Science standards under threat in Arizona

[MrMrdevincamus]

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.

You have a right to your conclusions and claims. Yes man caused global warming is supported by 'evidence'. The trouble is sometimes the so called 'evidence' of AGW is being falsified by those that have a vested interest in the falsification. Tainted evidence that supports AGW means the grant money or tenure is evergreen (does not go away). I love science. The trick is to know how to extract truth out of contaminated evidence that is used to support questionable theory.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

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.

Well said ~

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have a right to your conclusions and claims. Yes man caused global warming is supported by 'evidence'. The trouble is sometimes the so called 'evidence' of AGW is being falsified by those that have a vested interest in the falsification. Tainted evidence that supports AGW means the grant money or tenure is evergreen (does not go away). I love science. The trick is to know how to extract truth out of contaminated evidence that is used to support questionable theory.

Sorry but you continually demonstrate that you are a science denier. Your improper use of scare quotes in this post that you just wrote along with unsubstantiated and probably false claims attests to this flaw of yours.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Yes, it's plain you are no scientist.

What you are saying, by your own admission from a position of ignorance, is that there is not enough time for evolution to have given rise to what we see today - in your (admittedly uninformed) opinion. What value do you expect people to put on that?

Bear in mind that the theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. This is a common confusion made by people who do not understand the science. Evolution is a theory of the origin of species, one from another. Now, it is true that we have extrapolated back a very long way, based on evidence from fossils, genetics and embryology, and the evidence supports common ancestry for all the life we have found. But we do not have a theory of the origin of life, as yet, due to lack of evidence from those early days. Evolution does not need a theory of that in order to be a valid explanation of how, say, birds came from dinosaurs.

As for thinking evolution was unable to go fast enough, new mechanisms are being found all the time in biochemistry. For instance, on another thread I gave the example of the eye. Although this seems to have arisen independently at least 3 times, in molluscs, arthropods and vertebrates, it is found that all three make use of a gene called pax6, which makes some of the materials needed in eye formation. Evolution of the eye did not need to start from scratch each time: it could draw on a toolkit of biochemical components that was already present, accelerating the process considerably. More such discoveries are occurring all the time. So it is, I'm sorry to say, just plain stupid to assert there was not enough time, when you have no idea what the processes were.

 

[Jose Fly]

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!"

Again, provide a standard by which creationism gets taught in science class, but the KKK's views on race don't.

 

[Jose Fly]

I never said that there was only one science class.

Then your comments about evolution taking time away from computer science make no sense.

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.

And what topics are those?

 

[Jose Fly]

The position of scientists and laypeople that do not feel global warming is caused by man are being debated in professional venues.

Where?

Part of the problem this is not well known is the media is not giving equal time to both sides.

Science curricula are not determined by what is and isn't reported in the media. They are based on what the relevant community of scientists consider to be important to convey to students. If the community of climatologists feel global warming is important to teach to students, then it should be taught. If you feel they are wrong, then you need to take your case to those scientists, rather than bypassing them and going straight to the students.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

That's fine for you, but "I believe it, therefore it should be part of public school science curricula" is not at all reasonable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where?

Out there. Somewhere. On the interwebs. They claim to be scientists so of course we can trust them.

Science curricula are not determined by what is and isn't reported in the media. They are based on what the relevant community of scientists consider to be important to convey to students. If the community of climatologists feel global warming is important to teach to students, then it should be taught. If you feel they are wrong, then you need to take your case to those scientists, rather than bypassing them and going straight to the students.

What? You want to limit a scientific discussion to actual tested concepts? Where is the fun in that??

 

[Shaul]

Then your comments about evolution taking time away from computer science make no sense.


And what topics are those?

My comments about evolution taking away from time for other more important topics makes fine sense. Did you not read where I wrote that the number of classroom time is a zero sum? Every hour spent on any subject is an hour that can not be used for any other subject. And I already mention just a partial list of topics that are not taught enough. One example would be genetic engineering and bioinformatics. These two fields employ hundreds of thousands of people and are among the fastest growing fields of employment. How many evolutionary scientists do we need? Nowhere near that many. Yet the class time available for them is diminished to provide more time for evolution. Even for those students that won’t be employed in those fields it is still more important for them to understand these topics than evolution. Young people will be faced with public policy questions about genetic engineering and need to be informed voters on these subjects. Yet we don’t teach enough about them, in part because classroom time is instead used for evolution. And these topics are just one example of many!

Evolution is included in the Common Core standards from fourth through ninth grades. Literally weeks of classroom time. That is entirely too much time to allocate to the subject. Period. One single module in high school, one week only once (which is actually more than needed too), with an exit test could accomplish all the evolution education a public school student needs to be a productive member of society, if that much. Instead ten time that amount of classroom time is wasted on a basically simple subject.

Meanwhile even basic computer science isn’t even required! It is an elective topic.

Do you seriously argue that every student must understand evolution but not computers? Really?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My comments about evolution taking away from time for other more important topics makes fine sense. Did you not read where I wrote that the number of classroom time is a zero sum? Every hour spent on any subject is an hour that can not be used for any other subject. And I already mention just a partial list of topics that are not taught enough. One example would be genetic engineering and bioinformatics. These two fields employ hundreds of thousands of people and are among the fastest growing fields of employment. How many evolutionary scientists do we need? Nowhere near that many. Yet the class time available for them is diminished to provide more time for evolution. Even for those students that won’t be employed in those fields it is still more important for them to understand these topics than evolution. Young people will be faced with public policy questions about genetic engineering and need to be informed voters on these subjects. Yet we don’t teach enough about them, in part because classroom time is instead used for evolution. And these topics are just one example of many!

Evolution is included in the Common Core standards from fourth through ninth grades. Literally weeks of classroom time. That is entirely too much time to allocate to the subject. Period. One single module in high school, one week only once (which is actually more than needed too), with an exit test could accomplish all the evolution education a public school student needs to be a productive member of society, if that much. Instead ten time that amount of classroom time is wasted on a basically simple subject.

Meanwhile even basic computer science isn’t even required! It is an elective topic.

Do you seriously argue that every student must understand evolution but not computers? Really?

The problem was that many, if not all of the examples that you gave, had nothing to do with biology.

When I went to high school, back in the stone ages, evolution was only taught about in biology classes. The subjects you mentioned would not have been taught in biology classes so your "zero sum" claim does not apply here.

 

[Shaul]

The problem was that many, if not all of the examples that you gave, had nothing to do with biology.

When I went to high school, back in the stone ages, evolution was only taught about in biology classes. The subjects you mentioned would not have been taught in biology classes so your "zero sum" claim does not apply here.

Here are the errors you have made. 1) Only students who take biology learn about evolution. Wrong. All students are required to be taught about evolution. 2) There are biology topics uneffected. Incorrect. Both Bioinformatics and genetic engineering fall within biology. 3) Time not allocated for evolution could not be used for non-biology topics. Also wrong. Students that take “general science” (most students) take combined science class which covers all the science field, not just biology topics.

My zero sum argument is validate. Still don’t believe it? Ask any other teacher if more classroom teaching time can be created.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here are the errors you have made. 1) Only students who take biology learn about evolution. Wrong. All students are required to be taught about evolution. 2) There are biology topics uneffected. Incorrect. Both Bioinformatics and genetic engineering fall within biology. 3) Time not allocated for evolution could not be used for non-biology topics. Also wrong. Students that take “general science” (most students) take combined science class which covers all the science field, not just biology topics.

My zero sum argument is validate. Still don’t believe it? Ask any other teacher if more classroom teaching time can be created.

Wrong again. One more time, evolution as a subject tends to be covered only in biology courses. Show me a curriculum outside of biology that covers it. When I took physics in high school we only covered physics. When I took chemistry in high school we only covered chemistry. Your "zero sum" claim fails. Unless you are talking about extremely remedial science only one field tends to be taught in science classes.

You made the bogus claim, you need to support it.

What sort of "school" are you even talking about? By the time I was a freshman there were no general science classes to speak of in my school. But then maybe my high school was a cut or 50 above the one that you supposedly teach at.

 

[Jose Fly]

And I already mention just a partial list of topics that are not taught enough. One example would be genetic engineering and bioinformatics.

That's pretty interesting, since bioinformatics is a direct offshoot of evolutionary theory.

These two fields employ hundreds of thousands of people and are among the fastest growing fields of employment. How many evolutionary scientists do we need? Nowhere near that many.

You're not making sense. Not everyone who takes high school biology is doing so to become an evolutionary biologist.

Yet the class time available for them is diminished to provide more time for evolution. Even for those students that won’t be employed in those fields it is still more important for them to understand these topics than evolution. Young people will be faced with public policy questions about genetic engineering and need to be informed voters on these subjects. Yet we don’t teach enough about them, in part because classroom time is instead used for evolution. And these topics are just one example of many!

Given the above, your comment is pretty funny.

Evolution is included in the Common Core standards from fourth through ninth grades. Literally weeks of classroom time. That is entirely too much time to allocate to the subject. Period. One single module in high school, one week only once (which is actually more than needed too), with an exit test could accomplish all the evolution education a public school student needs to be a productive member of society, if that much. Instead ten time that amount of classroom time is wasted on a basically simple subject.

Your opinions are noted.

Meanwhile even basic computer science isn’t even required! It is an elective topic.

I agree that some level of computer coursework is essential.

Do you seriously argue that every student must understand evolution but not computers? Really?

Never said that at all.

 

[Shaul]

Wrong again. One more time, evolution as a subject tends to be covered only in biology courses. Show me a curriculum outside of biology that covers it. When I took physics in high school we only covered physics. When I took chemistry in high school we only covered chemistry. Your "zero sum" claim fails. Unless you are talking about extremely remedial science only one field tends to be taught in science classes.

You made the bogus claim, you need to support it.

What sort of "school" are you even talking about? By the time I was a freshman there were no general science classes to speak of in my school. But then maybe my high school was a cut or 50 above the one that you supposedly teach at.

The Common Core standards calls for evolution to be taught starting in the third grade. Here’s the support. Natural Selection | Next Generation Science Standards Not a bogus claim. You are just out and out wrong. Evolution is taught to all students. Period. Your statement that only biology class students are taught about evolution is factually wrong.

You don’t even know that all high school students take some sort of science class and that there is a general science class for those that don’t take a specific focused class such as chemistry or biology?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Common Core standards calls for evolution to be taught starting in the third grade. Here’s the support. Natural Selection | Next Generation Science Standards Not a bogus claim. You are just out and out wrong. Evolution is taught to all students. Period. Your statement that only biology class students are taught about evolution is factually wrong.

You don’t even know that all high school students take some sort of science class and that there is a general science class for those that don’t take a specific focused class such as chemistry or biology?

Third grade? Seriously third grade? You are *****ing and moaning about what is taught in third grade. I can't believe it. I was specifically taking about high school. None of the topics that you brought up when you complained about other topics that could be taught are in a sixth grade classes much less a third grade one. Yes, by the time that students graduate from high school they should have a basic understanding of the fundamental concepts of science. That includes evolution. But it is going to be taught in high school. In the appropriate classes. The smattering one gets in elementary school will not get in the way of the other topics that you wish to have taught.

 

[Shaul]

That's pretty interesting, since bioinformatics is a direct offshoot of evolutionary theory.

No, it isn’t. It is a composite field based on genetics, computer science and mathematical modeling.

You're not making sense. Not everyone who takes high school biology is doing so to become an evolutionary biologist.

Well since I did not say that, your point is moot. What I said was the amount of time given over to teaching evolution is disproportionate to the need. That is true whether that evolution teaching time is performed in a biology specific class or some other science class. And, again, yes evolution is taught in other science classes and not just biology specific classes. High schools offer integrated science classes for students that are not pursuing college tracks. Basically a survey of the sciences. Those classes teach evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, it isn’t. It is a composite field based on genetics, computer science and mathematical modeling.

Um.....yes it is. The sequencing of genomes is rooted in our understanding of how they evolve over time and how different taxa are related to each other.

What I said was the amount of time given over to teaching evolution is disproportionate to the need.

That's your opinion, and obviously the relevant scientific community disagrees with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um.....yes it is. The sequencing of genomes is rooted in our understanding of how they evolve over time and how different taxa are related to each other.


That's your opinion, and obviously the relevant scientific community disagrees with you.

I think that he simply does not like the fact that evolution is taught in schools at all. Oddly enough his specific examples are not the sort of classes that are apt to be taught in high school at all. They are far too specialized and rely on more knowledge than one will get in a high school education. In elementary school exceedingly basic concepts are taught. Evolution will hardly affect his "zero sum" claim.

 

[gnostic]

You have a right to your conclusions and claims. Yes man caused global warming is supported by 'evidence'. The trouble is sometimes the so called 'evidence' of AGW is being falsified by those that have a vested interest in the falsification. Tainted evidence that supports AGW means the grant money or tenure is evergreen (does not go away). I love science. The trick is to know how to extract truth out of contaminated evidence that is used to support questionable theory.

And you don’t think the oil companies, coal-mining companies, the loggers, the car companies and other companies related to the businesses and cause of pollution, don’t have any financial agenda and don’t falsified records and number again for agendas?

Are you really seriously that the worse polluting companies don’t make false statements?

Are you really that naive?

To the companies, it is all about making profits, and the best ways to do that is to provide false information and bribing governments with funds to take their sides.