61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 04:35 pm
@spendius,
Just because some other culture practices sharing partners openly, doesn't mean I agree with them. I posted that "fact," only to show the reality of this world; outside of your pub.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 06:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Oh--there's a fair amount of partner sharing in my pub.

Why don't you agree with them as an evolutionist?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 06:48 pm
@spendius,
Spendius Are you saying that you all share your partners fairly at your pub? Do you all take turns or what kind of set up do you have?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 08:45 pm
@spendius,
spendi, Evolution is about biology; you're asking about culture and sex practices which are separate from biology. You can go **** a horse if you wish.
reasoning logic
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 09:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Why would he do that when there's a "fair" amount of partner sharing in his pub?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 09:59 pm
@reasoning logic,
I think spendi is kinky.
tenderfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2011 10:45 pm
Reading spendiosuses replies ... I'm sure he cut and pastes from what ever magazine that's handy... The latest one's seem to be from a garden magazine.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 04:49 am
@tenderfoot,
What else are you sure of tf? The only pastes I use I put in quote form and, usually, give the source.

But thanks for implying that my writing is up to publication standards.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 05:08 am
@reasoning logic,
It's informal and casual. I'm too decrepit to participate these days. But it has quieted down since the liquidity crisis blew up. Recessions are well known to inhibit promiscuity. Even the exhibition of female flesh on Sat. night has noticeably declined since 1988. As has fighting.

That's the evidence for my hypothesis that the financial crisis was engineered in order to stop us all going mad. We used to lend our surplus wealth to countries that would never pay it back to prevent the lower orders from getting it. We can afford to allow a few bankers to go off their heads.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 05:14 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
culture and sex practices which are separate from biology.


That's news to me. It comes from you defining biology to fit your position just as you define evolution and science for the same reason.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 05:16 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Why would he do that when there's a "fair" amount of partner sharing in his pub?


That's not my reason for not ******* horses.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 05:18 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I think spendi is kinky.


There's no such thing as "kinky" to a proper atheist. I told you you are a Christian beneath that veneer. Much more than I am.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 06:26 am
@tenderfoot,
Quote:


SCOPES WEEPS

Despite 80 years of court battles ousting creationism from public classrooms, most public high school biology teachers are not strong advocates for evolution.

While vocal advocates of intelligent design and similar non-scientific alternatives to evolution are a minority, more than half the teachers in a nationwide poll avoided taking a strong stance for evolution.

Such teachers “may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States than the smaller number of explicit creationists,” wrote Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer, the poll’s architects, in a Jan. 28 Science paper.


Berkman and Plutzer, the authors of Evolution, Creationism and the Battle to Control America’s Classrooms, examined data from the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers, a representative sample of 926 biology teachers from across the country. They estimate that only 28 percent of those teachers consistently and “unabashedly” introduce evidence that evolution has happened, and build lesson plans with evolution as a unifying theme linking different topics in biology.

At the opposite extreme, 13 percent of teachers explicitly endorse creationism or intelligent design, and spend at least on hour of class time presenting it in a positive light. An additional 5 percent reported that they support creationism in passing or when answering students’ questions.


The remaining fraction of teachers, who Berkman and Plutzer dub the “cautious 60 percent,” avoids choosing sides. Often these teachers have not taken courses in evolutionary biology and lack confidence in their ability to answer questions from skeptical or hostile students and parents.

There are three popular strategies for evading controversy in the biology classroom, Berkman and Plutzer say. Some teachers focus on evolution at the molecular level, ignoring the idea that whole species of animals can evolve.

Some hide behind rigid state science tests, telling students “it does not matter if they actually ‘believe’ in evolution, so long as they know it for the test,” Berkman and Plutzer wrote.

Others present both sides and let students decide for themselves. This strategy respects high schoolers’ critical reasoning skills, but undervalues the scientific method.

“These teachers fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts, and legitimize creationist arguments, even if unintentionally,” Berkman and Plutzer wrote.

The researchers offer one major solution: Focus on teacher training. Teachers who have had a course in evolution are statistically far more likely to advocate for evolution in their classrooms. Making such a course mandatory for all incoming teachers could make those teachers more likely to accept and teach evolution.

An evolution requirement could have the spinoff benefit of driving out the avowed creationists, the researchers write.

“Programs directed at preservice teachers can therefore both reduce the number of evolution deniers in the nation’s classrooms, [and] increase the number who would gladly accept help in teaching evolution,” they wrote. “Combined with continued successes in courtrooms and the halls of state government, this approach offers our best chance of increasing the scientific literacy of future generations.”

Why drive out Creationists? I love to tear apart a Creationist or ID thesis by good old fashioned evidence, something they dont have any handle on. A decent high school biology teacher, versed in his or her subject should not have to be intimidated by the Ministry of Silly Walks. Most of the luke warm techesr are just afraid of the confrontation.They are also afraid to appear tentative and unsure in a debate. Fearing that this will have some deliterious educational residual on the kiddies.
Thats what I call a shame, when we teach just to preen and be somehow viewed as Infallible by our charges is also stupid and silly. Engaging the kids in a journey of discovery doesnt mean that the teacher has to be the sole indesputable source of all relevant information. Just as the Cowardly lion cried out for CONFIDENCE, a teacher needs some basic tools and an interest. Im not sure we educate our teachers to be the best that they can be. Evolution is only one area because here we have a technology that is seemingly "up for grabs" by the mythology boys, and the kids arent sophisticated enough to tell when they are being flim flammed, and the teachers are unskilled to help their charges.

I propose that, teachers , instead of a one time "MAsters plus 45" , have a lifelong requirement for Continuing EDucation in their field of study (NOT teaching theory bullshit). The teachesr should be then certified as mentors in a subject area and these "mentors" would serve as key tech points for theor schools for things like Physical Chemistry, relativity in Physics, (the entire broad field of theoretical physics for example, ) molecular bio and genetics, and evolution.
We need public school techy mentors who are, at a specific pay grade concomitant with their extra technical training and are , at least as smart as many of their AP kids who, until now, start with respect for their teachers only to have it stripped off as they discover that many of their teachers are just rubes with little advanced knowledge.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 08:42 am
My grade school educaion in evolution consisted of the class reading out loud a single page. At the end of it, a girl across the room from me said, "I didn't come from no monkey." Without further comment, the class then moved on to other things.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 09:09 am
@farmerman,
Is that a job application fm. I am sure you feel qualified to be one who will bring all the wondrous utopian notions you call for into being and drag America, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.

What a silly old buffoon you are. You are not even up for a purge of the backsliding biology teachers in your quote and replacing them with teachers trained on NCSE courses by people such as yourself.

Quote:
Why drive out Creationists? I love to tear apart a Creationist or ID thesis by good old fashioned evidence, something they dont have any handle on.


So now you want Creationists to stay because you "love" tearing them apart. Something I have pointed out in the past. You want your duck to sit still. As if the educational system is merely there to provide you with love objects and catharsistical targets for your vituperation. Like the congregation you invaded once.

Your problem, as usual, is your definition of evidence. Your position is posited on only that evidence which reinforces the position you start with which is posited on only that evidence which reinforces the position you start with which is posited on only that evidence which reinforces the position you start with which is........ That's not a run-on sentence. It's a going round in circles sentence not disimilar to the flightpath of the ouijie-ouijie bird: aka the oozlum. And we all know where that ended up.

It is generally accepted, by people who don't have their heads in the clouds contemplating their own excellence, that in political debate, which this is par excellence, assuming we are not a mould in a petri dish as you do, all facts are selected facts. Every debater is as truthful and honest as any other excepting indoctrination experts. It is just that each notices different facts and overlooks different ones. Which means that honest debaters are scientifically unfair and cannot help being. It's the way of the world. The man who dare look at all the evidence is a rare creature and not good company at a society wedding except maybe for another guest with an equally mordant outlook. A delicate sensibility might prefer not to know what he might think of a Registry Office wedding.

It has on Ignore all other evidence relating to emotions, psychosomatic possibilities, economic efficiency and cultural consequences.

Hence your "decent" is self explanatory and solidly based provided the fairground ride never stops. As is all the rest of the mumbo-jumbo in your post which is, of course, based upon it. And is itself based upon your subjective interests.

But at least it is a start on the "how". Purge the Christians and the timorous and replace them with people you have trained: hard-headed, no nonsense atheists. Station fire-brigades outside schools. Divide staff rooms with a brick wall. Make the electorate choose school boards and state and national political manifestos which will approve of the measures which also include either a complete absence of discipline or training similar to that performing animals undergo. Which is consistent with the idea that we are just animals.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 09:36 am
@spendius,
I hope you don't think Pavlov was interested in dogs. Or that his followers are interested in rats. They were, and are, interested in the learning process. In a highly stark and stripped down form. Nothing like what dogs and rats are used to in the wild.

They couldn't get dogs to paw the sequence of coloured shapes or the rats to turn left, then left again, followed by a right and a left and so on, by telling them God said so. Hence the simplification of the laboratory setting.

And when fully trained to complete the tasks and get the reward they had to be put down or rehabilitated at some unnecessary expense. New recruits being cheap and plentiful.

I saw a film of a cat being turned into an alcoholic. They claimed they were going to cure it later at the end. As if the cat would want that when it had got used to a double whisky in every bowl of cream. A bit like cat sherry-trifle, cooking with wine, and brandy in the Christmas cake.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 10:15 am
OKLAHOMA UPDATE
Quote:
Two Oklahoma lawmakers file bills encouraging creationism
(RANDY KREHBIEL, Tulsa World, January 28, 2011)

A freshman state senator from southeastern Oklahoma and a four-term state representative from Oklahoma City are taking another run at Charles Darwin.

Sen. Josh Brecheen, R-Coalgate, and Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, have filed legislation designed to undermine the teaching of a fundamental of modern science, the theory of evolution.

Kern's House Bill 1551, called the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, says students cannot be penalized for subscribing "to a particular position on scientific theories."

Brecheen's Senate Bill 554 actually encourages the teaching of evolution - but in a way his critics say is designed to tear it down rather than reinforce it.

"It's very slickly written," said Victor Hutchison, a retired University of Oklahoma zoology professor who tracks such legislation. "But it includes comments from the creationism crowd that you recognize if you're familiar with these things."

The upshot, Hutchison said, is "criticism of evolution without any scientific basis."

Brecheen does not really dispute that his bill is an attack on evolution. He promised such a measure after his election in November and said evolution is "a religion," not science.

"I have introduced legislation requiring every publicly funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution," he wrote in the Dec. 24 Durant Daily Democrat.

Brecheen would not agree to be interviewed for this story, but he said in an e-mail that "legislators have a responsibility to ensure state-supported classroom instruction is factual so, concerning evolution, ... we must fully educate using all confirmed scientific discoveries."

Kern did not respond to an interview request, but she issued a statement earlier this week denying that her bill is "anti-evolution."

"Given the impact of the theory of evolution, it is important that students be familiar with it and able to discuss it," she said. "At the same time, teachers and students should be free to discuss critiques of the theory, and no student should ever be penalized for personal views on this issue."

U.S. courts have consistently ruled that creationism and "intelligent design" are based on religion, not science.

But Kern's and Brecheen's bills state that they are not intended to promote a religious viewpoint.

"That's ridiculous," Hutchison said. "These bills come primarily from people who are biblical literalists."

He pointed out that most mainstream Christian denominations accept evolution.

"It comes down to the definition of science," Hutchison said. "Religion has no place in a science course. It can, however, be taught in courses on religion."
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 11:07 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
Kern's House Bill 1551, called the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, says students cannot be penalized for subscribing "to a particular position on scientific theories."
Even if their "scientific" position is actually religion.


Quote:
Brecheen would not agree to be interviewed for this story, but he said in an e-mail that "legislators have a responsibility to ensure state-supported classroom instruction is factual so, concerning evolution, ... we must fully educate using all confirmed scientific discoveries."
. It may be interesting to try to find some science in the Creationist position. ANYBODY (even gunga) know of any , ANY Creationist discoveries???

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 11:09 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
. It may be interesting to try to find some science in the Creationist position. ANYBODY (even gunga) know of any , ANY Creationist discoveries???


That's the primary missing link for creationism. All they can claim is that god created everything with evolution as part of his creation.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 12:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
All they can claim is that god created everything with evolution as part of his creation.


Which is quite sufficient. And observing evolution with a view to reading God's mind from it as one might a cultural psyche from its art or a woman's mind from her interior decor and dress. Add a spice of fanciful rhetoric with a plethora of reinforcing ceremony to the appetite of the human mind for an explanation it can both undersand, enjoy and find utility in, bake at Gas Mark 5 for a few thousand years and serve piping hot.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/18/2025 at 07:30:35