New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This appears to be the section you are talking about?

"
Sec. 3320.03.
No school district board of education, governing authority of a community school established under Chapter 3314. of the Revised Code, governing body of a STEM school established under Chapter 3326. of the Revised Code, or board of trustees of a college-preparatory boarding school established under Chapter 3328. of the Revised Code shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments. Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance,including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work.
"​

I'm not sure I understand the problem if: "Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work."

That means that you cannot reward a student who gives a religious answer to a scientific question concerning evolution. Does it not?

Am I missing something? Can you provide more context for the issue? Or explain what I'm missing?

Nor may a teacher **penalize**-- i.e. cannot give a very deserved F if the religious victim replies to the test question, "Jesus is the answer". (assuming the question was not, in fact, "What mythical character has no physical, written or other evidence during his alleged life time"...)

So on a test about Evolution? The poor misguided student can reply, "god, he did it" to all the questions, and he cannot be graded "F" as would be proper.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think it opens a can of worms - one that will allow religious-minded people to peruse their "options" as regards objecting to grades or scores given. It allows them a chance to point at "the law" and claim that they are being unfairly scrutinized/penalized/persecuted for "getting things wrong" when their answers don't correlate to the teachings, but contain a religious flair. In other words - it opens a large loop-hole through which religious people who don't like any particular teaching can effectively game the system.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I concur. I read:


Teacher says to students: "Okay, kids, your work in this class will be graded based on your ability to give me a class-related "work product" based on lectures, discussions, assigned readings, etc. However, you will not get extra credit nor be penalized for wasting your time giving me religious crap."

On the other hand, IMO, I foresee a potential problem arising if and when a student submits classroom work-product that has 100% religious content and no appropriate scientific content, and then whines that they spent so much time putting the religious-based product together that they didn't have time to get around to the appropriate scientific-based product.

Your second example would be enforced by this stupid law: The student cannot be penalized.

Thus, if he replies to all Evolution related questions with "god did it" he must be given an A, instead of a very deserved F.

 

[exchemist]

And I don't find it at ALL unlikely that some student (or parents, or lawyers) will argue that the 'academic standards' of their favorite home-school textbook are the ones to be used. The student would, supposedly, find their religious notions to be 'of substance and relevance'.

Yup, until it eventually gets tested in court and, one hopes thrown out. But until then, what is a teacher to do, who wants a quiet life?

It may in fact be one of those cases in which a crowd-funded test case needs to be brought before the court as quickly as possible!

 

[nPeace]

The Ohio House passed a law that says that students cannot be counted wrong, even in a science class, if their answers are in line with their religion:

Ohio House passes bill allowing student answers to be scientifically wrong due to religion

In other words, the suggestion is that science teachers are not in the business of teaching science, but in catering to religious dogma.

Why anyone would consider this to be appropriate is beyond me.

We need more reasonable people like them, who can see through the fog that's so thick up to some people's noses.
Imagine people want children to go to school and learn foolishness; answer the questions according to the script, even if they don't believe the answers are correct, just to say, they did a science.
So, one cannot become a scientist, unless they accept science dogma (aka philosophy).
It's beyond me how someone can consider that sensible.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

We need more reasonable people like them, who can see through the fog that's so thick up to some people's noses.
Imagine people want children to go to school and learn foolishness; answer the questions according to the script, even if they don't believe the answers are correct, just to say, the did a science.
So, one cannot become a scientist, unless the accept science dogma (aka philosophy).
It's beyond me how someone can consider that sensible.

As has probably been explained to you a thousand or more times - there is the knowledge and applicable practice that GETS YOU RESULTS and ACCURATELY PREDICTS action and reaction within controlled scenarios, and then there's whatever you're advocating for here. Religious knowledge unfounded in scientific inquiry will only ever be "right" by accident. Period.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Let me give an example. Suppose the class is discussing the evolution of humans. They talk about the known ancestors, the time when they existed, etc.

Then, the question comes up 'When did Homo erectus live'?

A student answers that they lived fewer than 10,000 years ago. The question is graded (accurately) as incorrect. The student protests, claiming that their religious belief is that the earth is fewer than 10,000 years old.

So, the question becomes 'whose academic standards'? Is it the standards of the Institute for Creation Research, or is it the standards of the American Association for the Advancement of Science? is it the standards of their religion, of the standards set our by scientific organizations?

What if the parents sue the teacher? Will the school support that teacher?

And, of course, this comes in a long line of 'teaching the controversy' when there *isn't* any actual, scientific controversy. So, again, whose standards?

This is an incredibly bad law and simply promotes the idea that science can be ignored if you or your religion disagrees with it.

I don't like that its a party issue pushed by the Republican party alone, however I don't think the wording of the law is detrimental. I'll share what happened with me when I was a creationist entering public school for the first time (high school) and how I learned more about the claims and the research and who was lying about what.

The teachers in my Biology, Chemistry and Physics classes taught me cell biology, chemistry and physics and did not press the issue of my beliefs about creationism but did not align with me and did not hide their own opinions. This was the right thing to do, because then studying these subjects equipped me to pursue the subject of origins. Then I was able to read books about it. Then I could make up my own mind. If they had come at me with "You shall accept this" things would not have gone well for me, and I would have had more trouble incorporating the facts. I would have seen a supernatural enemy in my classroom, one that I needed to fight. Already I was in an environment (Political Science) where teachers were telling me that religion was a human construct, and that was itself teaching a religious position. To me that was illegal. Already I was not being given freedom of thought in one of my public school classes, but at least in hard Science subjects I was fortunately for me.

 

[Father Heathen]

But then, so did Muslims. Are you gonna talk bad about them?

I think you must be Islamophobic if you talk bad about Muslims (who are against nearly everything libs value).

Nice straw man, weeb.

Who here has defended Islamic fundamentalism, sharia, etc? Especially within the U.S. public school system?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We need more reasonable people like them, who can see through the fog that's so thick up to some people's noses.
Imagine people want children to go to school and learn foolishness; answer the questions according to the script, even if they don't believe the answers are correct, just to say, they did a science.
It's beyond me how someone can consider that sensible.

It's beyond you because (and I say this because it's clear from your own words) you really don't understand what science is about, how it works, what it accomplishes, etc.

What you think is "foolishness" that children learn in school is the underpinning to the science that makes everything in your world actually work -- and nothing, not a single bit, of modern technology that you depend on would work without it. Therefore, to suppose that learning the basics of that science (which, because it WORKS, is obviously true) is "foolishness" is even worse foolishness on your part.

So, one cannot become a scientist, unless they accept science dogma (aka philosophy).

Well, think about that for just a moment, please. One cannot become a priest in the Catholic Church if they don't accept Catholic dogma, now can they? Nor would one who rejects Talmud be expected to become a Rabbi. So why on earth would you expect someone who rejects basic science to become a scientist? Are you hoping for the destruction of civilization?

 

[Moz]

As has probably been explained to you a thousand or more times - there is the knowledge and applicable practice that GETS YOU RESULTS and ACCURATELY PREDICTS action and reaction within controlled scenarios, and then there's whatever you're advocating for here. Religious knowledge unfounded in scientific inquiry will only ever be "right" by accident. Period.

The replication crisis often makes the scientific claims no more valid than the religious. Faith in the science produced by a broken and fractured academy is misplaced.

I would prefer that biology teachs that Male and female are the TWO sexes rather than that gender it is an oppressive construction of the paitriarchy and that sex is not a real thing. I think an appeal to the common historical understanding of sex and gender as outlined by the bible, showing 5000 years of human consensus on the sublect to be a valid argument.

You wish a science that says that they have NO IDEA what 95% of the universe is made of to be held as sacrosanct?

You wish to teach physics that can not agree if there is one universe or an infinite number of universes yet a supernatural perspective is not allowed?

To teach a cosmology that has NO basis in fact but is ALL conjucture often opposed by a small but credibible number of disentures is also a problem.
.........................

 

[nPeace]

It's beyond you because (and I say this because it's clear from your own words) you really don't understand what science is about, how it works, what it accomplishes, etc.

What you think is "foolishness" that children learn in school is the underpinning to the science that makes everything in your world actually work -- and nothing, not a single bit, of modern technology that you depend on would work without it. Therefore, to suppose that learning the basics of that science (which, because it WORKS, is obviously true) is "foolishness" is even worse foolishness on your part.

Well, think about that for just a moment, please. One cannot become a priest in the Catholic Church if they don't accept Catholic dogma, now can they? Nor would one who rejects Talmud be expected to become a Rabbi. So why on earth would you expect someone who rejects basic science to become a scientist? Are you hoping for the destruction of civilization?

Gee. I didn't know my motor car ran because of a theory. LOL.

 

[Moz]

The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) is, as of 2019, an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis affects the social and life sciences most severely.[1][2] The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s[3] as part of a growing awareness of the problem. The replication crisis represents an important body of research in the field of metascience.[4]

Because the reproducibility of experiments is an essential part of the scientific method,[5] the inability to replicate the studies of others has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on unreproducible experimental work.

 

[Moz]

It's beyond you because (and I say this because it's clear from your own words) you really don't understand what science is about, how it works, what it accomplishes, etc.

What you think is "foolishness" that children learn in school is the underpinning to the science that makes everything in your world actually work -- and nothing, not a single bit, of modern technology that you depend on would work without it. Therefore, to suppose that learning the basics of that science (which, because it WORKS, is obviously true) is "foolishness" is even worse foolishness on your part.

Well, think about that for just a moment, please. One cannot become a priest in the Catholic Church if they don't accept Catholic dogma, now can they? Nor would one who rejects Talmud be expected to become a Rabbi. So why on earth would you expect someone who rejects basic science to become a scientist? Are you hoping for the destruction of civilization?

So why on earth would you expect someone who rejects basic science to become a scientist? Are you hoping for the destruction of civilization?
This is where you lot become as "dogmatic" as any of the religions you hypocritically attack. It is not the basic facts that are rejected but the IDEOLOGY that attempts to explain the "how and why" of it all. For example... Einsteins Math is acceptable but the ideology of "space time" that gets wrapped up in it is just a story.
The basic biological sciences are accepted it is the STORY told to explain them that people of faith have a problem with.
The basic geological sciences are accepted it is the STORY told to explain them that is the problem.

What you think is "foolishness" that children learn in school is the underpinning to the science that makes everything in your world actually work
It is not the WHAT it is in the WHY that the problem arises. For example a student who rejects the evolutionary theory is in no way hampered from following a medical career because he rejects the theory of how the species arose. The actual TRUE science is not rejected by the student only the ideology.

And what are we really talking about here.... it is creation and evolution for the most part and these have very little effect on the REAL sciences or on anything foundational. What scientific paths do you think that a religious outlook would bar someone from anyway?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Gee. I didn't know my motor car ran because of a theory. LOL.

No, I'm sure Jesus is carefully powering your car and steering it so you'll always be safe and get where you want.

Sorry, but a really stupid response deserves a really stupid reiposte.

 

[Skwim]

The Ohio House passed a law that says that students cannot be counted wrong, even in a science class, if their answers are in line with their religion:

Ohio House passes bill allowing student answers to be scientifically wrong due to religion

In other words, the suggestion is that science teachers are not in the business of teaching science, but in catering to religious dogma.

Why anyone would consider this to be appropriate is beyond me.

Hey, if god says it's so who are you to say it isn't? Although under normal circumstances water can't run uphill, if god says it can then it can. End of discussion, end of class, and end of an educated Ohio.

.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hey, if god says it's so who are you to say it isn't? Although under normal circumstances water can't run uphill, if god says it can then it can. End of discussion, end of class, and end of an educated Ohio.

.

Was there an educated Ohio before?

 

[SigurdReginson]

From what I've read on snopes, the children would still have to supply answers for the subject as taught. Personally I think there should be a seperation of church and state, but at least these children will still recieve the tools needed to thrive in university, I'd hope. Having gone through religious schooling as a child, I know how one sided and limited the education can be when it comes to things that the religion doesn't acknowledge or teaches against.

 

[nPeace]

No, I'm sure Jesus is carefully powering your car and steering it so you'll always be safe and get where you want.

Sorry, but a really stupid response deserves a really stupid reiposte.

I would agree, but that wouldn't be very nice of me. So. No comment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From what I've read on snopes, the children would still have to supply answers for the subject as taught. Personally I think there should be a seperation of church and state, but at least these children will still recieve the tools needed to thrive in university, I'd hope. Having gone through religious schooling as a child, I know how one sided and limited the education can be when it comes to things that the religion doesn't acknowledge or teaches against.

Which means that they would probably end up punishing themselves. They would have to both write out the correct answers and then the answers that they are pretending are correct.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Which means that they would probably end up punishing themselves. They would have to both write out the correct answers and then the answers that they are pretending are correct.

I can imagine some parents would make their children do that extra work. I'd probably grow resentful while having to constantly write two sets of answers if I were that child, honestly - even if I weren't pretending, and honestly believed those religiously acceptable answers to be true.