General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOklahoma: Insist That People Coexisted With Dinosaurs…and Get an A in Science Class!
Intelligence is so elitist.
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 creationismsee the bill proposed by Missouri state Rep. Rick BrattinHB 1674's crafters say it merely encourages teachers and students to question, as the bill puts it, the "scientific strengths and weaknesses" of topics that "cause controversy," including "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/oklahoma-hr1674-science-evolution-climate-change
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)http://www.oru.edu/
http://www.oc.edu/
I used to teach at one of these. I won't say which.
Yes, I needed the money.
0rganism
(23,971 posts)but if that's who the Good People of Oklahoma choose for their leadership, then they, and their children, will be left to reap the whirlwind.
ballaratocker
(126 posts)He wants them to stay in the same bubble they have always lived in so they don't get to see what the outside world is like. Then they can keep voting Republican and he can stay in office.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Hope they get their heads handed to them, like the Intelligent Designers did in Dover, PA.
Thanks for posting.
Sid
Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)
Post removed
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)"Gawd did it" isn't science.
Sid
Tempest
(14,591 posts)An F would be an appropriate grade.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)and even better is the fact that Michael Behe got his ass handed to him by both the attorney for the plaintiff, and the judge.
Sid
TriEssent
(2 posts)So..do you really think that the court is the best qualified to pass judgement on what IS science? Because the court says so....it must be?
D
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)the hard choices. Welcome to Du.
trumad
(41,692 posts)So if it is articulated that Fred rode Dino---and it was written in an articulate way, that student should get a good grade?
Is that what you are saying?
OceanEcosystem
(275 posts)A student who can make a convincing, well-supported, insightful, observant and well-reasoned argument for creationism in a 7-page paper should deserve a better grade than a student who writes one sentence, for instance, "Evolution is correct because my friends tell me so" and leaves it at that.
trumad
(41,692 posts)How can fiction be "well supported".
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)There ya go!
trumad
(41,692 posts)It really is too damn easy and fascinating at the same time.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)*sigh*
trumad
(41,692 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)set some kid up for an impossible task.
xmas74
(29,676 posts)If the student could write a well articulated paper, if they could offer valid sources, if, if, if. It's a losing battle but a student is welcome to try.
The lawmakers, otoh, are full of it.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Once Science has determined something to be Theory, it is considered Fact...Theories are not just some abstract thinking.. To become a Theory there has to be one hypothesis after another that is subject to peer review and this is done until there is NO One in the Scientific Community that can refute the hypothesis. Once that has happened which usually takes years and years the hypothesis is elevated to Theory and there it will remain until proven false.. Another "Theory" does not prove it false.. It just does not work that way..When you are being taught Science, you are being taught truth as is understood by the Entire scientific community. Science class is not the place to introduce untested Theory...It just does not work that way..
kiri
(796 posts)Consider:
Gravity is Just a Theory
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/schempp.html
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Or those who try to defy it.
I fear Gravity more than some random deity.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)came along and it was replaced with Einstein's theory. Einsteins theory may be improved upon with String Theory. How do you put a saddle on a dinosaur? Very carefully.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,045 posts)BeeBee
(1,074 posts)creationism.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)Any paper that is written to support creationism in a science class deserves an "F" grade.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Full stop. There it is. Debate over.
You can't 'well support' complete fucking gibberish that has not a goddamn thing to do with science, in a science-related paper.
0rganism
(23,971 posts)The student who writes, "Evolution is correct because my friends tell me so" is possibly still teachable.
The student who writes 7 pages of "well-reasoned" creationism has been trained by their religion to stop learning science.
JHB
(37,162 posts)...for the tweet masquerading as a paper.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)With evolution in a SCIENCE class, how far away is teaching biological reproduction side by side with the alternative 'Stork theory'?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Can't make "well-supported" arguments with affirmative evidence for creationism. All they ever do is try to poke teensy (and meaningless) little holes in evolutionary science, and even that always, always falls apart under a moment's scrutiny from people who know what they're talking about.
You really need to go back to Science 101...if you were ever there. But now I suppose you're going to tell us all about your extensive scientific training, and how it taught you to be "open-minded" and not "dogmatic"? The usual creationist woo-woo?
jpak
(41,760 posts)deserves a F in science class.
yup
TrogL
(32,822 posts)They were giving Fs to evolutionists 150 years ago (were they?) because they weren't teaching science.
I still like one of my former Priest's take on it. "In the beginning God created the heavens, the earth and all the creatures on it. The methodology He used was evolution. Where is the problem?"
midwest irish
(155 posts)That's the problem. The catholic church accepts evolution as compatible with scriptures and their theology. Evangelical protestants (the one's making a fuss about this) do not accept it at all. They believe in a literal, word for word, interpretation of the Bible. Of course if you ask them about some parts they will says its an allegory or not to be taken literally. However when it comes to creationism they have drawn their line in the evolutionary sand. Heck, many think that Catholics aren't christian and that the pope is the anti-christ. They have explicitly rejected the idea that God used evolution.
What your Priest said versus what evangelicals believe is like night and day.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)If a student puts wrong information on their math test, they will fail. I don't see how putting scientifically unsubstantiated hogwash in a science paper is any different. The student is not writing a paper for their theology class.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)I said, "Honey, I'm an English teacher. If you have a question about proto-feminist poets of early Victorian England, I can help, but I am essentially innumerate. So if you're asking me to explain imaginary numbers, go in the backyard and count the number of unicorns you see. That's the best I've got."
So we hired a math tutor...
(Sorry for the brain droppings!)
TrogL
(32,822 posts)Apparently he thinks "imaginary numbers" are taken on faith.
I pointed out that those "imaginary" numbers are very real. If they didn't exist, neither would your cell phone.
It's the same logic by people saying that "E=mc^2" doesn't exist. I ask them to please explain the following:
Volaris
(10,274 posts)By the logic and standards of thi bill, Physics Instructors might as well just make students watch re-runs of Star Trek, and turn in papers on that. (And just because it would probably breed a better generation of Science Majors than re-runs of The Flintstones, DOES NOT make this a good idea.)
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Evolution, the very foundation of biology -- Is that what you're talking about? The "theory" that is "controversial" among the non-stupid in the way the "theory" that the Earth is more spherical than flat is controversial? The thing that is NOT based on silly hallucinogenic desert mythology from 2,000 years ago? The thing that is rooted in fact and observation, not fiction, and should be taught in a SCIENCE class? That evolution?
OceanEcosystem
(275 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)years ago, before she apparently had incestuous relations with her sons to populate the planet and before the bearded dude put two of all the animals on the big boat? Wow, think about that -- because there are about 400,000 species of beetles on the planet, and, of course God must have made them all "as is," right?, wow, old Noah must have had to have made a shitload of cargo space just for beetles!
Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of peer-reviewed scientific sources to support that version of things!
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)very good!
cali
(114,904 posts)has no fucking place in science class. EVER.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)No one in their right mind considers creationism a viable theory. Graduating from a school that teaches Dino sciences should disqualify a student from a degree in the Sciences unless they are evaluated by a board of real scientists from real schools.
GoneOffShore
(17,341 posts)And if you're not, then you really don't have an understanding of what science does.
But I suspect you may not be joking which is really unfortunate.
And no matter how well articulated that paper may be, it would still be based on a faulty premise.
LeftinOH
(5,358 posts)midwest irish
(155 posts)when there was legislation in Ohio saying professors had to include the conservative version of things in their curriculum because colleges were "just too liberal." It failed but it was frightening that it was even proposed.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)will not stop until they get this approved. We tried to have a scientific conversation with one elected official regarding my husband's research. All he was concerned with was if it was "against the teachings of the bible".
We have to work down here to reestablish the Democratic party and challenge these folks. It can be done, I know it can. I think it will be a lot of work fighting organized religion who press politics from the pulpit but I really believe if we work at it we can convince people that their interests are not being served by these people. I know, it may not be possible, but I think we have to at least try rather than throw in the towel!
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)snakes could talk at one time
six people populated the world
the things one can learn in school
backtoblue
(11,345 posts)I personally don't agree with creationism, but as long as evolution is taught and studied, students should have the right to do research and try to elaborate on their findings.
Study what your science teachers are teaching, memorize it and get good grades, then you can write your own thesis and present your supporting evidence.
Please don't yell at me for my thoughts.
trumad
(41,692 posts)backtoblue
(11,345 posts)If one truly believes in something, then I encourage that person to do the research necessary to prove their thoughts.
Teach what we know to be true in the classroom, but encourage broader participation and don't belittle another's beliefs.
Keep evolution as our theory(law) of existance. I believe in the science evolution. There are many people who do not. I just think that pushing those to do the research and provide results is how we've gotten this far in science today. We didn't get the information we have today by denying anyone their beliefs.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Blecht
(3,803 posts)And make sure you do not take it in Oklahoma.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Do I get an "A" ?
Throckmorton
(3,579 posts)Because as I recall, "the number of the counting shall be three".
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Mendelson did it with peas, first. It's been established by scientists in many species.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,045 posts)If you knew the most fundamental thing about science you would understand that science is not about belief.
backtoblue
(11,345 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,045 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Give me my "A" now, please!!!
kiri
(796 posts)Is Evolution a Religion?
By Ellery Schempp
IDists claim that there is an "intelligent design" view and that
evolution is "an equal religion". They usually say "Darwinism". Of
course, there is no such thing as "Darwinism", this is a word made up
by IDists to label those who do not accept their views. Let's
consider what characterizes traditional religions and whether
evolution is a religion. The historical record shows numerous
distinctions.
The Theory of Evolution is not a religion.
Evolution has no priests, pastors, ministers, preachers, bishops,
ayatollahs, imams, mullahs, prophets (or televangelical profits). No
holy books or sacred scriptures. It has no holidays, no feast days,
no canonized saints. It depends on no miracles. It gets no tax
exemptions.
Evolution has no alter boys, no prayers, no church establishments, no
edifices with crosses, stars or crescents, no churches or temples, no
coming-of-age rituals like Bar Mitzvah or confirmation.
Evolution has no banned books, no warnings about heresy or blasphemy,
no record of burning witches or heretics, no public displays of piety
or prayer, no holy book supposed to contain "All Truth", no creed to
be ritually recited. Evolution does not define pagans or infidels.
There are no mythological beliefs or transubstantiations.
Evolution has no history of torturing non-believers, has never
started a war, never burned an opponent at the stake. The idea of
evolution has no record of sex scandals. No record of financial
fraud. No record of trying to get a passport stamped for entry into
heaven. Evolution offers no condemnations to hell nor promises of an
after-life.
Evolution does not support occult beliefs. The scientific theory of
evolution has no dependence on a supernatural deity or pixies; no
prayer rituals, no burial rituals, no sacraments. There are no
invisible beings, gods, deities, devils, demons, ghosts, satans,
angels, spirits, cherubim, seraphim, faeries, or a soul. Evolution
recognizes no destructions as "acts of God" nor acts of violence
as "acts of Satan or an anti-christ."
Evolution does not depend on blind faith; it offers no argument from
authority; no conclusion first, facts second. There is no body
of "apologetics" from the theory of evolution.
The above are evidences of religion. The idea of evolution, which is
based on observation of the natural world as we see it, does not have
any of the attributes of religion. Indeed, evolution is the
opposite, it welcomes energetic inquiries and thoughtful inputs.
Evolution looks not to miracles to understand the world around us.
Evolution, as all science, looks to evidence that we can see and
understand and test. Neither evolution nor any scientific construct
claims to offer moral or political guidance.
Evolution is consistent with a democratic outlook in which the rights
of the people are derived from the people. Evolution is not
consistent with the view that the natural world is only revealed by
authorities or a view that rights derive from authorities, especially
not from authorities anointed under a doctrine of the Divine Right of
Kings or one or another "holy scripture". It is the natural world as all can see and understand, and it
depends on no revelations, no sacred texts.
The Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Gravity, the Germ Theory of
Disease are not religion and not religious. Just because you think
something is true does not make it a religion.
The theory of evolution is the antithesis of traditional religions;
it champions the free mind, and the spirit of free inquiry to see
where facts, observations, and the power of reason as the human mind
leads.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Republicans catering to their batshit crazy constituents. I'm beginning to think this is a deliberate tactic: First propose something totally batshit to soften things up, then propose something less batshit, but still crazy and hope that has a chance.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)provided they can make their argument using the scientific method. I'm not in favor or anyone getting an A for opposing a scientific position based on faith, though.
Look at older models of the atom and (going back further) the solar system... or even phlogiston. At one time, and even today, I'm sure students are being presented with science that is inaccurate due to our incomplete understanding of how things work. I don't want to discourage them from thinking on their own, but I don't think they should be rewarded for arguing a scientific viewpoint that they can't support using science.
Occulus
(20,599 posts)End of discussion.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)using scientific method, I'm all for it. Sometimes the best way to convince someone of something is to let them figure it out for themselves. If a student wants to try to prove that cinder blocks can fly on their own power, by they time the go through the study, I think they'll be convinced that they're wrong.
Occulus
(20,599 posts)If faith could be proven, it would be science. It's not. It's faith, and has no place being allowed serious discussion in a science classroom.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)I'm not proposing they spend class time on it, but if a student wants to write a paper on it, make them use the scientific method and prove their assertions.
Yes, I realize they won't be able to. That's the point. Let them learn the hard way if necessary.
Frankly, I wouldn't have an issue if, on day one, the professor gave an "on your own time" assignment "Prove god exists" using scientific method, and then not discuss creationism again until someone shows actual scientific proof. "If you want to discuss it as science, show proof, until then, we'll dedicate our time to provable scientific study and leave the study of faith to others".
Initech
(100,104 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Hell can we also throw in Alien ancestors? How about ZOMBIES? Virus zombies, of course, not the religious kind...unless someone is game?
BRAWNDO! ITS GOT WHAT PLANTS CRAVE!
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,233 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)kairos12
(12,875 posts)the better.
OceanEcosystem
(275 posts)but I don't think the proposal is that students get A's for advocating creationism, but rather, that they won't get F's solely for doing so.
GoneOffShore
(17,341 posts)Or as the AIG folks would style it "Intelligent Design".
The Dover, PA case made if very clear that "ID"/"Creationism" is religious at its base and that base is that "Gawd did it!". It has no place in science class. And anyone trying to make a case for it is deserving of ridicule and failing grades.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)keep the creationism in a world religions or mythology class or something...
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)known as the "bible". It has ZERO basis in science. Students who argue in favor of it deserve an F because it demonstrates that they have learned absolutely nothing in their science class.
JI7
(89,275 posts)Apophis
(1,407 posts)Anyone who writes a paper in science class that presents creationism as fact deserves an F in the class.
still_one
(92,421 posts)Extremely bigoted group
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Is it possible to get a benevolently evil or evilly benevolent scientist to harness and direct a meteor directly into the next large RNC meeting?
Hmmm, a girl can dream, can't she?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I mean, it's a valid alternate viewpoint, right?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Notafraidtoo
(402 posts)If you cant use the scientific method to make your case its not science its something else case closed.
MynameisBlarney
(2,979 posts)their own children for being willfully ignorant.
Fla Dem
(23,765 posts)What more do you need to believe it? The Flintstones had one as a pet.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,045 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)for such is the Kingdom of Fred and Wilma." Amen.
trusty elf
(7,402 posts)[IMG][/IMG]
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)LibertyLover
(4,788 posts)He was banished from the planet Zetox for having invented a doomsday device.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,045 posts)IDemo
(16,926 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)rwsanders
(2,606 posts)OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....and....
....and a temple carving from Cambodia....
Hey, can I turn this in for distance learning credits?
Wolf Frankula
(3,602 posts)And I claimed Jesus prevented Columbus from sailing off the edge of a flat world, could I get an A?
Supposed I claimed Gitchee Manitou created everything?
Wolf
Ezlivin
(8,153 posts)How far are they willing to go with this line of "reasoning"?
stuntcat
(12,022 posts)This is #humanity .
Sure some scientists and poets and artists are fantastic, but as a mass just look at this shyt.. we are a sad failure who'll burn and ruin our way through the rest of this century.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Neil deGrasse Tyson on science and faith:
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)My kid sincerely believes that 2+2=5 and I'll be dammed if I will allow any teacher to mark him down for his sincerely held belief!
yellowcanine
(35,701 posts)Dumbass. If that law passes and I were a teacher in Oklahoma I would make up tests with two choices for answers:
"Please indicate the correct answer by circling it. In the space next to the question indicate what you and the Oklahoma legislature would LIKE to be the answer."
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)triplepoint
(431 posts)Turbineguy
(37,372 posts)The ignorance! Sure, life was brutish and short, but it was normal. Republicans may be doing us a favor. You can't like their policies unless you are stupid, so..... make everybody stupid and their ideas will seem like good ideas.
mwb970
(11,366 posts)These poor kids will be left behind in the quest for good jobs by people who were taught facts instead of fantasy in school. It reminds me of what Jindal did to the kids in Louisiana, and what Texas is trying to do to its children. How terrible it must be to live in a backwards, right-wing "red state"!
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)saying that will get you branded as a bigot by the knicker-twisted apologists.
MrYikes
(720 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)in semiconductors ...
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)I love you.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)about how they have to stop being the stupid party.
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)which Jindahl supports? Getting past the fact that it is hogwash, it is not even consistent.
"...that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
Human cloning and the origins of life are not scientific theories. Human cloning is a process. No reputable scientist claims that we have a theory of the origins of life. We have several hypothesis that are working their way to the testable stage, but no "scientific" theories. Global warming again is not a theory - it is either happening or is not happening (a fact). The scientific theory would be that global warming occurs through introducing higher levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than what has been seen throughout human history (Anthropogenic Global Warming). Evolution is the only scientific theory even on the list.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)benld74
(9,910 posts)fromwyoming
(11 posts)...the phrase in the first paragraph that says "...students who turn in papers attempting to debunk almost universally accepted scientific theories such as biological evolution ..." What is the word "almost" doing in that sentence? I really want to slip in a reference to Norse mythology here, but the "journalist" who slipped in the word "almost" made it clear that oblique references or metaphors are unwelcome. Where is it not clear in the thinking universe that "scientific theories such as biological evolution and anthropogenic (human-driven) climate change" are universally accepted by the scientific community? Not "almost universally accepted." Sometimes it is really hard to live in a reality based world.
The Flaming Red Head
(1,805 posts)the church is always right about these things.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Those poor kids.