asbestosman wrote:But I want kids to know why. Heck, I'm all for teaching ID in the classroom if kids are sufficiently prepared to see its weaknesses and learn from that example why that isn't science (no, it's not just because it is strongly supported by religion / anti-materialists or seems to support the necessity of a Creator / Designer / God).
I'm all for explaining why ID isn't science in the science classroom. That only takes a few minutes. I don't think it should be taught as an alternative theory to natural selection, because it isn't an alternative theory...it's not science. I'm not sure what level of students you are talking about when you say "kids". Junior high, high school, college? The part I bolded is the kicker. ID is tricky business and those that don't have a decent understanding of evolution are often duped by some of it's arguments.
I have to agree with good old Ed Brayton here on a point that didn't immediately spring to mind:
The Louisiana state Senate passed the scam "academic freedom" bill by a vote of 36-0, following on the heels of the House passing it 94-3. Gov. Bobby Jindal, a creationist, will certainly sign it. Americans United issued a press release saying that if local schools use the law to allow in creationist material of any kind, they are prepared to file lawsuits.
Americans United and other groups contend that those "supplemental materials" are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries. The measure is being pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and other Religious Right forces...
"If this new law is used to promote religion in Louisiana public schools, I can guarantee there will be legal action," Lynn said. "Louisiana students deserve better, and Louisiana taxpayers should not have their money squandered on this losing effort."
Anyone who doubts that simply hasn't been paying attention. This bill will be viewed as a green light to bring in a whole range of supplemental materials just like the Dover school board tried to do. That's why I've said that such bills are inviting local school districts and teachers into a Dover Trap. They invite teachers and school boards to bring in such material without providing any guidance at all on which materials can legally be used and which cannot.
Anyone who has observed these things for any length of time knows exactly what is going to happen. This fall you will see teachers and school boards bringing all kinds of supplemental materials into their science classrooms - books like Of Pandas and People and The Design of Life, videos and books like Icons of Evolution and The Privileged Planet. In short, all the major ID texts and videos are going to be used all over the state now.
And then those school districts are going to be sued. And just like in Dover, they're going to lose. We have vast amounts of evidence establishing that all of those books and the people who wrote them are thinly disguised creationist texts. The state legislature is rolling out a red carpet that leads from the schoolhouse to the courthouse and they're going to end up costing local schools a great deal of money. Eric Rothschild, I hope you're getting your rest.
One of the unfortunately side-effects of this bill is it is going to cost school districts a lot of money in legal fees for nothing when they can ill-afford to lose that money. As someone mentions in the comments, even if they luck into a Roy Moore in the initial trial, the appeal process is eventually going to take them down unless McCain wins and appoints a few Scalias to the bench.
That is a very good point, EA. No matter how carefully the Discovery Insitute has scrubbed their textbook of all references to creationism, the bill that was passed does not specify any particular book... thus creating a minefield for teachers. The best legal advice for school districts would be to play it safe and ignore this new law. Let some other district take the first step into uncleared "Supplemental textbook" territory.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
asbestosman wrote:I think the way science is taught in classrooms is fundamentally wrong. Science should not be some list of facts (data) and theories (models) that you memorize. Science should be about how to do science, not what to believe.
I think it should be a bit of both. You can take what's known, make that interesting and stimulating and go from there. There are basic things children should know and from that point they can go further and explore. Yet, make the learning of the fundamentals an exploration in itself.
I suppose we are to all go in lockstep again, marching one by one in a serfs paradise, indentured for life to someone who can read and do math.
Or were you joking...I can't tell anymore.
Nope, I just think we can end public education and let private schools of all types rise up to replace them.
Public education was not created to educate the people. It became popular and was reinforced in eras where the government had genuine fears that the poorer classes would rise against them. So they had them give the Pledge of Allegiance every day and taught them about the wonders of Democracy and how great America is. They threw in the 3 R's to fill up time.
Our current education system is built around the lowest common denominator and is more interested in making sure dunces and their parents don't feel inferior then actually educating people.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Private school education is not always superior -- I wonder why this is repeated so often. Those that send their kids to private school are ensuring that they will be about other children that are from a similar socioeconomic background -- those from this background usually have the means to help their children with stimulating activities, have higher educations themselves, and their children start out with some luxuries that children from lower socio-economic backgrounds do not have. There is a direct positive correlation between students being at risk (to drop out, failure, learning disabilities) and being low on the socio-economic ladder -- these children fill our public schools -- their backgrounds, economic status, parental involvement, and parental education level is not going to magically disappear if they went to a private school.
Private schools do not usually accept children with learning disabilities and this of course sways how their student population is seen. Private schools do not usually have the finances to offer a variety of languages, art, drama, etc... classes that are seen in many public schools. Private school teachers (in many instances) are not certified teachers and actually could not be hired on in public schools because they are not qualified to teach as determined by the state. I've known many private school instructors that teach so that their kids get a discount -- one had a degree in journalism and she was teaching High School Biology.
The public school system has issues and there is no doubt that there are some teachers and administrators that don't care -- yet, these schools are also filled with teachers and students passionate about learning and helping ALLL children -- from all socioeconomic spheres and with all types of learning from gifted to severely disabled.
Moniker wrote:Private school education is not always superior -- I wonder why this is repeated so often. Those that send their kids to private school are ensuring that they will be about other children that are from a similar socioeconomic background -- those from this background usually have the means to help their children with stimulating activities, have higher educations themselves, and their children start out with some luxuries that children from lower socio-economic backgrounds do not have. There is a direct positive correlation between students being at risk (to drop out, failure, learning disabilities) and being low on the socio-economic ladder -- these children fill our public schools -- their backgrounds, economic status, parental involvement, and parental education level is not going to magically disappear if they went to a private school.
Private schools do not usually accept children with learning disabilities and this of course sways how their student population is seen. Private schools do not usually have the finances to offer a variety of languages, art, drama, etc... classes that are seen in many public schools. Private school teachers (in many instances) are not certified teachers and actually could not be hired on in public schools because they are not qualified to teach as determined by the state. I've known many private school instructors that teach so that their kids get a discount -- one had a degree in journalism and she was teaching High School Biology.
The public school system has issues and there is no doubt that there are some teachers and administrators that don't care -- yet, these schools are also filled with teachers and students passionate about learning and helping ALLL children -- from all socioeconomic spheres and with all types of learning disabilities from gifted to severely disabled.
I agree with what you've said but I think private schools would expand rapidly if the public school system were dissolved.
I don't mean to imply that all teachers and administrators in public schools are bad but in many ways they're hamstrung by the system. I had teachers get in trouble with parents for teaching things in class. Inevitably these would be the kinds of things we actually need to learn and even enjoyed learning. This essay describes many of the problems I see in public education. http://hometown.aol.com/tma68/7lesson.htm
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Dude wrote:That is a very good point, EA. No matter how carefully the Discovery Insitute has scrubbed their textbook of all references to creationism, the bill that was passed does not specify any particular book... thus creating a minefield for teachers. The best legal advice for school districts would be to play it safe and ignore this new law. Let some other district take the first step into uncleared "Supplemental textbook" territory.
It's still a violation of the establishment clause to teach children in a public school bad criticisms of evolutionary theory to achieve a religious goal like undermining student confidence in evolutionary theory. That's almost certainly what teaching, say, Behe's Irreducible Complexity arguments minus the design inference would be.
The kind of criticisms of evolution that pass constitutional muster are already legal as it is. This bill does nothing to make legal what is currently not. All it does is wave a red cape in the face of school boards to begin incorporating creationist antievolution arguments. If they do that, they will be sued, and they will lose out in the end. They're being made into the latest testing ground for the latest creationist toned-down attempt to get around the past few decades of establishment clause jurisprudence.