• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science standards under threat in Arizona

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
From the National Center for Science Education....

Evolution, and now climate change, under attack in Arizona

As the latest draft (PDF) of a new set of state science standards for Arizona is apparently on its way to the state board of education for its approval, concerns about the compromised treatment of evolution remain — and have been now joined by concerns about the deletion of material about climate change.

As NCSE previously reported, the treatment of evolution in a previous draft of the standards was sabotaged by staff at the state department of education at the behest of Superintendent Diane Douglas, who is on record as advocating the teaching of "intelligent design" alongside evolution and as disagreeing with the rulings that prevent it.

While "intelligent design" was not included in the draft, the revisions were clearly aimed at softening the treatment of evolution. For example, a middle-school-level standard discussing natural selection's role in speciation was revised to eliminate the e-word, "evolution," as well as the reference to speciation...

...
Astonishingly, a young-earth creationist was appointed to the evolution committee. As the Phoenix New Times reported (September 13, 2018), "Joseph Kezele, the president of the Arizona Origin Science Association, is a staunch believer in the idea that enough scientific evidence exists to back up the biblical story of creation."

While he reportedly refrained from discussing creationism during the process, "Kezele successfully convinced other members to de-emphasize evolution in at least one instance," according to the New Times, changing a description of evolution as "the explanation" for the unity and diversity of life to "an explanation."

Although there are places in which the treatment of evolution was improved, the idea of common ancestry — which is prominent in the NRC Framework for K-12 Science Education and Working with Big Ideas of Science Education, both major sources for the Arizona standards — is still absent from the draft.

Meanwhile, climate change seems also to have been targeted in the latest draft, with — for example — the wholesale deletion of the discussion of climate change in the high-school-level Earth and Space Science Plus (i.e., honors) section of the standards. It is as yet unclear what motivated these deletions.
If you're in Arizona and care about the quality of science education in your state, I strongly urge you to take action by contacting the State Board of Education and letting them know your views.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
The creationist never learn. There will be a long drawn out court battle the net result of which will be to strengthen the evolution side by draining taxpayer funds into the evolution coffers as a result to the inevitable and universal court decision that, as part of the decision awards the evolution side reimbursement of costs. That is the history of this issue.

The working definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
eliminate the e-word, "evolution,"

My response to them is the "f" word f***.

Astonishingly, a young-earth creationist was appointed to the evolution committee.

Whoz karez aboot bok lernang.

It is as yet unclear what motivated these deletions.

It's not unclear. Right wing political correctness is to blame which includes a hatred of truth and we know truth includes science.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
What despicable thing is that? Daring to question evolution?
Attempting to stifle (from school curriculum) scientific information that actually has real-world application.

There is absolutely ZERO real-world application that can be obtained or employed by studying or following "creation science." Not a drop. Zip. Nada. Creationism may as well be someone's used tissues... actually no... even the material that used tissues are made of is still more important and worthwhile than any information to be known from the creation story. Even slightly being able to apply something is better than not being able to apply it to any sort of advantage whatsoever. It is useless... tells you absolutely nothing of utility, and reveals no scientific avenues of beneficial employment of any kind.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
tenor.gif
 

Earthling

David Henson
Attempting to stifle (from school curriculum) scientific information that actually has real-world application.

There is absolutely ZERO real-world application that can be obtained or employed by studying or following "creation science." Not a drop. Zip. Nada. Creationism may as well be someone's used tissues... actually no... even the material that used tissues are made of is still more important and worthwhile than any information to be known from the creation story. Even slightly being able to apply something is better than not being able to apply it to any sort of advantage whatsoever. It is useless... tells you absolutely nothing of utility, and reveals no scientific avenues of beneficial employment of any kind.

Well, first of all, disproved theories can reveal scientific avenues of beneficial employment, so, Creationism, as lame as it's current state is, could do that. But, there are curricular disagreements resulting in the removal of material other than your precious evolution all the time. Nothing to get excited about is it?

Anyway, as I've often said here, I wouldn't want the Biblical creation account to be taught in public school. Religion has ****ed it up enough, thank you.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
What despicable thing is that? Daring to question evolution?
Anyone can question evolution all they like; just do so in the appropriate manner and forum. If someone feels they have a legitimate case, then they need to present it to the scientific community (usually via publication in an appropriate science journal). If they manage to convince that community, then their material will be included in science curricula.

These creationists are trying to dishonestly bypass that process. Most likely it's because they know their arguments are nowhere near good enough to convince scientists.
 

Earthling

David Henson
Anyone can question evolution all they like; just do so in the appropriate manner and forum. If someone feels they have a legitimate case, then they need to present it to the scientific community (usually via publication in an appropriate science journal). If they manage to convince that community, then their material will be included in science curricula.

Talk about dishonest. You know full well what would happen then.

These creationists are trying to dishonestly bypass that process. Most likely it's because they know their arguments are nowhere near good enough to convince scientists.

It seems to me those who so desire for evolution to be taught in the schools use the word dishonest too much.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Talk about dishonest. You know full well what would happen then.
No I don't. Perhaps you can explain what you're talking about.

It seems to me those who so desire for evolution to be taught in the schools use the word dishonest too much.
Weakening science education due to one's religious beliefs and deliberately bypassing the scientific process seem pretty dishonest to me. What adjective would you use?
 
Top