Science standards under threat in Arizona

[ecco]

Are you dare suggesting we not learn in school about the KKK's reprehensible, disgusting, racist views? Should the kids learn about the KKK "on the street"?

And while we're at it, you WANT the indoctrination to continue from the evolutionists, with their disgusting views that different RACES of men exist, creating more hostilities! GROSS.

According to your bible, the Egyptians persecuted to Jews long before Darwin.
According to History, whites enslaved blacks long before Darwin.
According to History, the evilutionist hating White Christian KKK killed blacks because because the bible told them it was OK.

Your knowledge of reality is seen only through the false lenses of your bigoted religious beliefs.

 

[dimmesdale]

Well, if you had bothered to read my posts I wrote that evolution should be taught.

Why? It is worthless.

What I wrote was that too much time is spent on it.

They do not spend a lot of time on it in public education.

It isn’t that difficult a subject.

An easy A? It can be more difficult if they were to empirically prove their assumptions like common ancestor mystery creatures. It leaves a lot of room for doubt. More akin to orthodoxy, faith and guesses as opposed to actual science.

Currently evolution takes up 2-3 hours of classroom time each year during grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Then an additional 6-8 hours in high school. Waaaaay too much time.

I don't think it is that much.

Hello? Computer Science should be taught in high school. For you to argue that Computer Science shouldn’t be taught in high school but evolution absolutely must be shows how very out of kilter your values are.

They can scrap evolution and replace the class time with math proficiency up to the level of Algebra 2 for all high school grads. Evolution is useless. What science applicable value is there in proposing an extinct unknown mystery creature which connects apes and humans?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? It is worthless. They do not spend a lot of time on it in public education. An easy A? It can be more difficult if they were to empirically prove their assumptions like common ancestor mystery creatures. it leaves a lot of room for doubt. More akin to orthodoxy, faith and guesses as opposed to actual science. I don't think it is that much.

They can scrap evolution and replace the class time with math proficiency up to the level of Algebra 2 for all high school grads. Evolution is useless. What science applicable value is there in proposing an extinct unknown mystery creature which connects apes and humans?

Wow! Someone that has no understanding of the sciences at all declares the key to understanding biology "worthless".

If you go by the definition of "proof" that is used in a court of law the theory of evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Far past being a reasonable doubt. The only doubt that there is is in those that won't let themselves understand or can't understand the theory.

And evolution is key in developing many new vaccines and other cures in biology. Instead of denying why don't you try to learn?

 

[Shad]

They can scrap evolution and replace the class time with math proficiency up to the level of Algebra 2 for all high school grads. Evolution is useless. What science applicable value is there in proposing an extinct unknown mystery creature which connects apes and humans?

Evolution also includes models which are used to predict changes in the flu. You obviously never took any courses on evolution outside grade 10.

 

[dimmesdale]

Evolution also includes models which are used to predict changes in the flu.

They can do all that absent any faith belief in common ancestor mystery creatures. Even six day creationists do not dispute micro change.

You obviously never took any courses on evolution outside grade 10.

No need to be insulting. Not going to win converts that way. Where is all this mountains of empirical evidence for the common ancestor mystery creature? Why not start there? How does that aspect directly advance flu vaccines? Are u saying they could not predict flu vaccines absent a belief in extinct nonhuman common ancestors? How bout big foot? No vaccines unless we firmly have an established belief in the affirmative of the physical existence of big foot? Goblins and fairies?

 

[Shad]

On the other hand, there is not a single field in our technological society that is not impacted by computers. Yet evolution must, must, must be taught, but basic computer science is optional?

Computers are a common commodity thus use and knowledge is widespread due to common use. Introduction to CS is mostly redundant for the younger generation but useful for the older ones which never had a PC in their home. The courses only exists to demonstrate a student is ready for more advance courses, nothing more. Here grade 10 CS is word processing, click/drop website creation, power point and basic window OS use..... Other courses are specific to coding, administration, etc which are too exclusive for HS.

Evolutionary theory is not common knowledge outside of an education source. That is why one is prioritized over the other.

 

[Shad]

They can do all that absent any faith belief in common ancestor mystery creatures.

Axiom based along with genetics so not faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They can do all that absent any faith belief in common ancestor mystery creatures. Even six day creationists do not dispute micro change.

There is no "faith" in the theory of evolution. There is more than enough evidence to support it. Faith is more likely your weakness.

No need to be insulting. Not going to win converts that way. Where is all this mountains of empirical evidence for the common ancestor mystery creature? Why not start there? How does that aspect directly advance flu vaccines? Are u saying they could not predict flu vaccines absent a belief in extinct nonhuman common ancestors? How bout big foot? No vaccines unless we firmly have an established belief in the affirmative of the physical existence of big foot? Goblins and fairies?

Until you learn the basics of science you will not be able to understand it. Flu vaccines are based upon the theory of evolution. There is no magical limit to it that creationists wish. Your complaint is ont the order of teaching gravity. What most people are used to is not even Newtonian, but rather Galilean gravity. One that has almost no understanding of Galilean gravity is in no position to say that Newtonian gravity is impossible much less that of Einstein.

 

[dimmesdale]

Axiom based along with genetics so not faith.

That is quite the claim but am not convinced. Are you saying all these are interchangeable robots who examine all evidence and would come to the same conclusion, a mystery creature in the past? And they do not know identity? They cannot do that. They cannot retrodict mystery creatures which may or may not have existed in the past. It is blind faith, not science. You need to do better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is quite the claim but am not convinced. Are you saying all these are interchangeable robots who examine all evidence and would come to the same conclusion, a mystery creature in the past? And they do not know identity? They cannot do that. They cannot retrodict mystery creatures which may or may not have existed in the past. It is blind faith, not science. You need to do better.

You seem to overestimate the abilities of "robots". You also seem to be putting far to high of a value on "identity". Yes we know that we are related to other apes using the same science that identifies fathers in paternity suits. Do you accept one but not the other? You would need to explain this inconsistency.

 

[Shaul]

Computers are a common commodity thus use and knowledge is widespread due to common use. Introduction to CS is mostly redundant for the younger generation but useful for the older ones which never had a PC in their home. The courses only exists to demonstrate a student is ready for more advance courses, nothing more. Here grade 10 CS is word processing, click/drop website creation, power point and basic window OS use..... Other courses are specific to coding, administration, etc which are too exclusive for HS.

Evolutionary theory is not common knowledge outside of an education source. That is why one is prioritized over the other.

Calculators are pretty common too, but we still teach arithmetic. Saying students don’t need to learn the basics of computer science because they use computers is ridiculous. In our society it is more important to understand computers than the theory of evolution. Yet our schools don’t require computer science education but do require evolution lessons.

 

[Shad]

Calculators are pretty common too, but we still teach arithmetic.

You are comparing a tool to a whole branch of math.

Saying students don’t need to learn the basics of computer science because they use computers is ridiculous.

No I said because computers are common commodities the average user has knowledge beyond what the introductory courses teach. I told you exactly what type of programs are taught. Only an idiot and seniors these days needs to learn basic windows uses.

In our society it is more important to understand computers than the theory of evolution.

Again the introductions courses teach nothing that isn't common knowledge. I do not think you have any idea what the intro programs cover.

Yet our schools don’t require computer science education but do require evolution lessons.

Again it is a waste of money to teach what is already common knowledge

 

[Shad]

That is quite the claim but am not convinced.

It is not a claim. Science operates on a set of axioms contained within methodology and methodological naturalism. Hence why those that practice it look for natural causes and dismiss God as answers. Hence why medical science is no longer practicing exorcisms as a valid treatment of say mental illness. You are not convinced as you have no idea what science is.

Are you saying all these are interchangeable robots who examine all evidence and would come to the same conclusion, a mystery creature in the past? And they do not know identity? They cannot do that. They cannot retrodict mystery creatures which may or may not have existed in the past.

At no point did I mention robots.... You are manufacturing a point which I never made.

It is blind faith, not science. You need to do better.

Fossils and genetics.... Heard of either?

You need to get an education regarding the topic you are discussing.

 

[dimmesdale]

It is not a claim.

The claim is an unknown, unseen, nonhuman mystery creature which is a common ancestor to apes and man. Here is another claim. All sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction via the laws of physics and chemistry alone. It is blind faith and the case is overstated.

Science operates on a set of axioms contained within methodology and methodological naturalism.

Jeez dude i thought it was the search for truth. If the search is limited via prejudice, then certain possibilities are eliminated from the get-go.

Hence why those that practice it look for natural causes and dismiss God as answers.

Then they will always come up with the wrong answers based not on evidence but on ginned up standards.

Hence why medical science is no longer practicing exorcisms as a valid treatment of say mental illness.

It is my understanding that priests did exorcisms, not medically trained personnel. Assuming that sort of thing were to happen today, it would most likely be a priest and not a Doctor. They don't bleed people today, put leeches on them. Here is the latest. Small dose aspirins do nothing to prevent heart attacks, so? What is your point? Other than cherry picking?

You are not convinced as you have no idea what science is.

In certain endeavors science is a search for truth not artificially limited by naturalistic self-serving assumptions. Rules which says certain possibilities are demarcated right off the bat.

At no point did I mention robots...

You said common ancestor is axiomatic. Your words. Now you partial quote me. If it is axiomatic, then they would examine the same evidence and all come to the same conclusion. Just like they do with many other things. Like tracking a trajectory to the moon. Historical sciences aren't as exact since they go by inference. Cannot test their assumptions against what happened in the past.

Fossils and genetics.... Heard of either?

They are guessing based on a fixed paradigm from the 1800s. None of it is actual science. It is historical voodoo.

You need to get an education regarding the topic you are discussing.

Your unwelcome advice will get all the attention it deserves. What makes you guys think we come here for your advice? We don't so why not just keep it to yourselves. In the meantime why not show me how smart you are by making your axiomatic case for an ape/human unseen, unknown, nonhuman, common ancestor? Because it sounds more like blind faith and that is not science. Pictures are not evidence. Bones do not come with lineage attached. And genetics? If we are addressing DNA then they compare, sample with sample, in the present and the further back we go the more theoretical it gets. You have not one thing in the present to extrapolate back to the deep past to infer a mystery creature. What is happening here is fitting the evidence into a model ginned up in the 19th century. Assume conclusion. So you have not made your case and all these ad nauseam appeals to science ignores the fact most do not make their life decisions based on ginned up and restricted definitions of science by God deniers. The majority of court convictions are not based on forensics but different types of evidence. Like testimony. It is all evidence. That means they do not, in court restrict the search to one type and refuse to consider the other types.

They do not say this case will be tried on science evidence alone. All other types will be ignored. That is the way it is in real life. Aside from all that when they do use science evidence in courts they can still come to the wrong conclusions. Case in point. The Duke Lacrosse players. They had DNA evidence (multiple semen samples) from Crystal Magnum none of which fit the accused which was exculpatory and they went ahead and tried them anyway. In spite of the evidence. The science guy took the stand and the truth had to be dragged out of him. He had to know the accused was innocent or he had his head way up his arse but he never revealed until on the stand under oath. Then he went silent in front of reporters. Great day for science. Will forfeit truth for cash. Willing to let innocent kids go to prison.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim is an unknown, unseen, nonhuman mystery creature which is a common ancestor to apes and man. Here is another claim. All sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction via the laws of physics and chemistry alone. It is blind faith and the case is overstated.
Jeez dude i thought it was the search for truth. If the search is limited via prejudice, then certain possibilities are eliminated from the get-go. Then they will always come up with the wrong answers based not on evidence but on ginned up standards. It is my understanding that priests did exorcisms, not medically trained personnel. Assuming that sort of thing were to happen today, it would most likely be a priest and not a Doctor. They don't bleed people today, put leeches on them. Here is the latest. Small dose aspirins do nothing to prevent heart attacks, so? What is your point? Other than cherry picking?

In certain endeavors science is a search for truth not artificially limited by naturalistic self-serving assumptions. Rules which says certain possibilities are demarcated right off the bat.

You said common ancestor is axiomatic. Your words. Now you partial quote me. If it is axiomatic, then they would examine the same evidence and all come to the same conclusion. Just like they do with many other things. Like tracking a trajectory to the moon. Historical sciences aren't as exact since they go by inference. Cannot test their assumptions against what happened in the past.

They are guessing based on a fixed paradigm from the 1800s. None of it is actual science. It is historical voodoo.
Your unwelcome advice will get all the attention it deserves. What makes you guys think we come here for your advice? We don't so why not just keep it to yourselves. In the meantime why not show me how smart you are by making your axiomatic case for an ape/human unseen, unknown, nonhuman, common ancestor? Because it sounds more like blind faith and that is not science. Pictures are not evidence. Bones do not come with lineage attached. And genetics? If we are addressing DNA then they compare, sample with sample, in the present and the further back we go the more theoretical it gets. You have not one thing in the present to extrapolate back to the deep past to infer a mystery creature. What is happening here is fitting the evidence into a model ginned up in the 19th century. Assume conclusion. So you have not made your case and all these ad nauseam appeals to science ignores the fact most do not make their life decisions based on ginned up and restricted definitions of science by God deniers. The majority of court convictions are not based on forensics but different types of evidence. Like testimony. It is all evidence. That means they do not, in court restrict the search to one type and refuse to consider the other types.

They do not say this case will be tried on science evidence alone. All other types will be ignored. That is the way it is in real life. Aside from all that when they do use science evidence in courts they can still come to the wrong conclusions. Case in point. The Duke Lacrosse players. They had DNA evidence (multiple semen samples) from Crystal Magnum none of which fit the accused which was exculpatory and they went ahead and tried them anyway. In spite of the evidence. The science guy took the stand and the truth had to be dragged out of him. He had to know the accused was innocent or he had his head way up his arse but he never revealed until on the stand under oath. Then he went silent in front of reporters. Great day for science. Will forfeit truth for cash. Willing to let innocent kids go to prison.

Oh my, another ignorant rant.

Instead of making such foolish claims why not try to learn?

Sadly, you are afraid to learn and instead you strike out at those that try to help you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sure, teach about them in a *sociology* class. But not in a *science* class. The same with creationism. Tell how the science deniers promote creationism using political means *in a sociology* class. Then go and teach the *science*, meaning evolution in the science class.

I agree! We should always consider every science decision as "done" with no chance to recant or prove anything differently. So when flat earthers see that scientists formerly advocated a flat earth, they can bank on this without debate or learning anything new!

Good work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree! We should always consider every science decision as "done" with no chance to recant or prove anything differently. So when flat earthers see that scientists formerly advocated a flat earth, they can bank on this without debate or learning anything new!

Good work.

Not what he said at all or even implied. Why use this tactic? Shouldn't you be striving to be honest? Is the fact that you probably cannot find a single creationist that is not a science denier that hard to deal with?

 

[Jose Fly]

They can scrap evolution and replace the class time with math proficiency up to the level of Algebra 2 for all high school grads. Evolution is useless. What science applicable value is there in proposing an extinct unknown mystery creature which connects apes and humans?

Here, educate yourself: Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/07/16/from-the-vault-whats-a-gene-for/#.W6kQtkZKhhE

To put it simply, relative evolutionary relatedness is used to determine genetic function.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree! We should always consider every science decision as "done" with no chance to recant or prove anything differently. So when flat earthers see that scientists formerly advocated a flat earth, they can bank on this without debate or learning anything new!

Good work.

That is nowhere close to what I said and you know it. What I did say is that science, as established by working scientists, is what should be taught in a science class.

Now, if you have objections to the science of the day, write them up, send them into a peer reviewed journal, get them published and debated *in the correct forum*. The point is that the correct forum for debate is NOT the high school classroom, where those in the debate are not knowledgeable about the subject, but rather in the professional science journals, where they are. When a consensus, or even an actual debate, is found in the professional journals, then that consensus or debate can be introduced into the classrooms.

I'd also ask you when scientists advocated a flat earth. Anyone with any actual knowledge about that subject knew the earth isn't flat after, say, 400BC.

 

[ecco]

Where is all this mountains of empirical evidence for the common ancestor mystery creature?

- An elaborate illustration of the evolutionary tree of life - Helpful science notes for parents - How to explain natural selection to a child