Science standards under threat in Arizona

[Woberts]

Now please, let's be honest. Though I am not perfect the score is running roughly 10 to 1 in my favor.

Eh, I would say it's 9 to 1.
After all, their posts are usually funnier.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

Yes, and the school district (s) will spend resources on lawyers fees that would have been better spent on students.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nope. There is an obligation on science teachers to teach science, not anti-science.
You might hate maths and think it a tool of class oppression, but don't expect to get a maths teacher to listen politely to you, when you interrupt a class on the binomial theorem to air your views. If somebody wants to make an argument against science, don't expect to get a hearing in a science class for that.

Religion and anti-science ideas such as "intelligent [sic] design" can be useful to discuss, certainly. But in a religion, philosophy or politics class, not in a biology class. That should be obvious.

All that is obvious is that you love indoctrination and inquisition, not free views, and no surprise, being a typical skeptical annoyance on a religious forum. You would be in my math class saying "To hell with you, this theorem can never be proved, so stop arguing with the teacher!"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Now please, let's be honest. Though I am not perfect the score is running roughly 10 to 1 in my favor.

Finally, honesty. You're not perfect. Neither am I. Therefore, we both need transformation to enter and be a citizen of the coming utopia.

 

[Shaul]

You do realize that most high school students don't just take class called "science", right? The vast majority of them take a class specific to biology. And since evolution is the underlying framework of the biological sciences, it's pretty darned important.


Yeah, I hear the same sort of thing goes on in physics, where they keep going on and on and on about relativity. Sheesh.


Do you have kids in school and/or are in high school yourself? If so, how is it that you're unaware that computer science is a completely different course than biology?


Wait.....you're a friggin' teacher and you were under the impression that there's just one course called "science" that's supposed to cover all of biology, physics, geology, computer science, etc.? Where the heck do you teach?

I never said that there was only one science class. What I said was that the amount of class time dedicated to teaching evolution far exceeds what is needed. I have also said that, because the classroom time is a zero sum, other topics which are more important than evolution don’t get taught. I stand by those assertions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

As opposed to free for all exchange of ideas encouraged in monotheism, you mean?

You clearly know nothing about the Jewish/Hebraic tradition I hail from. Even the Talmud contains people arguing with each other over varied views.

 

[exchemist]

All that is obvious is that you love indoctrination and inquisition, not free views, and no surprise, being a typical skeptical annoyance on a religious forum. You would be in my math class saying "To hell with you, this theorem can never be proved, so stop arguing with the teacher!"

Very funny. It's pointless trying to get a point across to someone like you so I'll stop trying. Have a nice day.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You clearly know nothing about the Jewish/Hebraic tradition I hail from. Even the Talmud contains people arguing with each other over varied views.

So, some argue for evolution, and some for creation?
Or is it polytheism that's argued for?
No?

I'm pretty sure discussions are around interpretations of religious scripture. It's something I think is worthy of respect, for whatever that's worth. But it's not sullied by people bring in tangental world philosophies.

And the science classroom should be teaching the science of the day. The curriculum should change in line with that, and be open about scientific process and methods. It's not the place to be talking about theology any more than a maths class is.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Relevance?

None at all. Its called Trolling.

 

[exchemist]

None at all. Its called Trolling.

You might think that: I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

You do not seem to understand that evolution is both a theory and a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.

By the way, no scientist makes it up as they go along. Perhaps you should work on your understanding of the basics of science. It is really not that hard to understand. Creationists have to work to keep themselves ignorant, which does make it difficult to have a reasonable conversation with them.

As I have said many times characteristics of species do evolve. Evolution is a theory that draws inference(s) from empirical and other research and experimentation. I simply believe that evolution has obvious weak areas and draws the wrong inference from observations. The conclusions are claimed to be fact, but they are not based on empirical experimentation.

 

[exchemist]

As I have said many times characteristics of species do evolve. Evolution is a theory that draws inference(s) from empirical and other research and experimentation. I simply believe that evolution has obvious weak areas and draws the wrong inference from observations. The conclusions are claimed to be fact, but they are not based on empirical experimentation.

Aha this one comes up a lot.

The theory of evolution is obviously not fact: it is a scientific theory like any other. All such theories are models subject, at least in principle, to improvement or overthrow by new observations that do not fit.

But that evolution occurs - by whatever mechanisms - is a demonstrated fact. It has been seen both in laboratories and in nature.

As for empirical experimentation, this is not required in science. What is required is observation. Evolution draws on both experimental observation and observations from nature. Its hypotheses are thus based on solid observational evidence. That is as good as it gets in any theory of science.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

@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.

The position of scientists and laypeople that do not feel global warming is caused by man are being debated in professional venues. Part of the problem this is not well known is the media is not giving equal time to both sides. Its even worse than that! Just as in politics the media shuts down any and all opposing arguments. So much for free speech! News magazines and papers have taken to supporting climate change caused by man, when they should be neutral. Natural climate change has been occurring for 400 million years. Keep an open mind and look at a graph of that fact. The graphs that illustrate heating and cooling cycles resemble nearly perfect sine waves. The same valleys and peaks, long term or short term. I can not believe that we, puny man, can be effecting those natural heating cycles to any significant degree! Pun not intended.... A few volcanoes or a large rock from space or comet, or unruly solar events, or earths wobbling vectors being a little more or less would contribute more greenhouse gas than man could in a thousand years. Ok, yes, I must confess that last statement was a guess.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The position of scientists and laypeople that do not feel global warming is caused by man are being debated in professional venues. Part of the problem this is not well known is the media is not giving equal time to both sides. Its even worse than that! Just as in politics the media shuts down any and all opposing arguments. So much for free speech! News magazines and papers have taken to supporting climate change caused by man, when they should be neutral. Natural climate change has been occurring for 400 million years. Keep an open mind and look at a graph of that fact. The graphs that illustrate heating and cooling cycles resemble nearly perfect sine waves. The same valleys and peaks, long term or short term. I can not believe that we, puny man, can be effecting those natural heating cycles to any significant degree! Pun not intended.... A few volcanoes or a large rock from space or comet, or unruly solar events, or earths wobbling vectors being a little more or less would contribute more greenhouse gas than man could in a thousand years. Ok, yes, I must confess that last statement was a guess.

Wwhy should the media give equal time to both sides of an argument when both sides are not equally supported by the evidence? Should any ridiculous theory be given equal time in the media? Should flat Rarthers and hollow Earthers be given equal time with conventional geographers? Should anti-vaxxers be given equal time with immunologists and epidemiologists? Should people who believe helicopters work because invisible magic flying monkeys carry them be given equal time with aeronautical engineers?

 

[exchemist]

The position of scientists and laypeople that do not feel global warming is caused by man are being debated in professional venues. Part of the problem this is not well known is the media is not giving equal time to both sides. Its even worse than that! Just as in politics the media shuts down any and all opposing arguments. So much for free speech! News magazines and papers have taken to supporting climate change caused by man, when they should be neutral. Natural climate change has been occurring for 400 million years. Keep an open mind and look at a graph of that fact. The graphs that illustrate heating and cooling cycles resemble nearly perfect sine waves. The same valleys and peaks, long term or short term. I can not believe that we, puny man, can be effecting those natural heating cycles to any significant degree! Pun not intended.... A few volcanoes or a large rock from space or comet, or unruly solar events, or earths wobbling vectors being a little more or less would contribute more greenhouse gas than man could in a thousand years. Ok, yes, I must confess that last statement was a guess.

So do you think the aether theory of the cosmos should be taught alongside relativity? Or that the phlogiston theory of combustion should be taught in chemistry?
The denial of anthropogenic climate change is very nearly in the same category now.

This is not due to propaganda, but to a large body of scientific theory corroborated by evidence. Science is not like politics or religion, in which anybody can make up a point of view and seek to justify it rhetorically. Science is tested by reproducible evidence.

You are confusing political debate about climate change with scientific debate. The latter is virtually over, with only a handful of diehards and nutters holding out against climate change either being a high risk or actually occurring already. It is fully justified to teach it and there is no justification at all for giving denial of it equal treatment, though it is reasonable to mention in passing that a handful of sceptics remain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Finally, honesty. You're not perfect. Neither am I. Therefore, we both need transformation to enter and be a citizen of the coming utopia.

that is more than one unjustified assumption on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I have said many times characteristics of species do evolve. Evolution is a theory that draws inference(s) from empirical and other research and experimentation. I simply believe that evolution has obvious weak areas and draws the wrong inference from observations. The conclusions are claimed to be fact, but they are not based on empirical experimentation.

You do not appear to understand how experimentation is done in evolution. Also I see that you deny AGW. Both ideas supported by massive research and experimentation. That would put you in the category of being a science denier.

 

[SkepticThinker]

All that is obvious is that you love indoctrination and inquisition, not free views, and no surprise, being a typical skeptical annoyance on a religious forum. You would be in my math class saying "To hell with you, this theorem can never be proved, so stop arguing with the teacher!"

I encourage you to pick up a science journal and take a look through all the discussion, criticism and argumentation that goes on in the science world.
Maybe then you'll realize how silly your claims sound.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Aha this one comes up a lot.

The theory of evolution is obviously not fact: it is a scientific theory like any other. All such theories are models subject, at least in principle, to improvement or overthrow by new observations that do not fit.

But that evolution occurs - by whatever mechanisms - is a demonstrated fact. It has been seen both in laboratories and in nature.

As for empirical experimentation, this is not required in science. What is required is observation. Evolution draws on both experimental observation and observations from nature. Its hypotheses are thus based on solid observational evidence. That is as good as it gets in any theory of science.

As I have said I agree that evolution within the species does occur, but there is not enough time for the entire process, ie from 3.5b (+) or (-) years ago to present. I think there is plenty time for species to evolve into another similar species, but maybe not enough time for separate phyla to evolve. Time is limited. Everything is a guess on both sides. Of course I am no scientist. But the beauty of the enlightenment is we all can learn, anything if the need arises.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I have said I agree that evolution within the species does occur, but there is not enough time for the entire process, ie from 3.5b (+) or (-) years ago to present. I think there is plenty time for species to evolve into another similar species, but maybe not enough time for separate phyla to evolve. Time is limited. Everything is a guess on both sides. Of course I am no scientist. But the beauty of the enlightenment is we all can learn, anything if the need arises.

There is only one concept that is supported by evidence at this time and it is supported by mountains of it. If you have another concept I would like to hear it and the evidence that supports it. Please make sure that you have a scientific concept. Ideas that fit the category of "not even wrong" are worthless.