|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ohio biology curriculum - petition | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
I heard Njanjuk Tech lost its accrediation because during the halftime show, a deranged student ripped his shirt and pants off claiming he did not want to introduce such judemental terms as "top" and "bottom". His Darwin fish with an overlayed satin swaztika nipple protectors really inflamed the audience. However, the entire event did raise the plausibility of Stephen ben Yeshua farting today from 0.6 to 0.61.
Mamm "extinct farts "uthus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Maybe Stevo is recounting a conversation he had with himself in the mirror. After all, who would Steveo consider "the most authoritative philosopher of science I could find on the KU campus" but himself?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
fyi, Robert Pennock is at Michigan State University, not the U of M.
He's a Spartan, not a Wolverine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: From His perspective, the whole discussion is important, because, as gravity is usually taught, He doesn't get any glory for His creativity. From His perspective, the whole discussion is important, because, as plate tectonicsis usually taught, He doesn't get any glory for His creativity. From His perspective, the whole discussion is important, because, as thegerm theory of disease is usually taught, He doesn't get any glory for His creativity. From His perspective, the whole discussion is important, because, as atomic theory is usually taught, He doesn't get any glory for His creativity. From His perspective, the whole discussion is important, because, as the theory of a helocentric solar system is usually taught, He doesn't get any glory for His creativity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Just another example of how evolution is based on deceit. Good work, Schraf.
regards,Esteban "Framingham Man" Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5118 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
The National Science Education Standards derives its ideas from numerous sources, including scientists, teachers, administrators, community leaders, colleges, etc. These content standards put forth what kids should be learning prior to going to college. This is the minimum that students should know. I am definitely not a fan of the argument from authority, but it is hard to disregard the findings of such a wide-ranging and inclusive group of people.
What should kids know in life science? Cells (including Cell Theory), Biological evolution (there is even a special shout-out to teaching natural selection correctly), Molecular basis of heredity (Genetics), Molecules and energy pathways, Organism interactions (Classification and Ecology). These standards were adopted by Maryland and basically mimic what NSES says. I don't know about other states, but I am sure quite a few follow the same thing. Oh, almost forgot, the NSES proscribes how to teach science also. Check this out--
quote: Now, why would "No Child Left Behind" or any other piece of legistlation feel the need to single out evolution in this same context if the idea was already put forth to cover all of science education? Hmm, can you say hidden agenda, boys and girls? [This message has been edited by hitchy, 02-18-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, all of the frauds in evolution have always been uncovered by other evolutionists, and this is no exception.
...You'll never work in this town again, Hambre!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
I'm not in the USA, and so I'm going to let this one slide.
The rank idiocy involved in trying to lower the Ohio standards is disheartening; and my guess is that it won't go through. If it does, they'll be a laughing stock; but I don't think petitions of this kind achieve much when signed by people all over the world. If petitions are given too much weight, then you have one petition from the IDiots, and one from the evilushunists; and the upshot is that people get the idea we need to teach both sides; and setting science standards by popular vote would be insane. A really useful petition which directly comments upon the scientific standing of the "intelligent design" twits is the Project Steve petition. It reads as follows (and hence is very relevant in Ohio right now):
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. So who can sign? You must have a PhD in biology, or geology, or paleontology, or some such related field. And you must be named "Steve" (or Stephen, Steven, Esteban, Etienne, or Stephanie). To see why this bizarre restriction, read their FAQ. There are now 424 Steves on the Steve-o-meter. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Sylas,
I'm not claiming that the number of people who sign a petition makes their opinion the best one. However, the intelligent design creationists want educators and politicians to think that their view is one that is fast gaining acceptance in society, and I think it's important that we counter that illusion. It's not just that a majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution, that hundreds of Steves have gone on record as opposing the IDC proposal, or that the majority of parents and citizens think IDC is an attempt to degrade science education in general. We oppose creationism on valid scientific and philosophical grounds. regards,Esteban "Un Steve Ms" Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
MrHambre writes:
I'm not claiming that the number of people who sign a petition makes their opinion the best one. However, the intelligent design creationists want educators and politicians to think that their view is one that is fast gaining acceptance in society, and I think it's important that we counter that illusion. It's not just that a majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution, that hundreds of Steves have gone on record as opposing the IDC proposal, or that the majority of parents and citizens think IDC is an attempt to degrade science education in general. We oppose creationism on valid scientific and philosophical grounds. regards,Esteban "Un Steve Ms" Hambre I agree with all the above, except the point about it being an illusion that intelligent design is fast gaining acceptance in society. Certainly intelligent design is does not at present have general acceptance; but they have made significant gains since the movement started. At present they have carved out a solid niche of acceptance, and a lot of people are sucked in, thinking that there is some kind of legitimate intellectual point being made by the ID folks. ID has nothing to offer; the "science" they offer is is a bad parody of reason. The ID folks also have their petitions, and they also will get a lot of signatories. If the focus is placed on petitions, and support or criticism in the general public, then ID can easily show that there are two sides to the debate; and argue for both in the standards. The error is in thinking that this is a reasonable basis for deciding science standards. A serious and competent analysis of the scientific substance shows that one side is just hot air. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
If the focus is placed on petitions, and support or criticism in the general public, then ID can easily show that there are two sides to the debate; and argue for both in the standards.
Hmmm. Accurate and unsettling point. And as quickly as that ID drivel puts me to sleep, I guess I'll have to drink more coffee and work on my debating/arguing skills. You're dead on the money, Sylas, that exposure is what the P. Johnsons need, not petitions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
MrHambre,
I read up on Pennock, who mostly attacks ID, not defends evolution. As I have said often in these threads, the creationists (who misrepresent God) are definately worse than evolutionists (who misrepresent science). But, I e-mailed him, and will cheerfully submit the questions I raise here, about the absence amoung evolutionists of use, or even understanding, of strong inference, H-D methodology, and Bayesian interpretation to him or any other philosopher of science you wish to recommend. Thanks for the tip. Might get some interesting data. Stephen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MisterOpus1 Inactive Member |
Hey, I take exception to my alma mater! I'm dyin' to know Stephen, who was this professor at my beloved school?
From what I knew of my science (and specifically, Biology) professors at KU, none had admitted to anything remotely of what you claim. But then again, I guess you're referring to a philosophy prof. I'm still dyin' to know who it was...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
Mropus1,
Lesseee.... It was four years ago, he was an older semi-retired, gentleman. I just went to the office, asked who was their resident expert in the philosophy of science, was directed to him. I went in, he asked me what I wanted, and I said that I wanted him to lay his life down for the truth. I didn't plan to say that, it just came out. But it made his eyes twinkle, and he allowed as how that was a reasonable request. Then we talked. He had been a physicist, I think. I didn't write his name down, and my poor mind doesn't hold on to such info until I write it down. I'm sure you can find out who it was, though, with a little research. Maybe he's retired now, and they have a new resident expert on the philosophy of science. If you research it, you can ask them what they think. Remember, strong inference, H-D methodology, Bayes theorem. Stephen
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024