Last summer, Gov. Jindal signed into law a bill that allows teachers in public schools to use “supplemental textbooks” to “help students critique and review scientific theories.” This legislation was proposed by a Christian conservative group, and is undoubtedly code for allowing the introduction of anti-evolution and pro-creationist materials. Yet again, here we have fundamentalist groups pushing their anti-science agenda, and the so-called wunderkind of the GOP goes along.
The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology has informed the Governor that they are moving their 2011 annual meeting to Salt Lake City (!) in protest; their last meeting in Boston had ~1,800 members for 5 days.
Why is this nation the only developed one in the world that allows this kind of crap?
Oh, please. You know exactly what I’m talking about, and it isn’t either of your two "suggestions."
I realize what your suggesting but think it’s an “Extreme”. Yes you will indeed have a few “Extremist” teachers that will try and teach the “Supplemental” as the “True science”, we need to guard against that.
OTOH I think it’s a great idea and offers teachers more flexibility and opportunity to not only expose students to views and beliefs they may not be exposed to any other way, as well as create questions in those students that are being indoctrinated at home.
This street will go both ways and I would guess there are far more scientifically based teachers than religiously based ones. My guess is that in 5 years the “Religious right” will be clamoring for this to be repealed because teachers will be causing to many kids to question what their parents are teaching them.
Why the exclamation mark after Salt Lake City.
My prejudice, I suspect. When one thinks of scientific freedom, I don’t think of Salt Lake City. Possibly erroneously so, as I really don’t have any reason to believe Mormons are anti-scientific. Do Mormons reject creationism as science? Is evolution accepted as scientific fact by Mormons?
Oh, please. You know exactly what I’m talking about, and it isn’t either of your two "suggestions."
I realize what your suggesting but think it’s an “Extreme”. Yes you will indeed have a few “Extremist” teachers that will try and teach the “Supplemental” as the “True science”, we need to guard against that.
OTOH I think it’s a great idea and offers teachers more flexibility and opportunity to not only expose students to views and beliefs they may not be exposed to any other way, as well as create questions in those students that are being indoctrinated at home.
This street will go both ways and I would guess there are far more scientifically based teachers than religiously based ones. My guess is that in 5 years the “Religious right” will be clamoring for this to be repealed because teachers will be causing to many kids to question what their parents are teaching them.
~Matt
While I think many would agree in principal that more flexibility is a good thing, I don’t see how anyone could see this as anything but an attempt on behalf of creationists to insert a non-scientific attack on creationism into the classroom.
I don’t see this turning into a two way street. But I’m curious if you can be more specific about this will increase the likelihood of kids questioning what their parents teach them.
Matt, without knowing the specifics of this case, the creationists (refering to specific ones, not to be inclusinve of ALL creationists) have a history of trying to push their agenda into the science classroom while wearing sheep’s clothing. It is possible that this law has the sole intention of allowing the teacher to use a Carl Sagan video or a college text to suppliment the lessons, but somehow I doubt it. Fool me once, sh-shame…shame on…uh…me. F…fool me a second…well, you can’t git fooled agin!
Oh, please. You know exactly what I’m talking about, and it isn’t either of your two "suggestions."
I realize what your suggesting but think it’s an “Extreme”. Yes you will indeed have a few “Extremist” teachers that will try and teach the “Supplemental” as the “True science”, we need to guard against that.
OTOH I think it’s a great idea and offers teachers more flexibility and opportunity to not only expose students to views and beliefs they may not be exposed to any other way, as well as create questions in those students that are being indoctrinated at home.
This street will go both ways and I would guess there are far more scientifically based teachers than religiously based ones. My guess is that in 5 years the “Religious right” will be clamoring for this to be repealed because teachers will be causing to many kids to question what their parents are teaching them.
~Matt
What a bunch of crap. You “guard against it” by not allowing it. Period. You get the curriculum set up and the teachers follow it. They don’t introduce material that reflects their personal biases, especially if it contradicts the curriculum. Enhances the curriculum? Fine.
I don’t see this turning into a two way street. But I’m curious if you can be more specific about this will increase the likelihood of kids questioning what their parents teach them.
first I’m not real familiar with the legislation but this line, j*indal signed into law a bill that allows teachers in public schools to use “supplemental textbooks” to “help students critique and review scientific theories.”, *Leads me to believe that this is not an “altering” of the curriculum, but merely allowing material into the classroom that previously were not allowed.
IOW a teacher can now bring a bible or some other “Text” that references “Creationism”. Prior to this, this would not be allowed and the only exposure to “Creationism” would be from sources outside of school and under circumstances that would likely be entirely favorable to creationism.
My assumption here is that the majority of teachers will take this very seriously. Even those teachers that are “Religious” will likely present the material in far more “Balanced” method in school than they would in “Sunday school”.
For children being raised in extremely religious homes where “Creation” is basically gospel this will likely be the only place they will ever see those “Theories” challenged as they simply would not have even been discussed prior to this.
For those in non religious homes they would likely be exposed in a far more balanced situation than had they only been exposed in a less “Educational” atmosphere.
My guess is that you’ll have the overwhelming majority of teachers doing a fairly “Balanced” presentation. At very least you will have all the kids going home with knowledge they would not have had and in some cases question the “indoctrination” they may have been receiving at home.
Once a child starts asking questions about “Is Santa Claus real” the gig is usually up. Either you alter the story to something more “feasible” or cave entirely.
What you have will be kids going home to secular parents asking questions about creationism and it’s place with evolution, and kids going home to religious parents asking questions about evolution and it’s place with creationism.
My guess is that many more religious parents will take issue with this than secular parents and eventually the cry for separation of church and state will be coming from the religious sector.
You get the curriculum set up and the teachers follow it.
I don’t see this as any different than what is being proposed, set up the curriculum that allows a main text, this is what we teach, and a supplemental that is also “We introduce this and compare it to what we teach”.
They don’t introduce material that reflects their personal biases, especially if it contradicts the curriculum.
Why not? Doesn’t one learn by questioning what they know or are being taught?
I agree we can’t simply allow a teacher to choose the curriculum, but I don’t think that is the case here. But of course I’m not familiar with the legislation. My understanding from your original post was that a curriculum WAS set and that the “Supplemental” were also set.
I don’t see why teaching evolution, then comparing it to creationism would be an issue. You raise questions in the minds of those that have been indoctrinated in “Creationism” as well as those that have been indoctrinated in “Evolution”.
Guys you are all making this too complicated… Public schools in louisiana are pretty much a joke. So anything a teacher brought in that was more complicated than a basic comic book, would be over the heads of those kids anyways. The respectable schools in La. are all private and almost all Christian based programs and they all seem to balance out the religion and the science pretty well. So if it works for the smart and/or affluent kids perhaps its not an all bad approach to use in the public schools.
I certainly agree the curriculum can’t be set to teach one or the other. I do however think it’s a good idea to introduce the theory of creationism and do a direct comparison between the two and do it at various levels that are age appropriate.
At lower levels it may just be a “Story”. At higher levels you might get into comparing scientific methodologies used in both.
Point is that in any case kids are being exposed to something and a comparison of beliefs under conditions that would be far more likely to be “Educational” rather than bent towards indoctrination. I see that as an opportunity going both ways.
I certainly agree the curriculum can’t be set to teach one or the other. I do however think it’s a good idea to introduce the theory of creationism and do a direct comparison between the two and do it at various levels that are age appropriate.
At lower levels it may just be a “Story”. At higher levels you might get into comparing scientific methodologies used in both.
Point is that in any case kids are being exposed to something and a comparison of beliefs under conditions that would be far more likely to be “Educational” rather than bent towards indoctrination. I see that as an opportunity going both ways.
~Matt
That’s called “comparative religion,” which is the only place religious creationism should be allowed in public school. There’s no such thing as “theory of creationism,” nor is there any “scientific methodology” involved in creationism.
You seem to be buying into the whole BS that the anti-evolution crowd is pushing: claim there’s a controversy, claim that introducing an alternate “theory” is only exposing those young minds to alternative ways of examining “truth.” It’s all BS.
Yes, thank you. I was confused about what “scientific methodology” he was referencing with regards to creationism as well. I’ll be curious to hear his reply.
Why the exclamation mark after Salt Lake City.
My prejudice, I suspect. When one thinks of scientific freedom, I don’t think of Salt Lake City. Possibly erroneously so, as I really don’t have any reason to believe Mormons are anti-scientific. Do Mormons reject creationism as science? Is evolution accepted as scientific fact by Mormons?
Individual Mormons are probably as diverse on evolution as any other conservative denomination. But the Mormon Church takes no official position on evolution. It is certainly taught and accepted as scientific fact at BYU. When Republican candidates were asked in a debate if they did not believe in evolution, Huckabee, Tancredo and Brownback were the only ones that raised hands. Romney kept his hand down. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/romney-elaborates-on-evolution/
And Salt Lake City is certainly not as Mormon or conservative as the rest of Utah.
Salt Lake City!, Salt Lake City?, Salt Lake City!?!#%