Posted on 12/14/2005 6:23:06 AM PST by PatrickHenry
An education oversight panel has put off a final recommendation on the state's biology teaching standards at the urging of a state senator who wants alternatives to evolution - including creationism - taught in classrooms.
The Education Oversight Committee voted Monday to recommend approval of the state's biology content standards, but by an 8-7 vote, the panel removed for further study the wording that deals with teaching evolution.
The committee plans to put together a panel of scientists and science teachers to advise committee members on the biology standards dealing with evolution, JoAnne Anderson, the committee's executive director, said Tuesday.
State Sen. Mike Fair, a panel member, wants the education department to change the standards to encourage teaching alternatives to the theory of evolution. Fair, R-Greenville, also has proposed a bill that would give lawmakers more say on biology curriculum.
The Education Department writes standards teachers must follow in designing their daily lessons. The State Board of Education must give those standards final approval. The Education Oversight Committee can recommend the board approve or reject those standards.
The head attorney for the state Department of Education said he didn't think committee members are authorized to change the standards.
"This is unprecedented," attorney Dale Stuckey said. "It's my interpretation of the law that [EOC members] have no authority to change the standards."
Anderson said Tuesday that is not the committee's intent. The committee issued a news release clarifying that it does not have the authority to revise content standards.
"We are asking our colleagues at the State Department of Education for recommendations of individuals from the science community who can assist the committee in bringing about a resolution."
Fair said he wants to encourage "critical analysis of a controversial subject in the classroom."
State Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum, a Democrat, said Fair was trying to derail teaching standard revisions she said have wide support in academia. The agency recently conducted a yearlong review of key subjects and basic knowledge all science teachers in public schools must teach.
Current biology curriculum includes Charles Darwin's 19th century theory that life evolved over millions of years from simple cells that adapted to their environment. Creationism relies on the biblical explanation that mankind's origin is the result of a divine action.
In November, the S.C. Board of Education approved changes to science standards some teachers said needed clarification. The oversight committee put off voting on the rules in October to give Fair more time to lobby education officials.
Karen Floyd, a Republican candidate for state education superintendent, has said she will encourage the teaching of intelligent design.
Rep. Bob Walker, R-Spartanburg, said he supports Fair's efforts because "there are other ideas that can be addressed as to how this world came about."
One school official, Lexington-Richland 5 science supervisor Kitty Farnell, said the committee's questioning of educators' work sets "a terrible example for our students."
"It's an embarrassment," she said.
The notion that nature was pregnant and gave birth to man is a bit like some of the ID advocate's assertions of fine tuning. Or "algorithm ar inception," which gives be the heebie jeebies. I have this image of A Gore giving the finger to Adam.
Do your imaginary friends talk to you?
I think when you get down to it, creationists are more likely than "Darwinists" to oppose free market economics. It's a twofer.
Seconded.
Thanks so much for your post #119...I well remember when some poster told us all about that museum tour with all the children, and how the tour guide babbled on and on, ,and how all the 'brilliant' childen realized that this tour guide was obviously stupid, because he touched upon evolution, and how all these 'brilliant' litle children, in all their superior knowledge, just rolled their eyes and laughed politely at the tour guide...because these wonderful children just knew that they were right about evolution being a 'fairy tale', and that the tour guide was just plain wrong...I remember thinking at the time, what a goofy made up story that sounded like...
I am so glad to see that someone did call the museum, and found out that there were NOT any tours given...I guess, our 'museum poster', was one of those who belong to the 'lying for God' crowd...(perhaps someone forgot to let the poster know that the Bible does say that God hates those who lie, as they belong to Satan, the father of lies)
I also would like to see proof of this professor sitting in 'farmer18th' living room, and telling his story...if there is such a professor, with such a story, it would be interesting to hear exactly what he said, and why he said it...notice I say, we need the 'professor', to confirm this story, not a second hand account of the story...and we would need to absolutely confirm that he was a professor, and actually had the experiences relayed in his story...
Its always very easy to say that one knows such and such a person, who had such and such an experiences...anyone can make up any story they chose...but proof and confirmation of the facts is needed...
Again, very glad to see that 'museum' story teller was outed...I somehow missed that...thanks for relaying that...I dont get onto FR every day, and so I miss some things...always helpful when someone goes back to past happenings, and brings us(well, at least me)up to date...
"If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."
I know how you guys talk. I was in London shortly after the big currency change, when you guys finally went decimal. A cabbie took me to my hotel and gave me my change, including one of those weird half-pound coins. I knew what it was, but it was the first I'd seen, so I must have really taken a good look at it. Mistaking me for one of his own decimally-callenged countrymen, and seeking to help me out, the cabbie pointed to it and said: "That's ten bob!"
You are honor bound to keep your source anonymous, and we are bound by long experience to believe you are full of it.
Science is full of controversies. Even the third rail topics like race and intelligence have active debates going. Skeptic magazine runs an ongoing forum on this topic, and well known people weigh in.
I can believe you are reporting something you have heard, but I do not believe any scientist worthy of the label is afraid of controversy.
Well, my friend is the cleverest guy who ever lived, and he says that your friend knows nothing.
And your concerns about the hypothetical social consequences of teaching established science are relevant to the truth of that science... how exactly?
Speaking for myself I was taught that I was descended from apes and so are my children. As a result we are all liars and cheats, who murder whenever we think we can get away with it, and who steal whenever we can. Presumably just as you think you and your children would behave if you believed in evolution.
It seems to me that respecting science is a conservative position, especially compared to the liberals' habit of bending it to make various constituencies feel good about themselves.
There's nothing "conservative" about restricting debate and discussion in the classroom, unless you want to declare right here and now that you don't mind both theories being examined.
Yes there is. Restricting science classes to science is a solid conservative position. It's no different than not allowing Ebonics to masquerade as standard English.
Also, there aren't two theories. There's the theory of evolution, and there's ID or creationism.
ID is not a theory, in that it makes no testable claims. (In fact, any observation is compatable with it).
Creationsism, at least the literal Biblical or Koranic version, does make predictions, and has been shown to be false. The fact that there was no worldwide flood was known before Darwin. Also, the order of appearance of living things is wrong in Genesis.
See here for a discussion, or here for a discussion of creationism in general.
Nobody I know of has any problem including ID or creationism discussions in comparative religion, history of science, rhetoric, or other classes. The thing that gets scientists (and should get all conservatives) riled up is politicians mandating putting something in a science class that isn't recognized as science by scientists.
The UK is largely a secular society. Would you care to compare the serious crime rate in the states and the UK? Lets take murder as an example....
You said that your "friend" is a professor. What doctorates does he hold?
Evidently your friend is unfamiliar with the smoking-gun molecular evidence that demonstrates the common descent of primates (for example).
Also if you think speciation requires a leap of faith try googling "ring species". We can see speciation happening in the wild right in front of our eyes.
After that, we can look at property crime rates, just to verify that there's no inverse correlation either ;)
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.