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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well, I honestly can't. At least not right now. I do know I had a biology teacher in High School that was clear though.
Again, my experience isn't necessarily average, but a lot of people my age seem to agree with the idea that evolution is theory, but better than any other theory. I honestly haven't met anyone that's been taught by schools that evolution is the only possibility. The best possibility yes, but not only possibility.
Comments
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.
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.
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
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
Originally posted by trumptman
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?
Well, I honestly can't. At least not right now. I do know I had a biology teacher in High School that was clear though.
Again, my experience isn't necessarily average, but a lot of people my age seem to agree with the idea that evolution is theory, but better than any other theory. I honestly haven't met anyone that's been taught by schools that evolution is the only possibility. The best possibility yes, but not only possibility.