Posted on 05/12/2005 5:30:04 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
With its lavish illustrations of colorful, cuddly critters, "Our Family Tree" looks like the kind of book kids keep by their bedside to read again and again.
But when its St. Paul author, Lisa Westberg Peters, planned to talk about the book in classroom appearances today and Friday at a Monticello, Minn., elementary school, educators got cold feet.
"Our Family Tree" focuses on evolution, the scientific explanation for human origins that some believe contradicts biblical teachings. Peters' appearances, which were to focus on helping kids learn how to write, were canceled.
"It's a cute book. There's nothing wrong with it. We just don't need that kind of debate," said Brad Sanderson, principal at Pinewood Elementary.
Monticello's assistant superintendent, Jim Johnson, said school officials made a reasonable request of Peters to talk about writing but leave the discussion about evolution to teachers. When she refused, the visit was scuttled.
Across the country, there has been increasing opposition to teaching evolution. Peters said officials at two other Minnesota school districts have asked her not to talk about the book in visits over the past year.
The author believes that she is being censored -- something the schools deny.
"Once you start censoring, it's a slippery slope. Are geology and physics next? You have to stop it right away," said Peters, who won a Minnesota Book Award for "Our Family Tree," published in 2003.
In Kansas, the State Board of Education is expected to require that teachers tell students that evolution is controversial. Bills have been introduced in Georgia and Alabama to allow educators to question evolution in the classroom and offer alternatives.
Last year, the Grantsburg, Wis., school district drew widespread attention when a new policy urged teachers to explore alternative theories to evolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
This is quite true. Very little established science requires classroom experimentation to learn. Even at the higher levels. I'm in medical school, and I almost never attend lecture. I generally only attend the classes that are involved in teaching me elements of the physical exam and other forms of interaction with patients (those are skills that genuinely must be performed in order to be learned). I make better grades than most folks in my class.
I agree with your point about how classroom "experimentation" is merely repetition of a set of instructions. From personal experience, all through high school (and the first half of college), I really didn't find that they helped me understand the principles any better. Students follow the instructions without actually knowing much of why they are doing what they are doing. As a result, they actually learn very little. However, I must say that that is purely my opinion.
I see home-schooling as a way for children to obtain a far better education than that which they receive in public schools, and perhaps even some private schools. My husband and I are considering home-schooling our children, but it's going to be several years before we start having to worry about that. In the classroom, students are limited in their pace of learning by the slowest and most disruptive members of the class. While I took advantage of the opportunities I had in school and learned well, I do sometimes wonder how much better educated I could be if I were able to learn at my own pace and not someone else's. Not to mention the fact that, in school, the student is subject to the teacher's agenda. While I myself am a bit of a fan of Darwin, I came to feel (after doing my own reading) that his theories were conveyed to me with the intention of my adopting a specific viewpoint.
And when I was the age of your children, I did not know what a double-blind experiment was, either. Kids their age generally do not study psychology. So I think you're doing just fine.
This reminds me of an exchange I had with a creationist several days ago.
I was trying to make the point that if evolution is to be rejected, then some other explanation that covers all the relevant fossil, DNA, and other discoveries must be accepted.
We went through several posts, and it didn't look like he was going to acknowledge that my point was true, or false. He just wanted to critique evolution ad nausium, and that's it. We finally got into one of those "answer the question, it's a yes or no answer" things, and he never would answer it. Called my logic names and told me to go pound sand.
I assume he was a Christian. But if so, he sure didn't make Christians look honorable.
If you are talking about post 176, please accept my apology. The exchange merely reminded me of another prior exchange, and I'm sorry I associated it with you. I suppose it was the similarity that did it.
I do not find the subject of "dinosaurs" for the young to be at all about indoctrination, per se. Frankly, my own kids couldn't watch "Barney" and because they found the "Barney show" boring. Mine were also very weird in that they exhibited not even the slightest iota of interest in Sesame Street. It was indeed problematic, socially, when my students were young. I look back now, and I think about this, and I realize their "Barney/Sesame Street" needs were being met in my school; so that when it came to watching "TV", they were far more interested in stretching their brains to other subjects.
As my students exhibited a readiness and a confidence to more fully explore the scientific world around themselves, I introduced Darwin. For each student, the age was different. I also used pub-ed materials, plus direct materials from Darwin into my classroom. Verdict from my students: Someone is lying. Here's what Darwin says, here's what they are saying about "Darwin". I expected hard results from my students (paperwork, products) but my primary method of instruction was Socratic.
Furthermore, when each student latched onto "evolutionary theory"- each then began a path of self-discovery into the world of free-will and choice -- and the nature/nurture arguments. This of course, led to their need to comprehend anatomy, physics, migration, endocrinology, study of ancient cultures, psychology, religion, current cultures, and socio-economics worldwide. And, this all led to their inquisitiveness into socio-politics. And for each child, the path was different.
Evolution is not a pragmatic, non-laden subject. It is indeed fraught with heaviness, much like the subject of "sex". However, studying physics, reading, math, subjective literature, classic literature is are perfect non-laden subjects which result in a clear path to activating parts of the cranium which needs be activated should the individual student become learned.
Teaching children evolution before they are comprehensive literate can be abusive to the psyche. It can lead to a non-interest in a range of subjects which WOULD and do serve to activate synaptic pathways. And this is why I reject the subject of "evolution" in the early years; outside a mere mention and a note that it is indeed a theory worth more consideration and study, but at a later time.
And yes, Tax-chick, lol... I can still recall those 11pm "can I talk to you about this" meetings.. and what was consistent with my students was this: During their evolution seminars, they became troubled, as is natural, as the very subject caused them to question say freewill versus akashic record types of things (pre-ordination). The sessions would go on and on and continue.. until at last each student was left with this question: What do you think? Do you prefer to perceive that you should have no inspiration but instead let life dictate to you as per DNA or "genetic inheritance" or... free will and hard work to produce and achieve dreams "undreamt of". And can you find a balance between these concepts? Is there a balance?
This type of individual training would NOT have happened at the "mass level". No way could it. Especially now that this materialistic-driven concept is being laden upon those who are barely literate and being forced to place a "knowledge" inside an area of the brain which perhaps has no synaptic pathway built to it. Does this area of the brain become frustrated then?
But allow me to make this observation. In an Islamic country if you presented Darwin you'd probably be killed.
I have no problem with the theory of evolution being presented, it may ultimately be moved from the theory box and put into the fact box, but I do think, and I realize that there are disagreements on this, is that there are still questions.
Given that I don't see why there should be such a demand to suppress any questioning of it nor should the ACLU and an activist Federal judge override a local school board that put a sticker on a book that said it was a theory.
It appears to me that Darwinist (and I guess they're talking about Charles' granddaddy since old Charlie pretty much lifted everything from him in the first place) can't tolerate 1) any questioning of the theory or 2) allow others to gather wool on other possibilities.
I'm a tolerant Muslim but I have rarely, no, I think it's fair to say I've never seen a tolerant Darwinist. Thus I have been called all those things in my previous message as well as a couple more that weren't quite so entertaining.
That's unfortunate and frankly I suspect it's one of the reasons that Darwinist are getting their butts kicked in the court of public opinion. When a position of squelching all other ideas is taken there's usually a push back from the American public. My counsel, for what it's worth, is that "we're confident enough in the theory, and so much has been established already, that we're sure that ultimately it will become established scientific fact" would be much more effective.
Instead anyone who isn't a believer are called all those things in my previous message. They may be true, but it's a very poor way of winning people over.
Thanks, and I looked at the discussion linked by another poster, as well.
If I understand this correctly, this would be irrelevant for the physical sciences, because the subject of the experiment has no mentation. In addition, the effect of "single blind" experimentation on non-human subjects would be somewhat limited, yes?
Am I right in thinking that this concept is not really applicable to any experimentation that would be relevant to the issue of Darwinian evolution ... or am I on Planet Zongo?
"Campion's Law," which came up earlier, posits that if any thread goes on long enough, religious FReepers will be accused by non-religious FReepers of being Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Islamic fundamentalists, Theocrats-manque', or other categories designed to kill the exchange of ideas.
I don't think "inbred, toothless, drooling hillbillies" was mentioned in the original definition, but it can be included :-).
This is harmful for conservative discussion, as you might imagine.
Oh, and your dog looks adorable!
Needless to say I don't enjoy the same condition....
Zongo? Bingo!
He's a cutie! My cousin has Springer Spaniels. I'm not fond of dogs, in general, but Springers are cute and friendly. My oldest son used to be deathly afraid of dogs (he would run into traffic rather than pass a dog on the sidewalk), but after spending deer season with Cousin Barbara's dog, he was cured!
Stereotyping is a dangerous mindset. Is Jeffrey Dahmer representative of all white men? Do his actions damage the reputation of all white men?
Good on ya! I think I'm getting with this scientific thing, at least for today!
You are exactly right. Despite the social "gaps", home-schooled kids are frequently better mannered and make better eye-contact.
A little anecdote: We carpooled to swim practice with several families whose children attend public school. The other kids only started saying "Thanks for the ride" after hearing my children say it to their parents for about six months. (My kids attend private school.)
Did I tell you that Tom was beaned in the head with a rock by a boy down the street, who'd decided Tom wasn't "cool"? Two weeks ago Sunday, Tom turned up at the door looking like something out of "The Lost Battalion." Buckets of blood.
Anoreth called Fire and Rescue, and I gave Tom a towel and had him lie down in the yard. Fortunately, it was only a cut on his scalp, but we were stuned until the paramedics arrived and cleaned him up.
The paramedics called the deputy sheriff, and I walked down the street with him to show him where the rock-thrower lived. When an older sister (16-ish) answered the door, she said, "Mom, it's the police! Danny must have done something really bad this time!" We weren't sure the parents would take responsibility for their son, but as I was leaving, the mother was asking the deputy to come inside and scare the boy out of his wits!
Ever wonder what his not-so-bad acts are?.
I'm trying not to think about it; the boy is only 9. They're from New York!
Thanks at least for the civility. Its somewhat lacking in others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.