or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Should criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms? - Page 3

post #81 of 525
studying the evolution history is studying all the storie of living-kind : an infinite sea of knowledge. For the moment we only know a very, very small amount of it. From the few, that we know, scientist elaborate theories, and the most popular one was the evolutionnary one.

As the amount of knowledge is increasing each day, some elements came in contradiction of the theory. In this case, you make her evolve, or you change it for a better one.
post #82 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
It is because it is... sounds more like zen then science to me.

Nick

if zen=scientific logic then i completely agree
post #83 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook


Evolution is junk science with an agenda.


No, evolution is the best collection of theories to come along to explain how we got here, scientifically and without a bunch of fairy tales and myths. Creation traditions can't do that.

Are there BAD parts of evolution? Sure. Do some evolutionistas have an agenda? Absolutely. But you need to separate the AGENDA from the SCIENCE. As with most other things. Just because some folks with a political agenda promote evolution doesn't mean that evolution is flawed or purely political.

As for Creationism, should we also teach the creation story of ALL religious traditions? If we teach Christian creation, shouldn't we also teach the Hindu creation story (upon which the Christian story is based anyway), and the Greek creation story, etc.?

Now, before anyone slams me as some kind of pagan (not that there's anything WRONG with that), I'll ask a simple question: Who or what set up evolution and made sure that all the little things went right?

Regardless of whether you believe in the Garden of Eden, you have to ask yourself "Who started the clock?" Maybe nobody, but it's a valid question, and it takes into account all of the things that mankind has found with its collective mind over the past 50,000 years.
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
post #84 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

Scientists in good conscience cannot say, well it just happened this when literally every variable turned out just right.

That's a crock of shit. Nothing turned out 'just right'. That's a bigger assumption than any evolutionist makes. Nothing is 'just right', it just is. It works now, but things can and do function better or worse than they are right now.

You're the one working backwards, not the evolutionists timing how long it would take to create the eye. You're mindset is one trying to figure out how 'nature' could create such a perfect scenario out of random chance. The thing is, this is not such a perfect scenario.

The eye is a great example. How could it be 'just right' if it doesn't zoom? If it's so easily destroyed? If it degenerates over time? If its peripheral vision is not 360 degrees? If it can't see in the dark? If it needs two for three dimensional vision?

Like the knee, it works well enough. It's severely flawed though. It's a crutch until the next best thing comes along.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #85 of 525
That said, I'll repeat, isn't criticism of evolutionary theory already taught in science classrooms?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #86 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
That said, I'll repeat, isn't criticism of evolutionary theory already taught in science classrooms?

No. Kids are brainwashed to become evolutionist-atheist-communist-homosexual-welfare-dependents.
post #87 of 525
Trumptman, now having spent a lot of energy in this thread denouncing evolution and related sciences, what is your pet theory on the origin of the Universe and life? I guess you must have some thoughts on it?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #88 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by finboy
{snip}

what are you some kind of pagan?
post #89 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell

Kids are brainwashed to become evolutionist - atheist - communist - homosexual - welfare - dependents.

Huh. And I used to think it just came naturally to me.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #90 of 525
Quote:
No. Kids are brainwashed to become evolutionist-atheist-communist-homosexual-welfare-dependents.

HA! now i know why my teachers were so pissed about me skipping all those classes.
post #91 of 525
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
That's a crock of shit. Nothing turned out 'just right'. That's a bigger assumption than any evolutionist makes. Nothing is 'just right', it just is. It works now, but things can and do function better or worse than they are right now.

You're the one working backwards, not the evolutionists timing how long it would take to create the eye. You're mindset is one trying to figure out how 'nature' could create such a perfect scenario out of random chance. The thing is, this is not such a perfect scenario.

The eye is a great example. How could it be 'just right' if it doesn't zoom? If it's so easily destroyed? If it degenerates over time? If its peripheral vision is not 360 degrees? If it can't see in the dark? If it needs two for three dimensional vision?

Like the knee, it works well enough. It's severely flawed though. It's a crutch until the next best thing comes along.

Well as for your more perfect eye scenarios you should ask an evolutionist. He is the one to best answer why we haven't all evolved to have telephoto eyeballs. Amazingly enough the program run by the evolutionary proponants never evolved a second lens as well. Then again perhaps you answer some of your own questions. I'm sure someone who believes in evolution would argue that the necessity of a second lens that not only focuses but must move forward and backwards adds even more complexity and likelyhood of breakdown within an eyeball. Some of the others I don't quite get because although we don't see in the dark, some animals do. Likewise we do have three dimensional vision.

Likewise I didn't set up the experiment. I even posted it from talkorigins. They determined the final result and saw how long it took to get there. I simply pointed out that with evolution, the final outcome couldn't be known beforehand and that as a result it was a flawed experiment. Evolution proponants often just dismiss this with a "well it's here so it must have worked out that way." I do not give that leeway.

The turning out "just right" is related to how our universe and the laws within it are arranged. They are so coincidentally "just right" that it moves well beyond chance. While life might have multiple chances to get it right with evolution, there is, as far as we know only one universe and it just happened to pop out right the first time. This is so unlikely that the multiverse theory has been proposed to account for all the times the attempts at a universe didn't get it right. Think of it as evolution but with universes instead of animals and plants. I posted a link to it from Scientific American and it is a valid theory. It is also likely completely untestable and would require as much faith as any religion.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #92 of 525
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by finboy
No, evolution is the best collection of theories to come along to explain how we got here, scientifically and without a bunch of fairy tales and myths. Creation traditions can't do that.

Are there BAD parts of evolution? Sure. Do some evolutionistas have an agenda? Absolutely. But you need to separate the AGENDA from the SCIENCE. As with most other things. Just because some folks with a political agenda promote evolution doesn't mean that evolution is flawed or purely political.

As for Creationism, should we also teach the creation story of ALL religious traditions? If we teach Christian creation, shouldn't we also teach the Hindu creation story (upon which the Christian story is based anyway), and the Greek creation story, etc.?

Now, before anyone slams me as some kind of pagan (not that there's anything WRONG with that), I'll ask a simple question: Who or what set up evolution and made sure that all the little things went right?

Regardless of whether you believe in the Garden of Eden, you have to ask yourself "Who started the clock?" Maybe nobody, but it's a valid question, and it takes into account all of the things that mankind has found with its collective mind over the past 50,000 years.

No the better question is to ask, why is there a clock. Space-time doesn't have to set up in the manner it just happens to be. Likewise just because you experience time in a linear manner related to the objects around you here on earth doesn't mean it is the only way it exists.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #93 of 525
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
That said, I'll repeat, isn't criticism of evolutionary theory already taught in science classrooms?

No in fact most people, as witnessed here get upset if you suggest aspects of evolution are anything but a fact, not even a theory.

Bunge, if anything you should be completely for this. Students will likely feel better about their belief in evolution if they know about the flaws in it and just choose to accept them. If they get a half-teaching and then get blind-sided about the flaws in it, they will feel like they were given propoganda and will become skeptical about it.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #94 of 525
So your argument is "There must be a god because things are the way they are".

Sounds like zen to me. Maybe you should try buddhism one of these days...
post #95 of 525
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Trumptman, now having spent a lot of energy in this thread denouncing evolution and related sciences, what is your pet theory on the origin of the Universe and life? I guess you must have some thoughts on it?

I haven't denounced "related sciences" if anything I have said that chemistry is getting ready to help revolutionize biology. An interdisciplinary field bio-chemistry has to confront serious problems with evolution at the molecular level.

I would be more than happen to have you quote from this thread where I have denouncing science. You are showing your own biases here.

As for the origin of the universe and life, if you start a thread on it, I likely will post there. However this thread has a title and a topic. I prefer to keep to them.

BTW, Sammi Jo have you actually answered the topic yet? Do you believe that scientific criticisms of evolution should be presented along with the teaching of the theory? Or do you believe in information and thought control?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #96 of 525
Quote:
There are so many parameters that are tuned to have life on earth that it makes it unlikely there is life anywhere else in the universe.

The universe is big and we currently have a rather small sample size (one planet in one solar system). There is life nearly everywhere on earth.

The anthropic principle and irreducible complexity: these must be invoked in every thread on evolution.
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #97 of 525
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by amyklai
So your argument is "There must be a god because things are the way they are".

Sounds like zen to me. Maybe you should try buddhism one of these days...

Perhaps you should learn to quote people. It is the little button down there on the lower right.

Then you wouldn't have to misquote them and as a result misjudge them.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #98 of 525
Trumptman,

Powerdoc answered your question in one of his first posts. I highly doubt you are an expert on education. If you're looking for answers, then there is a ton of research on education for you to look through if you're interested. I'm not sure any of us can fully answer your question without said research. We can offer opinions- mostly uninformed/ some informed, but you certainly won't find answers from us. I think this is a topic best suited for yourself to find out about, since the topic is generally speaking one involving teaching theory- not evolution.
post #99 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
{snip}

i dont think you get it. the universe is observable, no? that means quite simply that it is stable enough to be observed. that means the physical laws governing it are just one set (perhaps the only set -- this is where the multiverse part comes in, because mathmatically it may be provable that a different set of laws can lead to a stable system) of many that lead to a stable universe that is observable. if it was not stable, ie its existence terminated before any creature was able to observe it, it wouldnt be observed, that simple.

because we observe it must mean it is observable, right? that means it falls into a category of things that exist for said amount of time, for instance, if the earth was really only 6000 years old, our observing it now would mean that within some limitations, its half life is at least that long (i am assuming that tomorrow there is a 50/50 shot that earth will disappear in a puff of smoke). because we observe it must mean that it has existed while we observed it, you cannot observe transient things for longer than they exist. the universe is the way we see it because it is stable enough to have been observed by us. if the universe fell apart moments after its birth (which by the way, i think is a conceptional reminant of creation theory), we wouldnt see it, we wouldnt be around to see it...

perfect means observable in describing the universe. and that is just it.
post #100 of 525
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Trumptman,

Powerdoc answered your question in one of his first posts. I highly doubt you are an expert on education. If you're looking for answers, then there is a ton of research on education for you to look through if you're interested. I'm not sure any of us can fully answer your question without said research. We can offer opinions- mostly uninformed/ some informed, but you certainly won't find answers from us. I think this is a topic best suited for yourself to find out about, since the topic is generally speaking one involving teaching theory- not evolution.

Why would you doubt an educator is not an expert on education?

As for the layperson, regardless of whether they are expert educators, they do vote people onto school boards. Likewise the school board members are often not "expert educators" nor are they even scientists.

So the topic is best asked of the general populace because in the U.S. that is who decides what the "expert educators" will teach to our children. School boards address k-12 education which most people have experienced and feel fit and knowledgeable enough to comment and address with regard to curriculum.

Evolutionary information shouldn't be restricted. The criticisms of scientists should be presented. The folks here saying that evolution information should be restricted would likely argue for more information in almost every other aspect of life. I am just appealing to them to be consistant.

Lastly I was not asking HOW something should be taught. The theory about the best way to teach something would be educational theory. I was asking about WHAT should be taught which is curriculum. Educators at the k-12 level, for better or worse, have this decided for them by a combination of state legislators and school boards.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #101 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Why would you doubt an educator is not an expert on education?

As for the layperson, regardless of whether they are expert educators, they do vote people onto school boards. Likewise the school board members are often not "expert educators" nor are they even scientists.

So the topic is best asked of the general populace because in the U.S. that is who decides what the "expert educators" will teach to our children. School boards address k-12 education which most people have experienced and feel fit and knowledgeable enough to comment and address with regard to curriculum.

Evolutionary information shouldn't be restricted. The criticisms of scientists should be presented. The folks here saying that evolution information should be restricted would likely argue for more information in almost every other aspect of life. I am just appealing to them to be consistant.

Lastly I was not asking HOW something should be taught. The theory about the best way to teach something would be educational theory. I was asking about WHAT should be taught which is curriculum. Educators at the k-12 level, for better or worse, have this decided for them by a combination of state legislators and school boards.

Nick

BULL.

Being an educator DOES NOT automatically qualify you as an expert on education itself. You merely have experience in the field. That DOES NOT mean you have expert knowledge of curriculum theory. Take this excerpt from

Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues by Ornstein and Hunkins:

Quote:
Curriculum is a complex phenomenon. Although few curricularists agree on all theoretical aspects of the field, they realize that they must advance their understanding of it if they are to conceptualize and develop curricula of value for students.

It is completely without merit to suggest that the general population is best suited for making decisions about curriculum. They may be the ones who eventually make some of the decisions, but it is only logical to suggest that the best informed are "best suited" to decide.

Not the soccer mom.

Furthermore, you separate "HOW" and "WHAT" like you can actually do that. Tell me how introducing criticism of evolution on whatever scale you want does not pertain to both WHAT will be taught and HOW it will be taught.
post #102 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
So the topic is best asked of the general populace because in the U.S. that is who decides what the "expert educators" will teach to our children. School boards address k-12 education which most people have experienced and feel fit and knowledgeable enough to comment and address with regard to curriculum.

Evolutionary information shouldn't be restricted. The criticisms of scientists should be presented. The folks here saying that evolution information should be restricted would likely argue for more information in almost every other aspect of life. I am just appealing to them to be consistant.

But your question was whether criticism of evolution should be mandated, not whether it should be permitted.

I assume that in school the teacher will frequently say "we know this," "we don't know this," etc. Why would it be any different for evolution?

Here are some fossils, some plant life, etc. But we still haven't found and don't know what all the pre-human life forms look like, for example. I just can't believe someone teaching biology or geology is going to say "we know all there is to know." Of course they're going to teach about areas of uncertainty. That's one of the exciting things about science - kids say "maybe I'll try to discover that."

Is this really how it is in education - that a school board would determine that the teacher has to say certain things? I know higher ed faculty would laugh someone out of the room if they talked about mandating what they have to teach.
post #103 of 525
Quote:
BTW, Sammi Jo have you actually answered the topic yet? Do you believe that scientific criticisms of evolution should be presented along with the teaching of the theory? Or do you believe in information and thought control?:
Nick [/B]

Of course I do!...that is, I sanction any scientific criticism...specially when it is aimed at theories which are incomplete or only partially proven...as is evolution. On the other hand, the misrepresentation and teaching of biblical (and other) myths and fairytales as scientific fact gets me at it.

Re. information and thought control...um, no...thats the bailiwick of the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Lowell Mays.... unfortunately.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #104 of 525
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
BULL.

Being an educator DOES NOT automatically qualify you as an expert on education itself. You merely have experience in the field. That DOES NOT mean you have expert knowledge of curriculum theory. Take this excerpt from

Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues by Ornstein and Hunkins:



It is completely without merit to suggest that the general population is best suited for making decisions about curriculum. They may be the ones who eventually make some of the decisions, but it is only logical to suggest that the best informed are "best suited" to decide.

Not the soccer mom.

Furthermore, you separate "HOW" and "WHAT" like you can actually do that. Tell me how introducing criticism of evolution on whatever scale you want does not pertain to both WHAT will be taught and HOW it will be taught.

I really don't care to have you sidetrack this thread. To put it bluntly curriculum and education are not the same thing. Being an educational expert does not make you a curricular expert and the reverse is true as well. As you go forward in your studies you essentually study more and more about less and less. There are positives and negatives to this approach from my perspective. I have for example seen teaching programs come from curricular experts that obviously did not consider any sort of classroom management.

Expert is defined as:
(n)A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.
(v) Having, involving, or demonstrating great skill, dexterity, or knowledge as the result of experience or training.

I would say that any teacher who has completed a degree program and a credential program would be an educational expert. Likewise a teacher with experience shows more expertise than a beginning teacher and so on. If you do not consider a person a degree and certificate/credential to be an expert, then you practice a form of elitism that I won't try to argue you out of. You claim experience does not equal expertise when that is simply not true. Likewise a person can be an expert at something with absolutely no formal education. Are you going to suggest that the Beatles for example were not expert songwriters because they don't have a masters in commercial music composing?

I did not suggest that the general populace were best suited for determining curriculum. I simply stated that this was the way the current system works. Since I don't have the ability to alter that fact nationwide I have to work within that system.

However even you should understand that if you are going to tell the majority of the population that they are fools and they should have no say in what their children learn, the public schools would cease to be public very quickly. Public schools serve the public and thus the public makes decisions regarding them. If you don't like it, go sit in an ivory tower.

As for the seperating the what and how of the curriculum. I guess I assumed you were a "curricular expert" and could understand the difference. The "what" right now is state and national standards. The standard would likely state that the students should have a clear understand of the theory of evolution and how the processes associated with it work.

Penn Ed Standards

Here is what Pennsylvania has for their state standards on evolution. This is the requirement for grade 12.

D. Analyze the theory of evolution.
* Examine human history by describing the progression from early hominids to modern humans.
* apply the concept of natural selection as a central concept in illustrating evolution theory.

I would just add another bullet that says

* Examine scientific arguments that discuss potential problems with evolutionary theory

Textbook makers hire "curricular experts" or teachers and others with doctorates in curriculum and development, along with experts in the respective fields and writers to help produce textbooks that states then approve for purchase.

The teachers in the district pilot a book or two and make a recommendation. The board decides to either use this recommendation or make a decision of their own. They often go with the teacher recommendation assuming that there is money to purchase the program.

The "how" is the actual teaching. This is why two teachers can get the same book and one of them is going to be teacher of the year and another is going to hand you an unending stream of worksheets to complete.

I believe a good teacher would lead a socratic type discussion on evolution that would lead to questions about both the well defined aspects and the flaws. The students are welcome to question and likewise draw their own personal conclusions about the disputed parts of evolution. Regardless they must demonstrate a generalized knowledge of evolution regarding the process of natural selection, vocacbulary related to evolution, and so forth.

I believe a bad teacher would lecture and likely just give you a worksheet or two with blanks to fill in. They tell you to read and just repeat back the information likely demonstrated via a test with multiple choice questions. No thought, no discussion.

The how can have very little to do with the what of teaching.

As for your quote, it to me indicates that even the "experts" have little idea of what is the idea curriculum. They say there is little agreement. This is likely because education as a field has little research into how people actually learn. It is more philosophy than science. Again I am not declaring one better, just stating the facts of the matter. Since we do not have a clear understanding of consciousness, unconsciousness, thinking, what is speech, etc. It is not likely to be resolved any time soon.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #105 of 525
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
But your question was whether criticism of evolution should be mandated, not whether it should be permitted.

I assume that in school the teacher will frequently say "we know this," "we don't know this," etc. Why would it be any different for evolution?

Here are some fossils, some plant life, etc. But we still haven't found and don't know what all the pre-human life forms look like, for example. I just can't believe someone teaching biology or geology is going to say "we know all there is to know." Of course they're going to teach about areas of uncertainty. That's one of the exciting things about science - kids say "maybe I'll try to discover that."

Is this really how it is in education - that a school board would determine that the teacher has to say certain things? I know higher ed faculty would laugh someone out of the room if they talked about mandating what they have to teach.

Do they determine the words that physically roll out of your mouth?...no.

Do they determine what is to be taught and sometimes when it will be taught?....yes.

Could you be fired for not teaching the state board of education and school board of education approved curriculum?....yes.

Higher ed has the nice non-problem of being mostly private. Public k-12 schools have no such luxury. However they also have to deal with and serve about 20-25% of the population where as public education has to deal with 100% of the population.

There is some leeway, but like most things in life, it is isn't written down and someone is breathing down your neck, it can be a problem. Much like how the police could determine you are "loitering" if they wanted to harass you.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #106 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Do they determine the words that physically roll out of your mouth?...no.

Do they determine what is to be taught and sometimes when it will be taught?....yes.

Could you be fired for not teaching the state board of education and school board of education approved curriculum?....yes.

Higher ed has the nice non-problem of being mostly private. Public k-12 schools have no such luxury. However they also have to deal with and serve about 20-25% of the population where as public education has to deal with 100% of the population.

There is some leeway, but like most things in life, it is isn't written down and someone is breathing down your neck, it can be a problem. Much like how the police could determine you are "loitering" if they wanted to harass you.

Nick

as an educator you also have to realize the power parents have over what topics are introduced to their children when. it is also apparent that the teaching of creation theory is completely different than the teaching of the scientific critisisms of evolution or the big bang. science belongs in school any sort of religion does not.
parents have the choice to teach their children religious views...
post #107 of 525
oops
post #108 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman \t
I really don't care to have you sidetrack this thread. To put it bluntly curriculum and education are not the same thing. Being an educational expert does not make you a curricular expert and the reverse is true as well. As you go forward in your studies you essentually study more and more about less and less. There are positives and negatives to this approach from my perspective. I have for example seen teaching programs come from curricular experts that obviously did not consider any sort of classroom management.
Nick

Stop whining about nonexistent thread sidetracking. This thread is not about evolution. It's ?pedagogic? question. Powerdoc noted that in one of his first posts to which I believe you still have not responded.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman \t
I would say that any teacher who has completed a degree program and a credential program would be an educational expert. Likewise a teacher with experience shows more expertise than a beginning teacher and so on. If you do not consider a person a degree and certificate/credential to be an expert, then you practice a form of elitism that I won't try to argue you out of. You claim experience does not equal expertise when that is simply not true. Likewise a person can be an expert at something with absolutely no formal education. Are you going to suggest that the Beatles for example were not expert songwriters because they don't have a masters in commercial music composing?

Somewhere in the middle you manage to call me an incorrigible elitist.

Nice.

Since you merely responded with the opposite of my claim, I will repeat myself. Being an educator does not automatically qualify you as an expert on education itself. There is an entire academic field devoted to researching, understanding, and developing educational theories. If you think that a high school teacher with just classroom experience and a degree possesses the same expert level of understanding of educational theory as people who devote their entire careers to the field of research in education, then you are mistaken.

I encourage you, as a self-described ?educator,? to read up on the research so you can answer the question you have regarding the best way to teach evolution.

Science is taught in schools, not religion. Creationism(s) should not be taught (in science classes) because it/they is/are a religious understanding of the universe- not a scientific one. As a result, and very much like Powerdoc said, teachers should teach evolution like any other scientific theory. I don?t believe special exceptions should be made because of different religious understandings.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I did not suggest that the general populace were best suited for determining curriculum. I simply stated that this was the way the current system works. Since I don't have the ability to alter that fact nationwide I have to work within that system.

That?s fine then.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
However even you should understand that if you are going to tell the majority of the population that they are fools and they should have no say in what their children learn, the public schools would cease to be public very quickly. Public schools serve the public and thus the public makes decisions regarding them. If you don't like it, go sit in an ivory tower.

Am I?

I am saying that the majority of the population has no clue about education as an academic field. They are apt to forcing school boards to ban books (or elect school board members who ban books) which subsequently reduce the knowledge you claim to desire. Nevertheless, they should have some say in what their children learn.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman \t
As for the seperating the what and how of the curriculum. I guess I assumed you were a "curricular expert" and could understand the difference.

Boy, you thought wrong! Dumb old me!

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman \t
The "what" right now is state and national standards. The standard would likely state that the students should have a clear understand of the theory of evolution and how the processes associated with it work.

Penn Ed Standards

Here is what Pennsylvania has for their state standards on evolution. This is the requirement for grade 12.

D. Analyze the theory of evolution.
* Examine human history by describing the progression from early hominids to modern humans.
* apply the concept of natural selection as a central concept in illustrating evolution theory.

I would just add another bullet that says

* Examine scientific arguments that discuss potential problems with evolutionary theory

Textbook makers hire "curricular experts" or teachers and others with doctorates in curriculum and development, along with experts in the respective fields and writers to help produce textbooks that states then approve for purchase.

The teachers in the district pilot a book or two and make a recommendation. The board decides to either use this recommendation or make a decision of their own. They often go with the teacher recommendation assuming that there is money to purchase the program.

The "how" is the actual teaching. This is why two teachers can get the same book and one of them is going to be teacher of the year and another is going to hand you an unending stream of worksheets to complete.

I believe a good teacher would lead a socratic type discussion on evolution that would lead to questions about both the well defined aspects and the flaws. The students are welcome to question and likewise draw their own personal conclusions about the disputed parts of evolution. Regardless they must demonstrate a generalized knowledge of evolution regarding the process of natural selection, vocacbulary related to evolution, and so forth.

I believe a bad teacher would lecture and likely just give you a worksheet or two with blanks to fill in. They tell you to read and just repeat back the information likely demonstrated via a test with multiple choice questions. No thought, no discussion.

The how can have very little to do with the what of teaching.

As for your quote, it to me indicates that even the "experts" have little idea of what is the idea curriculum. They say there is little agreement. This is likely because education as a field has little research into how people actually learn. It is more philosophy than science. Again I am not declaring one better, just stating the facts of the matter. Since we do not have a clear understanding of consciousness, unconsciousness, thinking, what is speech, etc. It is not likely to be resolved any time soon.


Bah,

Agree.
Agree.
Agree.
Agree if appropriate to curriculum?.
Maybe the Socratic method works well in some areas. In others, maybe not.
Agree
Disagree completely. That?s your opinion on the matter, not ?fact.?
post #109 of 525
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
as an educator you also have to realize the power parents have over what topics are introduced to their children when. it is also apparent that the teaching of creation theory is completely different than the teaching of the scientific critisisms of evolution or the big bang. science belongs in school any sort of religion does not.
parents have the choice to teach their children religious views...

Billybob,

Can you point to where I said anything about religion or creation and the advocation thereof in this thread?

I find it astonishing that a criticism of evolution = must be religioius psycho to so many people here.

Keep deluding yourself,

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #110 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Billybob,

Can you point to where I said anything about religion or creation and the advocation thereof in this thread?

I find it astonishing that a criticism of evolution = must be religioius psycho to so many people here.

Keep deluding yourself,

Nick

Greetings, I am enjoying the conversation. I would add it is not a fringe group that makes up those who would like to evaluate to a critical level evolution.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #111 of 525
Evolution is a total failure as a theory---it simply doesn't address the many obvious questions of mechanics, symbiosis, and ecology that thinking people will naturally ask.

There is no roadmap that explicitly tells anyone how rocks turned into human beings. You just have to accept the theory in blind faith.

It needs critisism in a big hurry.
post #112 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

The turning out "just right" is related to how our universe and the laws within it are arranged. They are so coincidentally "just right" that it moves well beyond chance. While life might have multiple chances to get it right with evolution, there is, as far as we know only one universe and it just happened to pop out right the first time. This is so unlikely that the multiverse theory has been proposed to account for all the times the attempts at a universe didn't get it right. Think of it as evolution but with universes instead of animals and plants. I posted a link to it from Scientific American and it is a valid theory. It is also likely completely untestable and would require as much faith as any religion.

To me this thinking is beyond flawed. 'Life' is not sacrosanct. It's not magical. It's no different than the growth of a mountain or a sunspot. To you and me it sure feels different, but it's just no different than gravity and the flow of lava or water currents.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #113 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

Bunge, if anything you should be completely for this.

I think I am completely for what you're saying, but I also think it happens right now. I mean, I was taught about the theory of evolution. I probably had some good teachers though (not that it rubbed off on me), and they were smart enough to know the difference between fact and theory.

Mandated? I guess I don't think criticism of evolutionary theory should be mandated because it shouldn't be singled out. Criticism of theory should be mandated though, and evolution should be taught as a theory. To me that's hugely different than what the title of this thread is saying.

Although in essence we agree.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #114 of 525
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Stop whining about nonexistent thread sidetracking. This thread is not about evolution. It's ?pedagogic? question. Powerdoc noted that in one of his first posts to which I believe you still have not responded.

Somewhere in the middle you manage to call me an incorrigible elitist.

Nice.

Since you merely responded with the opposite of my claim, I will repeat myself. Being an educator does not automatically qualify you as an expert on education itself. There is an entire academic field devoted to researching, understanding, and developing educational theories. If you think that a high school teacher with just classroom experience and a degree possesses the same expert level of understanding of educational theory as people who devote their entire careers to the field of research in education, then you are mistaken.

I encourage you, as a self-described ?educator,? to read up on the research so you can answer the question you have regarding the best way to teach evolution.

Science is taught in schools, not religion. Creationism(s) should not be taught (in science classes) because it/they is/are a religious understanding of the universe- not a scientific one. As a result, and very much like Powerdoc said, teachers should teach evolution like any other scientific theory. I don?t believe special exceptions should be made because of different religious understandings.

That?s fine then.

Am I?

I am saying that the majority of the population has no clue about education as an academic field. They are apt to forcing school boards to ban books (or elect school board members who ban books) which subsequently reduce the knowledge you claim to desire. Nevertheless, they should have some say in what their children learn.

Boy, you thought wrong! Dumb old me!

Bah,

Agree.
Agree.
Agree.
Agree if appropriate to curriculum?.
Maybe the Socratic method works well in some areas. In others, maybe not.
Agree
Disagree completely. That?s your opinion on the matter, not ?fact.?

First I do not understand what question Powerdoc asked that I somehow ignored. Please just quote it and I will attempt to address it.

As for calling you an elitist, your view of what constitutes an expert leads me to that label. You basically claim that you cannot have expertise in an area without conducting research. That is simply not true. You say that a high school teacher would not have the same level expertise as someone who devotes their entire career in an academic field doing research, developing and understanding theories is nonsense. You could spend your entire live studying Mozart and still not be able to write a decent tune yourself. Notice that in your list of duties you never actually included teaching. Knowledge without application does one no good.

All teachers must get a credential. While getting this credential you study, (drumroll) educational research so you may apply it when you are teaching. Having read several tons of it, I can tell you that most of it is of poor quality and deals more with political issues than research.

The reason why most of it is of poor quality is again because dealing with how we learn is really about brain research. Until we deal with that it is all pretty much just political conjecture. You call the fact that we don't know how the brain works my "opinion" when it is a plain fact. I gave clear examples of things we don't yet understand regarding the brain, you just dismissed them. Likewise we do not understand how the brain processes knowledge or even the true nature of memory.

Likewise what good is knowledge if it is not applied? In your own intended field are the only "experts" those who teach and research case law? Will you not consider yourself to be an expert at law once you have passed the bar and have your doctorate? If you are practicing law instead of researching it does that mean you are no longer an expert? Lastly would you give more credence to someone who has never tried a case, but has researched several over someone who has tried similar cases several times? One last point is that even though there may be someone with more expertise than you, (and there always is someone) that does not mean you are not an expert yourself.

Again you would wonder why I label you an elitist when after calling parents backward(book burning) and clueless, you concede they should have "some" say about their own children. How nice of you.

Lastly you "encouraged" me to read up on research so I could answer the question regarding the teaching of evolution. This would be fine except for a) I have already read reams of research and b) I did already answer the question. I stated the example about the Socratic discussion.

I did not state that evolution should be treated differently because of religious concerns. (nor have I for about the 44th time this thread) However evolution is unique because science involves observing, classifying, inferring, predicting, measuring, hypothesizing, experimenting and interpreting data.

None of these can be done with the theory of evolution. Biology as a science involves classifying and observing life. Evolution cannot be used to classify something. I cannot predict the results of an evolution experiment nor measure them. I cannot hypothesize the result of an experiment involving macroevolution nor interpret the data.

Evolution is thus, presented, usually as fact and left at that. In Chemistry and Physics you conduct experiments and solve proofs. In Biology, Geology and other related fields for example you spend a lot of time classifying and comparing. There is no associated activity that can be done with evolution where students can draw a deeper understanding. That is why it is different.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #115 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by ena

It needs critisism in a big hurry.

Definitely, especially if we want this thread to carry any weight. As far as I can tell, there are some people criticising evolution without any specific examples. If it's so bad, let's see the meat. It's certainly better than creationism, the usual alternative. So if we're into criticism of the theory, let's see some facts. Otherwise this thread should probably run aground.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #116 of 525
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I think I am completely for what you're saying, but I also think it happens right now. I mean, I was taught about the theory of evolution. I probably had some good teachers though (not that it rubbed off on me), and they were smart enough to know the difference between fact and theory.

Mandated? I guess I don't think criticism of evolutionary theory should be mandated because it shouldn't be singled out. Criticism of theory should be mandated though, and evolution should be taught as a theory. To me that's hugely different than what the title of this thread is saying.

Although in essence we agree.

Would you answer me this if you could, (I understand it might be hard to recall I would have to go back 16+ years myself) how were you taught the theory of evolution?

As for what you said in your second paragraph. I would say that we do agree and I am fine with what you explained.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #117 of 525
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Greetings, I am enjoying the conversation. I would add it is not a fringe group that makes up those who would like to evaluate to a critical level evolution.

Fellows

I understand Fellow but some here paint with a broad brush.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #118 of 525
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

Evolution is thus, presented, usually as fact and left at that. In Chemistry and Physics you conduct experiments and solve proofs. In Biology, Geology and other related fields for example you spend a lot of time classifying and comparing. There is no associated activity that can be done with evolution where students can draw a deeper understanding. That is why it is different.

I think you're simplifying things a bit. Evolution is usually presented as the best option, at least in high school and above. At this point it's relied on as a jumping off point for other studies since there is no better option. Science though, like with everything, is looking for better options.

Until one is found, the rest of science isn't going to wait though. Scientists will assume evolution is correct because they need to continue to move forward. They can't afford to wait until the creationist/evolutionist/somethingist debate is solved. Science doesn't wait for exact answers because in some cases it will never arrive.

Until a better solution arrives science needs to rely on evolution. But science uses it as a foundation but always keeps an eye on it. No science leaves an uncertain foundation unchecked. There's just absolutely no alternative at this point in time. Science will be more than happy to rewrite all of biology as soon as they realize some part of the foundation is flawed.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #119 of 525
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
To me this thinking is beyond flawed. 'Life' is not sacrosanct. It's not magical. It's no different than the growth of a mountain or a sunspot. To you and me it sure feels different, but it's just no different than gravity and the flow of lava or water currents.

Science does classify animate and inanimate objects differently even if you do not. Life is not sacrosanct, even along the living in many regards, but that does not mean that animate and inanimate are the same.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #120 of 525
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I think you're simplifying things a bit. Evolution is usually presented as the best option, at least in high school and above. At this point it's relied on as a jumping off point for other studies since there is no better option. Science though, like with everything, is looking for better options.

Until one is found, the rest of science isn't going to wait though. Scientists will assume evolution is correct because they need to continue to move forward. They can't afford to wait until the creationist/evolutionist/somethingist debate is solved. Science doesn't wait for exact answers because in some cases it will never arrive.

Until a better solution arrives science needs to rely on evolution. But science uses it as a foundation but always keeps an eye on it. No science leaves an uncertain foundation unchecked. There's just absolutely no alternative at this point in time. Science will be more than happy to rewrite all of biology as soon as they realize some part of the foundation is flawed.

I have no doubt that science is looking for better options, but as for evolution being presented as the best option, I am aware of no other comparable or competing theories that are taught in high school. When I read science standards, like the one I posted for Shawn they simply state to teach evolution.

Here again is the example I posted. This one happens to be from Pennsylvania, but like most things they all end up as birds of a feather.

D. Analyze the theory of evolution.
* Examine human history by describing the progression from early hominids to modern humans.
* apply the concept of natural selection as a central concept in illustrating evolution theory.


I just fail to see with those two bulleted standards how any "analysis" occurs. From what I recall, most schools do just what is presented there.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Should criticisms of Evolutionary Theory be mandated in science classrooms?