Posted on 07/23/2006 8:49:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Incorrect. I want science teachers to teach theories I disagree with, IF they are objectively a part of science. And because science has a professional literature, which generally reflects the ideas and principles that are actually used by working scientists, this IS an objective determination.
Our sole problem with the way antievolutionary ideas are usually taught is that it entails outright LYING to students about the status of those ideas in the marketplace of scientific ideas.
And since antievolutionists themselves would be opposed to the TRUTH being revealed on such matters -- that antievolutionary ideas can't cut the mustard as science -- it's actually a concession on our part to insist on their simple exclusion. (Also including antievolutionary ideas as failed science would invite unscrupulous atheistic teachers to use their ridicule as a means of attacking religion, which would be just as unconstitutional as a creationist teacher misrepresenting antievolutionary ideas in the other direction to advance religion.)
Sticking to science is the best policy.
If, at some future time, some anti- or non- evolutionary idea does happen to prevail, on merit, in the professional scientific marketplace, then of course it can be taught. In fact it will be taught as a matter of course. If said idea were sufficiently successful to supplant evolutionary theory in the marketplace of scientific ideas, then I would advocate EXCLUDING EVOLTION, even if I personally happened to remain an evolutionist.
IOW I would far rather acquiesce in theories I might disagree with being taught in a science class, instead of having my favored theory included on the basis of intellectual affirmative action, and instead of embracing the wishy-washy relativism and weakening of academic standards that would imply.
If I believe a false theory is being taught and/or a correct theory is being ignored, but the curricula does objectively reflect the current scientific standing of the respective ideas, then my remedy is not to go pissing and moaning to the school board or textbook committees. My remedy is to prevail upon the scientific community to undertake original research that will potentially overturn the false theory and/or advance the true theory.
Of course this is the last remedy that antievolution activists consider (if ever). Which I think is very instructive.
Generally, no. But then I don't post statements claiming that I am defending their right to do so against those who would attack it.
What? Huh?
The issue is one of who will decide what teachers will be allowed to teach. Few people would be in favor of complete freedom for individual teachers,
With you so far...except of course for that previous statement which is nonsensial to me,
yet some of them are willing to inaccurately claim they are defending such a right, when it supports a status quo of which they approve.
Lost me there. What's you point?
... and people wonder why seperation of Church and State occurred in our beloved historical past.
No. There should be a standard curriculum, which ought to reflect the consensus of biologists. Politicians should not be telling biologists what the evidence in their field says.
It would be good for interested students to learn something of the history of science and how its methodologies developed over time.
Disagree. See my #261. Most teachers could probably handle this reasonably well, but it would invite religion and antireligion partisans to engage in "spinning" the curricula and subverting your intent. It would only take a small percentage of teachers behaving in such opportunistic faction to make a complete fiasco of your scheme.
That's not fair! If students learned how to think, then creationism would be in deep trouble. It's gotta be slipped into the science books as if it were a scientific theory. That way the world will be a better place, crime will be only a memory, and teen pregnancy will be no more.
I'm sorry.
My original post was in reply to #247 from Dimensio, who claimed that he objects to teachers being told what to teach. In reality, he objects to teachers teaching anything he disagrees with. He is perfectly willing to use school boards to enforce what he agrees with, but objects to school boards forcing teachers to teach things he disagrees with.
My point was that his argument is not one of whether teachers are being forced to teach particular things. We are all in favor of that. It is with regard to which particular things teachers are forced to teach.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, he may have a defensible position. But it is one of which science is correct, not one of teachers being given full freedom to decide what to teach. So any claim to be defending teachers "freedom to choose" is simply a red herring.
Fine. I actually have no major objections to that. I was merely pointing out that portraying oneself as a defender of individual teachers "freedom to choose" what to teach inaccurate.
In your case, you wish to assign the choice of what will be taught to some defined or nebulous corporate groupt of teachers and/or biologists.
Fine, but don't claim this is a defense of academic freedom, which by definition applies to individuals. It is merely a dispute about who will control the power to force teachers to teach certain things.
Odd word usage. My family, a long line of nuclear engineers and biologists, thinking for themselves -- came to the conclusion of Creationism.
Are you assuming my family is less intelligent because of the thought process that lead them to this?
Sounds... elitist.
I haven't noticed a lot of people advocating teacher's right to teach anything they want. The question is whether science curriculum will be developed by people trained in science or by politicians.
But if "critical thinking" become required, it will be applied to things that are currently given light treatment, such as the age of the earth. I would love to see students learn the history of geology.
Tell them to register here and we'll be happy to chat with them. Perhaps they'll do better than you're doing.
Responding to teacher's rights to teach anything they want, isn't this along the lines of havin a right to "choose" what teachers teach -- unless touchy or biased teaching is eliminated?
Not to be paranoid, but, when do people have the right over the family? Sounds like another "Left" talking point. Maybe my school should implement classes on "Liberalism", because said hypothetical professors think it is the right thing to do.
Talk to an elitist pundit who lacks respect for others? Your mockery humors me. Why are you on a conservative board?
I have no idea what you are talking about. It certainly isn't in response to anything I posted.
Wrong individual! I had lost my place.
:)
Been there, done that.
"My family, a long line of nuclear engineers and biologists, thinking for themselves -- came to the conclusion of Creationism."
My family consists of 6 Noble prize winners, 3 presidents, and a few saints. They all accept evolution.
And my uncle has 4 doctorates.
Top that!
:)
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.