Slashdot Mirror
Bill Allows Teachers to Contradict Evolution
Helical writes "In an attempt to defy the newly approved state science standards, Florida Senator Rhonda Storms has proposed a bill that would allow teachers to contradict the teaching of evolution. Her bill states that 'Every public school teacher in the state's K-12 school system shall have the affirmative right and freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins.' The bill's main focus is on protecting teachers who want to adopt alternative teaching plans from sanction, and to allow teachers the freedom to teach whatever they wish, even if it is in opposition to current standards."
What's the big deal? Stupid teachers still wouldn't be allowed to teach "Intelligent Design" anyway, since -- according to the summary -- the information still has to be scientific (and "ID" fails at that).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
They aren't thinking of the students if they teach fairy tales. Any teacher outside of a Sunday school teaching mysticism should have their teaching papers revoked.
Trolling is a art,
so at what point do we stop letting english and business majors decide what science teacher should be able to teach?
Without a concrete definition of whose "science" you are using, any teacher could find some half-baked textbook that proclaims to be scientific and tell the School Administrators they're teaching true "scientific" information.
They should put a little protection in there for those that want to teach the Flat Earth concept, too.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
Creationism wrapped up in the guise of scientific knowledge and academic freedom. This is an OBVIOUS effort by members of the FL legislature to pander to religious groups. It just happens to be couched in an "academic freedom" argument. Don't buy it. It isn't value neutral and it isn't fair.
Students already face an uphill battle in getting over unscientific hunches formed in childhood. Evolution, in its fullness, is a rejection of those hunches. This bill clouds the issue by allowing teachers to present a curriculum that plays to those hunches in order to serve as religious indoctrination. Think about some of the main "tenets" of ID: the notion that complexity cannot occur from iterated evaluations of simple rules--they claim things like the eye are "too complex" to have been formed via "random" mutation. This SOUNDS reasonable, until you realize that it is just a play on our intuition. It isn't true in the slightest. The same with the claim that animals or humans were elegantly designed. While there is what some scientists would call elegance in plenty of biological forms, their implementation shows signs of prior adaptations. It takes a lot of careful study to learn exactly how and why our endocrine system or our vascular system is imperfectly adapted let alone begin to think about how pregnancy is an imperfect adaptation. This is why ID is primed for the 8-12 crowd. Those critical thinking skill are just solidifying. There isn't a large movement to teach ID in colleges because the material would be rejected at greater rates.
This is religious nonsense packages as science. Nothing more.
Why should teachers be obligated to teach to a curriculum to all the other subjects but not science? I say let them teach math that contradicts mathematics, grammar that contradicts english, history revised to their personal taste, imaginary geography, using non standardized mapping systems, let them teach kids the wrong organs. For example if I believe people have 3 hearts, why shouldn't I be allowed to teach that? If some teacher thinks that the solar system rotates around the earth, or that the earth is flat, or that heavier objects fall faster, well whose to say they aren't allowed to teach that? Isn't the real purpose of having a teaching job to have a platform to spread your personal views to other peoples children?
Why stop at the subject matter? If teachers think children learn best by playing outside all day long and having no homework, well aren't the teachers the ones who are supposed to know how beast to teach? That is their life long profession isn't it? Its not like we let the teachers dictate what the current state of scientific knowledge is... oh.. wait.. that is what this bill is about isn't it?
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
...to allow teachers the freedom to teach whatever they wish, even if it is in opposition to current standards.Then they're not standards anymore. That's why we have standards, so you can be guaranteed a certain level of uniformity and quality. If you don't have to follow standards then they become suggestions.
I'd like to see these people eat a big pile of USDA Grade A beef - but with flexible standards that the stores are allowed to define as to what "USDA Grade A" actually means. Would you eat it? Hell no.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
...teachers who elect to teach their students scientific material about homosexuality or birth control.
Or does the bill only protect the "freedom" to teach material on certain selected sides of certain selected controversies?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I can hardly wait untill a teacher starts spreading the truth of the Giant Spaghetti Monster.
I bet that goes over real well.
-- Sig under construction...
That's crap. A teacher is in a position of authority and in a science class, science needs to be taught.
Evolution is how science explains observations, and until someone come along with a different theory with falsifiable tests and makes prediction, evolution best explains the observations.
That's it. Very simple. It's not about religion, it's not about thinking this is some sort of 'anti-belief' movement. Most people who ACTUALLY study the bible and it's history agree. The creation myths in the bible are parables. Pretty good ones, I must say.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Doctor: Before I give you this injection, I have to ask you an important question: do you believe in evolution?
Patient: Of course, not! Why do you ask?
Doctor: You see, I have this flu shot here. If you believe in evolution, you will accept that the flu bug is constantly changing and evolving, thus your immune system will not recognize it and you'll come down with the flu. With this shot, your immune system will be up to date on the latest strain.
Patient: And if I don't believe in evolution?
Doctor: You've already had the flu once, therefore you'll never catch it again.
Patient: But that's not...that's not...true?
Doctor: As a liberal and scientist, I would never want to force another person to accept my own views and beliefs, even if they happen to be manifestly correct.
Or to put it another way:
adventurer #1: I do not believe there is a bear in that cave.
[mauling, violence, blood]
adventurer #2: So you say. But your disbelief seems not to have dissuaded the bear.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The way to challenge an accepted scientific theory is not to "critique" it. The way is to come up with alternative theories that make testable predictions, and then use the predictions to falsify the incorrect theories. What predictions does the "theory" of ID make, and how do we test them?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
It's true. Catholics do belive in evolution, and all science since science gives us proof of God's greatness. It's the Baptists that don't believe in evolution and shootoff other Christian religions that is the issue. Those literalists don't really understand or care to understand the real meaning of the Bible. They don't see that there can be more than one side to a story and that the Bible has much evidence of this.
The rest of the world doesn't care that you're stupiding up your children. It just makes it easier for us to crush you scientifically. Trust me when I say that the increasingly low standards for your science education just make us feel like there are more opportunities for us. I'm sure the Chinese, Japanese and Indians feel the same. The less you know, the easier it makes it for the rest of us to make stuff and sell it to you.
Thanks,
The Rest of the World (specifically those of us teaching our children proper scientific theory)
Yep, we are going to hell in a handbasket. The religious factions have acquired far too much political power period. For a country founded upon secular principles it continually amazes me to see how far we have fallen.
The way the discussion is being framed is a big part of the problem - that it's an either/or situation. I've seen quotes from a number of scientists that see no conflict between faith and science; they all boil down to how you choose to define them. The sad fact is that religious zealots tend not to be persuadable.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Doesn't really look like they had completely secular principles in mind when deciding to defect and form their own country to me.
Actually, no. Speaking on behalf of all fundamentalist atheists everywhere, we have no problem with teaching about religion. Personally, I don't see how it would be possible to even have a significant understanding of most of Western literature (e.g., Shakespeare) without some understanding of the Bible.
The real problem is that the fundamentalist Christians don't want students learning about religion. They want teachers to be able to witness to students about Jesus. They're not interested in an intellectual discussion or about exposure to different ideas.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.In case you're confused:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Considering the deist nature of many of the founders, it's fairly obvious that they were referring to a more naturistic god then that referred to in whatever scripture you might choose. I find this overall to be a rather secular statement. In case you are confused secular means "of or relating to the worldly or temporal" not necessarily "no god." The statements in the Declaration towards the Laws of Nature and Nature's God are in fact very worldly.
If you present all the relevant facts and let the students think for themselves, I don't see how this is a problem.
If this was actually done ("all" the evidence), then no one would have the slightest doubt about evolution, anymore than someone looking at the Earth from space would still question a flat earth. The problem is that most people don't want to look at the all the facts, because reality would conflict with their world view. Therefore, they ignore the facts.
The way some people freak out about this, you'd think evolution was a religion.
People "freak out" because it's the forces of ignorance attacking the forces of truth.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
This law eliminates causes for termination, more than anything, because it does not actually grant any rights the teacher (or anyone else) already has.
Uh, no, the Free Speech Doctrine most certainly does not apply. A public school teacher has no more right to talk about his or her beliefs to my child any more than I have the right to start teaching your children what I think they should learn about gay marriage, equal rights, and religion. That's your choice, not mine. Teachers do NOT have the right to teach their opinions to other people's children. They have the duty to teach the curriculum approved by the local and state school boards. Essentially, they are actors, presenting a pre-written script, and they can only ad-lib so long as they stick to the general plot. This is the real reason that good public school teachers are dreadfully underpaid.
And as for removing it as a cause for dismissal, that won't protect them from charges of civil rights violation.
Frankly, if someone tried to teach my daughter that ID was "fact" and evolution was "theory", I'd have them hauled in front of a Congressional Hearing for violation of my and my family's civil rights as fast as I could push the system.
What am I teaching her? Well, ID is illogical religious fanaticism - the kind that ultimately got witches burned at the stake, and that Evolution is a theory that far surpasses any current alternative explanation in logical plausibility. Since she and my wife are Eclectic Pagans, I think this is an argument that will stick.
Does that mean she isn't allowed to learn about other religions? Of course not; that's stifling her education. She's already learned quite a lot about all the major Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judiasm, Islam,
What a great idea. And those perfectly intelligent children who are born into poor or working class families that cannot afford to attend an "Ivy League" elementary school, or even any school at all in a world of only private K-12 education? Let them all flip burgers and wait on the rest of us simply because their parents had to spend money keeping them alive and had nothing left to pay for a proper education, right?
Class disparity is already a huge problem in the United States. What you are proposing would increase it even more so and result in millions of children being denied even an elementary education. You see no problem with that?
We already have private schools for children of parents who can afford them and want to segregate their children from the rest of the population for whatever reason. Proposing to abolish public education because of an issue like this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Simply fix the issue. Proposing that we bulldoze the entire building because a few windows are broken is simply ignorant.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
See, you're confused. If science had replaced religion, we wouldn't have people arguing about intelligent design right now, because the reigning neo-Darwinist authorities would have burned them alive as heretics. Instead, IDers are free to conduct whatever research they want to try to support their claims--the fact that they've got no evidence whatsoever is not because some Darwinian Inquistion has suppressed it, but because their ideas are substantially without merit. NOTHING makes your name in science like overthrowing the prevailing wisdom (assuming you've got the data to back it up). Tell me, what part of the Bible, or Talmud, or Koran says, "all this is subject to revision on the basis of new findings." None, because they all purport to be the One Source of Universal Truth. This kind of arrogance is staggering--I don't think even the most unhinged scientist would claim a perfect understanding of anything in nature. Science may at times become dogmatic, but that's not a failure of the concept, it's a failure of the human beings employing it.
first, we have to define terms. micro-evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. macro-evolution has *not* been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
If only creationists *would* define terms. Most creationists use "Macroevolution" to mean any evolution for which we can't provide direct living or fossil evidence. In any case, Macro evolution is just accumulated micro-evolutionary steps.
*if* you had the irrefutable evidence, you'd present it. you don't, so you, well, don't. you just proclaim it truth and fact as though that makes it so... such arrogance.
I suggest reading this site. But you know you won't. Because your conclusion is already preordained. You have too much of your entire life invested in believing in supernaturalism.
there is some evidence for, there is some evidence against... we really don't know. that's the truth that should be taught in school.
Ah, the final weapon of the creationists. If they can find any question, now matter how small, that doesn't have a rock-solid answer, then they loudly proclaim that "HA! YOU SEE?? YOU SEE?? NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE!!" Any open questions means that every theory is equally valid. It's akin to saying, "Since the Earth's horizon makes it look like a flat disk, therefore, the flat Earth theory is just as valid as the round Earth theory."
Well, every theory ISN'T equally valid. First of all, there is ZERO -- ZERO -- evidence against evolution. ZERO. There are certainly open questions about how certain things may have evolved, but that means there is a neutral question, not that it's "evidence against" evolution. So you have a Mount Everest of evidence for evolution, a large number of open questions (just the diversity of life and genetics means we're going to have a lot of open questions), zero evidence against evolution, and absolutely ZERO evidence that supports creationism. And, just to top it off, we have an entire planet-sized volume of evidence against the Earth being only 10,000 years old.
THAT is the carved-on-stone-tablet (if you'll pardon the expression) truth. If there really is a God (there isn't, but let's say), he must be constantly slapping his hand against his forehead screaming, "The bible is full of allegory, you idiots! What, do you think I could've explained physics to the damn barbarians?? Will you people use the brains I gave you, already?? It's a SOCIAL book, not a freaking science book!!"
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
It's an unwinnable proposition. Teaching and grading students on theories that contradict their (or their parents') religious believes is itself a form of religious education.
Bullshit. Accepting that requires teachers to pander to whatever religion the parents have, which is an establishment of religion. The best thing to do is have the parents teach the kids how to deal with the difference.
Abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy (shouldn't we be teaching kids oral sex and same-sex experimentation if that's the only goal of sex ad)?
That's a religious argument - it's only being pushed by religious lobbies, and is actually less effective than condoms and the pill.
Democracy is the best form of government for every society
Then why don't we have one? Someone needs to go back to civics class.
All races and both genders are EXACTLY the same in all aspects and will be equally good at EVERY job in EXACTLY equal percentage of the corresponding population.
They are the same before the law, and you'd have trouble finding legitimate racial diffs in jobs, although some physical work is done better by men. Doesn't mean you get to tell a woman no for that construction job - you have to have a reason other than her breasts.
We don't need all our children brainwashed by the government into one single way of thinking, be it religious, political or scientific.
Says the person apparently defending the challenge to evolution going on in our schools. You preach about not indoctrinating the young while pushing an agenda of indoctrination. Nice.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"