Science standards under threat in Arizona

[Earthling]

Extremism rarely breeds tolerance , open-mindedness or respect for rational disputation. These are virtues associated with education. We have some biblical literalists here who disapprove of going to university, for religious reasons. What better example of stunting the intellect could there be?

Bear in mind this thread is about educating the young.......

Indoctrinating vicariously.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

But he's right of course. Most mainstream Christian denominations have no problem with science, as they realise the bible does not set out to be an alternative account of the physical world.

That is not "watering down" the bible, it is just using one's God-given brains.

Amazing! It is possible to be a Christian in the absolute best meaning of that word, and to also accept the findings and conclusions of ... science.

Who knew? (well... you, obviously, and other enlightened persons. )

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You live in an illusion.

Irony duly noted.

 

[Altfish]

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.

Creationism is not a theory!!
It is NOT based on science.
Evolution is nor precious but it is fact.

Biblical creation can be taught in schools BUT not in a science lesson.

 

[Earthling]

Creationism is not a theory!!
It is NOT based on science.
Evolution is nor precious but it is fact.

Biblical creation can be taught in schools BUT not in a science lesson.

No thanks. Leave creation alone and far removed from the schools.

 

[exchemist]

Amazing! It is possible to be a Christian in the absolute best meaning of that word, and to also accept the findings and conclusions of ... science.

Who knew? (well... you, obviously, and other enlightened persons. )

Yeah, it's depressing how often I have to give this sort of speech. If you talk to any educated cleric from a mainstream denomination, that is what they will tell you - the bible is not a science textbook and makes use of allegory, metaphor and other literary devices. That is not to say that all mainstream Christians appreciate this, of course. The men and women in the pews come from all walks of life, with varying educational backgrounds and interests and many probably do not even give the issue a moment's thought. Why should they? But that is what the main churches teach, if you ask.

The dichotomy between science and religion is FALSE.

 

[sealchan]

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.

I am beginning to suspect that people feel entitled to spread their views beyond themselves without anchoring their beliefs in any reasonable ground. A person speaks about other races, religions, sexual orientations...other people. And they think they know everything they need to know to dismiss another human beings entire perspective, to legislate against it even.

So people who read the Bible as a scientific authority feel entitled to legislate the content of a scientific textbook. This seems like a clear violation of the separation of church and state. There should be a process that allows for a court case to determine whether a constitutional principle is being violated and if so its perpetrator removed from office.

 

[ChristineM]

What despicable thing is that? Daring to question evolution?

Being honest helps. Dishonesty is despicable, wouldn't you agree?

 

[exchemist]

Really? Which one is real?



.

Neither.

Science models physical reality, without claiming to do so perfectly. So it may approach physical realities but we can never be sure it has attained them - there may always be new things to discover.

Religion? Well I suppose that depends on which religion. Christianity provides a guide for living one's life, modelled on the teaching and example of Christ, as reported in the gospels. It concerns principally the relationships between God and Man* and between Man and Man**, but it is not sure it is true - hence the need for faith - and it is full of mysteries and unanswered issues, so it can't claim to be reality either. Now we see through a glass darkly, and all that.

The human condition is to live with shades of grey, much though we may yearn for the simplicities of black and white.



*Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...... etc

**Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I thought all of that nonsense was ended by the unfortunate nature of the George W. Bush administration.

No. It lived on and even got worse after that in some places. And how did you think it came to an end when we have Christians who run bakeries and pizza joints who are demanding they get special privileges to discriminate? Remember hearing about Pence's "frosted dog turd" (Stephen King's words about it) that was his RFRA bill?

h, well, the notion of the U.S. Citizenry having anything resembling "rights" is an illusion I no longer entertain.

Well, not good for you. While you sit back as they are taken away, I'll be there making sure even the deaf will hear about such an injustice.

 

[Earthling]

No. It lived on and even got worse after that in some places. And how did you think it came to an end when we have Christians who run bakeries and pizza joints who are demanding they get special privileges to discriminate?

You mean you want to be able to tell them how to run their business or your rights are violated? What a crock of ****. You guys cry if they don't indoctrinate the kids with your garbage and then insist they offer penis shaped pastries and it's you that's crying about your rights, which, by the way, were ****ing thrown overboard 200 years ago - do some research.

Remember hearing about Pence's "frosted dog turd" (Stephen King's words about it) that was his RFRA bill?

Well, not good for you. While you sit back as they are taken away, I'll be there making sure even the deaf will hear about such an injustice.

I have no idea of what you are talking about. All I know is I haven't had a ****ing smoke in 2 days and I'm poised. Ready to kill.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You mean you want to be able to tell them how to run their business or your rights are violated?

No, I mean that they have to follow the law and serve the public in accordance to the law, and not pick-and-chose who may have their full rights as citizens and who may not have them. Running a business is not a right. The Civil Rights Act is law.

it's you that's crying about your rights, which, by the way, were ****ing thrown overboard 200 years ago - do some research.

Yup. Some religious (Christian) *** hole bigots criminalized being queer (as LBGT was known back then), and many states had laws on the books into the latter part of the 20th century.
Black people had their rights thrown out the window over 200 years ago as well, as did women. Fortunately though the Constitution is not set in stone, it was left open to be amended, and black people have gained their rights, women have gained their rights, various immigrant groups have gained their rights, non-property owning men have been granted further rights, and we in the LBGT community are being granted our rights.
Go cry about that. Religious hatred, bigotry, and prejudice are continually being told to **** off and that is has no place in America.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Creationism is not a theory!!
It is NOT based on science.
Evolution is nor precious but it is fact.

Biblical creation can be taught in schools BUT not in a science lesson.

Creationism could be taught in Oddball Religions class, or perhaps Abnormal Psych class.

Since the majority of theist in the world are not creationists... just a strange (and overly loud for their numbers) small percentage.

 

[exchemist]

Creationism could be taught in Oddball Religions class, or perhaps Abnormal Psych class.

Since the majority of theist in the world are not creationists... just a strange (and overly loud for their numbers) small percentage.

I think creationism is worth taking a bit more seriously than that, actually.

As a phenomenon, by which people are willing to resist rational evidence when it appears to conflict with pre-existing beliefs, it is definitely worthy of study. (We see this in politics and public policy all the time, cf. Trump, Brexit, climate change, etc.) Also, the danger of creationism perverting science is greater if students are not equipped to recognise it for what it is, i.e. a strand of religious belief, rather than evidence-based science. That is why I am all for covering the topic in school, in religious studies. But a 6th form topic I think - one needs a certain maturity to grasp the implications.

 

[BilliardsBall]

One does not allow a debate about football in a maths class.

Similarly, one should not waste time having a debate about sectarian religion in a biology class.

The place to debate creationism is in a religion and philosophy class. Which we have in UK schools, actually.

And that is where my son has discussed creationism - to much laughter, of course, because we are in the UK.

I see, that's brilliant! So then, if God reveals himself to "scientists", they cannot SEE or DISCUSS Him. Good job!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see, that's brilliant! So then, if God reveals himself to "scientists", they cannot SEE or DISCUSS Him. Good job!

Where has God ever revealed himself? If he actually did that you might have a claim. To date all such claims have failed.

 

[exchemist]

I see, that's brilliant! So then, if God reveals himself to "scientists", they cannot SEE or DISCUSS Him. Good job!

If there were to be objective, reproducible evidence of such "revelation", it would in due time appear in the school science curriculum.

However creationists know too little about science to realise that there cannot be such evidence in living things or the regular natural world. One would need something grossly unnatural, like the Second Coming.

P.S. Or perhaps biologists discovering the words "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin" written in some protein sequence somewhere.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Science should be open to dissent. But not to science deniers. If he had a scientific opposition to evolution that would be acceptable, he doesn't. But then most creationists keep themselves ignorant of the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence. Fear is a tool that they use to keep themselves in line.

I've never met a Creationist who was a science denier. I've seen only presentations where they interpret the data in ways that you are uncomfortable with, but no worries, you will go on pressing for the inquisition to return. Good job! Not.

 

[BilliardsBall]

@BilliardsBall and @MrMrdevincamus

You two are missing the point of this issue. If you truly believe human-caused climate change and evolution have scientific weaknesses, then the proper venue to vet your arguments is not in middle and high school classrooms. Both human-caused climate change and evolution are strongly agreed upon by the relevant scientific communities, and as such they warrant inclusion in public school science curricula. If you want your views to be taught alongside them, you need to take the necessary steps to convince the scientific community of their validity.

Just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean it automatically gets taught in science classes.

I understand. Per your line of argumentation, the school is NO place to debate, only to indoctrinate. Welcome to the Inquisition, Torquemada!

 

[exchemist]

I understand. Per your line of argumentation, the school is NO place to debate, only to indoctrinate. Welcome to the Inquisition, Torquemada!

For the second time, a teacher will not permit an off-topic debate in class.

Creationism and ID are religion, not science. This was settled in the Kitzmiller trial. Ergo it cannot be legitimately debated in a biology lesson. Torquemada, Schmorquemada.