61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 09:48 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

It's interesting that a lot of the states which received an "A" are states where there have been recent challenges to the basic science curriculum by creationism (or it's cloaked counterpart, ID).



I noticed that also, rosborne! Pennsylvania got an "A" and Illinois only got a "B"???
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 01:37 pm
@wandeljw,
What official body does the grading wande? Is it the "science administrators" effemm wrote so scathingly about in his humble post earlier.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 02:08 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:
I noticed that also, rosborne! Pennsylvania got an "A" and Illinois only got a "B"???

Perhaps these attacks on science are actually good for science (and public perception of science).
Lightwizard
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 02:30 pm
@rosborne979,
I didn't interpret it as an attack on science but an abject ambivalence -- it's effecting how many qualified engineers and technicians before it even touches hard science. The NSE seems to be addressing those who have only a passing interest in science and are teaching it!
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 02:52 pm
@wandeljw,
Pennsylvania had reaffirmed its use of the scientific method and evolution for its science standards in 2001. Also the "little altercation" in Dover apparently got us some good press. In 1999 Illinois science ed board quietly removed all mention of evolution in ITS standards.
Many of those map colors are based on crap thats several years old.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 04:58 pm
This is the question I asked--

Quote:
What official body does the grading wande? Is it the "science administrators" effemm wrote so scathingly about in his humble post earlier.


Anybody not interested in the answers is irrelevant to this debate. One simply cannot argue about grades unless one knows the process by which they were arrived at. Who gave Penn an A and Illinois a B? What was their justification? What are their qualifications for such a judgment?

You are in Nowhere Land unless you deal with these things.

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 05:12 pm
@spendius,
are u unable to ferret this out for yourself? Lazy bastard, youre probably barely clutching on to your barstool with a pint in one hand and a butt in the other seeking these answers from anyone who will give you the time of day. I like to see you squirm when people ignore you. You are quick to pronounce how important your question is, when in reality, its just another spate of beer babble.
Lightwizard
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 05:40 pm
@farmerman,
He'll have to pluck down his $ 25.00 of $ 30.00 for comprehensive information on the study -- it's actually a brief review of the actual book:

from the referenced NCSE site -- but I personally would have given the link with the USA Today article as it is not their survey:

Evolving standards

How is evolution faring in state science education standards? NCSE's Louise S. Mead and Anton Mates pored over the latest standards in all fifty states. In a new study forthcoming in the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach, they report, "The treatment of biological evolution in state science standards has improved dramatically over the last ten years." Forty states received satisfactory grades for the treatment of evolution in their state science standards in Mead and Mates's study, as opposed to only thirty-one in Lawrence S. Lerner's 2000 study Good Science, Bad Science, conducted for the Fordham Foundation.

But the news is not all rosy. Five states " Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia " received the grade of F, and a further six states " Alaska, Connecticut, Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming " receive the grade of D. Moreover, the "treatment of human evolution is abysmal," Mead and Mates lament, with only seven states (and the District of Columbia) providing a comprehensive treatment. Many states "do not reference the Big Bang as the current scientific theory for the origin of the universe," they add, and only 17 states provide a comprehensive treatment of the connections among biological, geological, and cosmological systems.

Mead and Mates also consider a few states that furnish "excellent examples of the successes and failures of the standards-setting process." The grades for Florida and Kansas have vaulted from F to A, although not without controversy: "the Kansas standards have seesawed between abysmal and excellent no fewer than four times in the last decade." In Louisiana, however, the passage of the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act undermined the treatment of evolution in the standards, which now receive the grade of F. And in Texas, the state board of education's revisions in March 2009 served to undermine the treatment of evolution in the standards to the point where they, too, receive a failing grade.

In a companion article introducing the study, NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott commented, "On the basis of Mead and Mates’s results, there is reason to be pleased by the progress over the last ten years in the inclusion of evolution in state science education standards. That the treatment of evolution is inadequate in almost one in five states still suggests that there is considerable room for improvement, but we should be optimistic that teachers, scientists, and others who care about science education will continue " as science standards continue to be periodically revised " to work for the appropriate inclusion of evolution in state science education standards."
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 05:48 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
are u unable to ferret this out for yourself? Lazy bastard, youre probably barely clutching on to your barstool with a pint in one hand and a butt in the other seeking these answers from anyone who will give you the time of day. I like to see you squirm when people ignore you. You are quick to pronounce how important your question is, when in reality, its just another spate of beer babble.


I assume from that glob effemm that you don't know the answers and having read in the papers that Penn is an A and Illinois is a B and Louisiana is an F that is good enough for you and is now a scientific fact in that gormless conk of your's.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 05:55 pm
@Lightwizard,
Quote:
although not without controversy


Don't let that slip by your attention dear reader. It rather renders the rest of LW's post somewhat questionable.

What is the essence of the controversy LW?

But thanks for your post. It is refreshing that you haven't taken effemm's very silly and ignorant stance.

Does an anti-ID approach to the teaching of evolution get a state an A and a rejection of it get it an F. Isn't that something of a circular argument if those doing the grading are anti-IDers?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Aug, 2009 06:13 pm
One has to read their book and search through their credentials if they want to know of any prejudices in the survey. I'm inclined to believe that is has nothing to do with any introduction ID of Creationism in classes (since that has meager success as of now) but whether it is simply ignored as a subject, tip-toe over like one is walking over a fire pit, or outright false presentations. Of course, the height of a false presentation would be to make a stew out of the real science of evolution and the psuedo-science of ID or Creationism. I see some are still determine to nit the wit. That would be like a what starts off as a nice, hearty beef stew until unpeeled oranges, raisins, turnips (I hate turnips) and organic snot.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 08:47 am
OKLAHOMA UPDATE
Quote:
Falling trumpets creationism issue
(By BRIAN BARBER, Tulsa World, 8/12/2009)

Republican mayoral candidate Anna Falling said Tuesday that putting a Christian creationism display in the Tulsa Zoo is No. 1 in importance among city issues that also include violent crime, budget woes and bumpy streets.

"It's first," she said to calls of "hallelujah" at a rally outside the zoo. "If we can't come to the foundation of faith in this community, those other answers will never come. We need to first of all recognize the fact that God needs to be honored in this city."

Falling, who has founded several Christian nonprofit groups and is a former city councilor, also said the next mayor needs to appoint people to boards, authorities and commissions who will "honor God."

"We will also look for people who want to characterize the origins of both man and animals in a way that honors Judeo-Christian science that proves God as the creator," she said.

When asked whether she meant that she would recruit Christians to serve the city, Falling said she was talking about "people committed to their churches." When asked whether she meant Christian churches, she said, "churches, yes."

Falling's campaign has been overtly Christian-themed. But she said she wants to embrace people of all religions, not alienate them.

"I'd love to be able to visit with them," she said, adding that there's common ground. "I know God loves them. I love them. This is an opportunity for us to be able to be friends and make a difference in this community."

Controversy over having a creationism display at the zoo dates to 2005, when it was proposed by Dan Hicks, a Christian activist.

Hicks drew up plans for a 5-by-3-foot panel that would tell the Genesis creation story of God creating the world in six days and resting on the seventh.

It was initially approved by the Tulsa Park and Recreation Board, but the board later rescinded its decision in a second vote after a public outcry.

Hicks' now-finished panel was on display at the rally.

Zoo officials released this prepared statement: "Installation of this exhibit at the Tulsa Zoo was raised in 2005, discussed, vetted and resolved in a very public process involving the entire community. A public vote four years ago by the Parks Board resolved the issue."

The zoo has on display an elephantlike sculpture said to depict the Hindu god Ganesha and an exhibit that deals with the creation of the earth from a scientific point of view.
Lightwizard
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 08:55 am
Historically, Tulsa has always been unctuous.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 05:17 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

OKLAHOMA UPDATE
Falling's campaign has been overtly Christian-themed. But she said she wants to embrace people of all religions, not alienate them.

Ughgm... bullshit... hrm
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 05:25 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
"We will also look for people who want to characterize the origins of both man and animals in a way that honors Judeo-Christian science that proves God as the creator," she said.


Ounds like a coming storm in Tulsa. I used to work a project or two in the Tulsa area. It was a nice enough city but, like the same clannish smugness one gets in Salt Lake, Tulsa always had an open Evangelical Christian environment. I went to a ribs joint near ADA , (a subburb) and we were in a group of patrons who began a public call to say GRACE.

spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 05:31 pm
@wandeljw,
Bumpy street are good news for some. Shock absorber repairers for example.

A fiction writer would get lambasted for being as ridiculous as that post.

This is my stand out sentence-

Quote:
The zoo has on display an elephantlike sculpture said to depict the Hindu god Ganesha and an exhibit that deals with the creation of the earth from a scientific point of view.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 09:03 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I went to a ribs joint near ADA , (a subburb) and we were in a group of patrons who began a public call to say GRACE.

Grace is a form of prayer, and...
Quote:
What the Christian Scriptures say about public prayer:

The author of the Gospel of Matthew contrasted public and private prayer. He recorded Jesus as saying:

Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."

Many liberal Christians interpret Matthew 6:6 literally. Jesus believed that prayers are to be an intensely personal event between a person and God; no one else should be present. Prayer to him was a private matter. Jesus condemns prayers in situations where other people are present. For example:
In religious settings like churches or synagogues,
In a private or public school,
In a legislature or municipal government meeting, or
In the street or other public place.
Most conservative Christians tend to downplay Jesus' instruction about the importance of going off by oneself and pray alone and in secret. After all, if public prayer is not permitted, then just about every Christian service is seriously in error, with the possible exception of some by the Society of Friends (Quakers).
Conservatives interpret Matthew 6:5 as not condemning public prayer. Rather, it criticizes only prayer in public that is motivated by a desire to show off.

In my opinion, all public prayer is motivated by a desire to bind the group to a unified (and imposed) thought process. And as such, it loses its purity and is no longer prayer, but instead, manipulation. In short, I agree with Jesus; keep your prayers to yourself.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 04:40 am
@rosborne979,
Are you shittin me?
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 07:36 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Are you shittin me?

I would never **** you. Well, maybe I would. Depends on my mood I guess Smile
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 08:22 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Are you shittin me?


Do you mean effemm that ros's post has taken you by surprise?

That could look as if you have been knocking the Bible about without having bothered to understand it. Has it really been nothing but a bogeyman to you?

And it was present at the inauguration too. Shame on you and your blinkered sciolism.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 12:12:42