakfast!"

This little debate, if one can call it that, is a microcosm for the various different viewpoints on what schools are for, what truth is, what science is, and what we should be "teaching" our children.

You realize that one whole notion of what schools are for is that they exist to make "good citizens." Running along with that idea you have the assertion that schools should produce people who are competent in life. While others see real competence as the willingness and ability to make one's own choices and one's own judgments, that is, to think and learn for themselves.

These are actually big ideas. Very big. Quite on a par with the question of how life and life forms came into existence.

We have a premise at this site that various forms of secrecy have been used, down through the centuries, to hide misdeeds and bad intentions. To hide from us, in essence, important pieces of the truth. Where truth is rather sloppily defined as "what is." Say, for example, that a public official is using his office to steal money. Someone finds out about it, and the official uses his position and connections to get the person arrested and sent to jail for something or other where he later mysteriously dies. In the history books this public official is a great man who did many great things, and the truth that he stole taxpayer money is successfully suppressed and never really sees the light of day. So, what is the "truth?" This is a rather harmless example to remind us of the basic mechanism that we are tackling in these forums.

We're not going to solve this by arguing about what goes down in public school classrooms. Can we agree to that? We can only hope that a few of those students, hopefully more that a few, are curious enough to read sites like ATS and brave enough to question what they are being told about how things are.

I was hoping this thread might just be about the relative merits of the Darwinian group of theories, leaving up to God, and the "new" idea of intelligent design. I guess I'm still a bit wet behind the ears! But I'd prefer a thread more along those lines, and if I don't find one, I might start one myself!



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by l_e_cox
We're not going to solve this by arguing about what goes down in public school classrooms. Can we agree to that? We can only hope that a few of those students, hopefully more that a few, are curious enough to read sites like ATS and brave enough to question what they are being told about how things are.


Are those the only two options or cold there actually be something we could do? The Dover trial did the trick, common sense say to do that again or similar.


I was hoping this thread might just be about the relative merits of the Darwinian group of theories, leaving up to God, and the "new" idea of intelligent design. I guess I'm still a bit wet behind the ears! But I'd prefer a thread more along those lines, and if I don't find one, I might start one myself!


But creationism and ID have no merit. They aren't scientific, in fact they completely ignore the scientific method in favour of one's religious beliefs. Life isn't intelligently designed, it's the sum of trial and error over 3 billion years.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join