In 2007, the newly elected and more moderate state school board in Kansas revised the 2005 science education standards to eliminate controversial anti-evolution provisions. The introduction to the 2007 standards includes this paragraph:
Quote:Teaching With Tolerance and Respect
Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught as absolute knowledge.
wandeljw wrote:His idea, known as the Clergy Letter Project, began with 467 churches in 2006 and has grown to 800 this year.
Hmm, back in 2005 I was discussing the Clergy Letter Project here. At that time they had over 7000 signatories.
Here is an excerpt from the letter.
Quote:We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.
To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our creator.
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
Quote:
farmermanQuote:Yeh, we here in the US have so much to learn from how Europe so firmly dealt with the threat of NAtional SOcialism in the 1930's
If the US was so firmly dealing with National Socialism why did it not join the struggle in 1939 instead of waiting until the field was strewn with carrion from the fight to protect the US.
The eagle landed for sure.
Do you really think it is appropriate for schools to endorse one religious view over another?
Speaking of other myths: Real Life continues to be unable to understand a single thing about Science, what it is, what is does, how it works.
I said that we had so much to LEARN about how to properly deal with Hitler from the example that you UKers presented with the Munich AGreement. I never said that we in the US were "dealing" with Hitler effectively. AFter all GW's grandaddy was dealing with Hitler until he was closed down under the "Trading With the ENemy Act" in 1942. (WE did go to war after we were attacked and then Hitler declared war on us).Sort of the same circumstances as you demonstrated, except we were directly attacked.
The original context of this entire phrase was about how you stated that you "in Europe" were too smart to befall the fate of being overrun by Cretinism or IDjicy. Well, if you could have been partners in appeasement with Hitler, I dont think that youll be too smart to miss the opportunity to enjoy the crap that these clowns want you to buy.
Maybe its just that youre too myopic to notice.(Either that or else youre too busy at the pub to actually experience life all about you. One or two less pints may help clear the fog of the hops.
Spendius and his ilk... wait.. does he have an ilk?
and fear is the driving force behind his pathetic life,
I accept that FM is satisfied that the schools are already implementing policy to protect the religious faith of children.
Spendi, you've mentioned the 'psychosomatic' issue a number of times. I agree that religious faith is a positive influence on children and helps to give them a strong sense of personal worth and a more positive outlook on life in general. I am guessing that should a comprehensive study be conducted, it would show that children with strong religious faith get into trouble less than other children, are less violent, commit fewer anti-social acts, and are generally happier. I personally think that it was specifically when God was declared unwelcome in the school systems that we began to see increased violence and for the first time ever parents worried about their kids being seriously assaulted or molested or gunned down in the classrooms and hallways.
But none of that matters in this debate that must be judged on First Amendment establishment clause criteria. It is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is equally inappropriate, even illegal, to teach against ID in science class. It is appropriate and constructive for the teacher to allow both ID and Darwin to coexist peacefully in science class.
Foxfyre wrote:Spendi, you've mentioned the 'psychosomatic' issue a number of times. I agree that religious faith is a positive influence on children and helps to give them a strong sense of personal worth and a more positive outlook on life in general. I am guessing that should a comprehensive study be conducted, it would show that children with strong religious faith get into trouble less than other children, are less violent, commit fewer anti-social acts, and are generally happier. I personally think that it was specifically when God was declared unwelcome in the school systems that we began to see increased violence and for the first time ever parents worried about their kids being seriously assaulted or molested or gunned down in the classrooms and hallways.
But none of that matters in this debate that must be judged on First Amendment establishment clause criteria. It is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is equally inappropriate, even illegal, to teach against ID in science class. It is appropriate and constructive for the teacher to allow both ID and Darwin to coexist peacefully in science class.
How exactly is it illegal to teach "against ID in science class" ?
And how is it appropriate to let the two coexist in science class when one (ID) has absolutely ZERO scientific credibility?
Clash over teaching evolution hits Orlando
(Leslie Postal, Orlando Sentinel, February 11, 2008)
Evolution has been a cornerstone of biology for more than 100 years, but don't try to tell that to many of the thousands of people who posted comments on Florida's Department of Education Web site.
"The last time I went to the zoo, the monkeys weren't evolving into man," read one comment.
"Evolution is not proven and we should not brainwash our children with this concept," stated another.
The State Board of Education is to vote Feb. 19 on controversial new science standards that for the first time would require teaching evolution in Florida's public schools. The new standards are intended to beef up lackluster science education in schools.
The standards list evolution as one of 18 "big ideas" students must understand by the time they graduate. They call evolution the "fundamental concept underlying all of biology" and say it is "supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence."
But those academic phrases have ignited a theological controversy across the state.
Since the standards became public in October, more than 10,000 people logged on to the Florida Department of Education's Web site to denounce, and in some cases, praise the new blueprint for science education. An additional 450 sent letters. State education officials added more public hearings to their schedule, with the last taking place today in Orlando because so many people were clamoring to share their views.
The outrage has been the loudest in North Florida, where school boards blasted the standards, parents threatened to boycott state tests or pull their kids from public schools, and state lawmakers vowed to push for a new law requiring evolution to be taught as theory.
These opponents argue that evolution -- the idea that all living things evolved from a shared common ancestry -- is not a fact and conflicts with their religious faith.
"I have no problem with them hearing about evolution. I just don't want them to hear a one-sided fact," said LeVon Pettis, a Panhandle father who may look for private schools for his daughters if the standards are adopted as is. "If you're going to teach evolution, then also throw in creationism and intelligent design," said the pastor of Evangel Worship Center in Marianna.
The idea makes educators who helped devise the new standards cringe.
They argue that creationism, the biblical story of how God created living things, and intelligent design, an argument that an "intelligent cause" better explains living things than evolution by natural selection, are based on religion.
Those beliefs, educators say, are not scientific explanations and cannot share space in a curriculum with evolution.
The educators who framed Florida's new science standards worry that the old argument over evolution is overshadowing a more important issue: the sorry state of science education in Florida's classrooms.
Updated standards, they say, would bring focus and depth to science instruction.
"I think it's a tremendous improvement over what we have now, and I hate to see it rejected on the basis of how evolution is treated," said Alice Winn, a biology professor at Florida State University who helped write them. "That would be a complete travesty."
Many students who enroll in state universities are unprepared to tackle college science or math classes, Winn said.
Florida high-school students typically struggle on national science tests, and fewer than half are proficient on the science section of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.
"You have to really deal with it or you're not teaching it properly," said Lawrence Lerner, one of the national reviewers and a retired physics professor at California State University, Long Beach.
The Florida Department of Education calls its push for better math and science instruction "solutions for Florida's future," and the state revised its math standards without controversy last year.
But with science, the conflict is widespread and deeply felt. It can be seen on the state board, in dueling legal memos and in the public comments left on the Education Department's Web site.
State board member Donna Callaway told the Florida Baptist Witness in December that she planned to vote against the standards because evolution would be taught to the exclusion of other theories of origin of life.
Board member Roberto Martinez wrote in an e-mail to the Orlando Sentinel that he supports the new standards.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida sent the state board a memo praising the new standards and citing court cases that have made teaching "creationism and all its variants" illegal.
A Pinellas County law firm sent the board a memo warning that the new standards could become part of a "government sanctioned, anti-religious movement."
State Rep. Marti Coley, R-Marianna, who represents nine Panhandle counties, said her part of the state is "very conservative" and that the revised standards clash with many residents' beliefs.
Coley has urged the state board to ensure evolution is taught as a theory, not a fact. She said she and other lawmakers will push to make such a requirement state law if the board approves the standards as is.
"I think it would be irresponsible to present it like that in our public schools," Coley said.
Florida Citizens for Science, which favors the changes, says 10 school boards in North Florida have passed resolutions opposing the new standards. The association keeps track on its Web site under a headline that reads, "Those not in favor of a good science education, raise your hand."
In Central Florida, where many public schools have taught evolution for years, the outcry has been muted. But in a sign of how touchy the topic is, the Seminole County school district last week asked its teachers not to publicly discuss evolution -- then later said they were free to voice their personal opinions.
"I support evolution," said Diane Smith, a Volusia County School Board member. "It's what belongs in a science classroom."
Bonnie Mizell, the science coach at Howard Middle School in Orlando, agreed. She helped write the new standards and wants them approved as is. To her, the big news isn't evolution but the new focus on in-depth, hands-on lessons that will help students "really see the wonders and the possibility of science."
USAFHokie80 wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Spendi, you've mentioned the 'psychosomatic' issue a number of times. I agree that religious faith is a positive influence on children and helps to give them a strong sense of personal worth and a more positive outlook on life in general. I am guessing that should a comprehensive study be conducted, it would show that children with strong religious faith get into trouble less than other children, are less violent, commit fewer anti-social acts, and are generally happier. I personally think that it was specifically when God was declared unwelcome in the school systems that we began to see increased violence and for the first time ever parents worried about their kids being seriously assaulted or molested or gunned down in the classrooms and hallways.
But none of that matters in this debate that must be judged on First Amendment establishment clause criteria. It is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is equally inappropriate, even illegal, to teach against ID in science class. It is appropriate and constructive for the teacher to allow both ID and Darwin to coexist peacefully in science class.
How exactly is it illegal to teach "against ID in science class" ?
And how is it appropriate to let the two coexist in science class when one (ID) has absolutely ZERO scientific credibility?
To teach against ID is to teach Atheism which is a violation of the establishment cause. To allow the two to coexist peacefully in science class does not presume that ID will be taught in science class. I have stated and restated and restated ad nauseum now that it is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is correct to say that ID cannot be taught as science, because it isn't. It is perfectly fine for the teacher to explain that to the student. But for the same reason, ie that ID cannot be proved with science, it also cannot be falsified with science and it would be incorrect, as well as illegal, to tell a student that ID has ZERO credibility. To allow ID
FLORIDA UPDATE
Quote:Clash over teaching evolution hits Orlando
(Leslie Postal, Orlando Sentinel, February 11, 2008)
Evolution has been a cornerstone of biology for more than 100 years, but don't try to tell that to many of the thousands of people who posted comments on Florida's Department of Education Web site.
"The last time I went to the zoo, the monkeys weren't evolving into man," read one comment.
"Evolution is not proven and we should not brainwash our children with this concept," stated another.
...
"
Souled Out insists that religious faith does not lead ineluctably to conservative political convictions. It argues that the era of the religious Right is over. Its collapse is part of a larger decline of a certain style of ideological conservatism that reached high points in 1980 and 1994 but suffered a series of decisiveand I believe fatalsetbacks during George W. Bush's second term. The end of the religious Right does not signal a decline in evangelical Christianity. On the contrary, it is a sign of a new reformation among Christians who are disentangling their great movement from a political machine. This historic change will require liberals and conservatives alike to abandon their sometimes narrow views of who religious Americans are and what they believe.
I have stated and restated and restated ad nauseum now that it is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class.
Suppose a man has a tomato thrown at his head, and that he is able to take suitable evasive action. His reactions would involve changes in the activity of a very large number of cells in his body. First of all, the presence of a red object would be registered by the visual sensory cells in the eye, and these in turn would excite nerve cells leading into the brain via the optic nerve. A great deal of activity would then ensue in different varieties of nerve cell in the brain and, after a very short space of time, nerve impulses would pass from the brain to some of the muscles of the face and, indirectly, to muscles of the neck, legs and arms. (He's keeping it simple). The muscle cells there would themselves be excited by the nerve impulses reaching them, and would contract so as to move the body and so prevent the tomato having its desired effect. These movements would then result in excitation of numerous sensory endings in the muscles and joints of the body and in the organs of balance in the inner ear. The resulting impulses in sensory nerves would then cause further activity in the brain and spinal chord, possibly leading to further muscular activity.
ID is not science and doesn't belong in a science classroom.
