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.
|
"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."
Indeed.
A conservative "pro-evolution" science list? Why don't you just call it the oxymoron list? 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.
If you're interested in learning about evolution, visit The List-O-Links.
If you're serious about debating this issue, see How to argue against a scientific theory.
If you're permanently stuck on stupid, but determined to post anyway, use the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.
"It's an embarrassment," she said."
Indeed.
No, when you are talking about South Carolina's public education it is not an embarrassment. The only embarrassment is the public education itself!
"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."
Creationism/ID are not scientific theories. There is nothing conservative about lying to our children concerning what we know about science.
Long ago, before there were any people, the world was young and water covered everything. The earth was a great island floating above the seas, suspended by four rawhide ropes representing the four sacred directions. It hung down from the crystal sky. There were no people, but the animals lived in a home above the rainbow. Needing space, they sent Water Beetle to search for room under the seas. Water Beetle dove deep and brought up mud that spread quickly, turning into land that was flat and too soft and wet for the animals to live on.Could have happened that way. It should be seriously studied in science class. You can't prove to me that Water Beetle didn't dive deep bringing up the mud to create the land. This should seriously be discussed in geology class. What? Are you afraid of competing theories?
Grandfather Buzzard was sent to see if the land had hardened. When he flew over the earth, he found the mud had become solid; he flapped in for a closer look. The wind from his wings created valleys and mountains, and that is why the Cherokee territory has so many mountains today.
As the earth stiffened, the animals came down from the rainbow. It was still dark. They needed light, so they pulled the sun out from behind the rainbow, but it was too bright and hot. A solution was urgently needed. The shamans were told to place the sun higher in the sky. A path was made for it to travel--from east to west--so that all inhabitants could share in the light.
The plants were placed upon the earth. The Creator told the plants and animals to stay awake for seven days and seven nights. Only a few animals managed to do so, including the owls and mountain lions, and they were rewarded with the power to see in the dark. Among the plants, only the cedars, spruces, and pines remained awake. The Creator told these plants that they would keep their hair during the winter, while the other plants would lose theirs.
People were created last. The women were able to have babies every seven days. They reproduced so quickly that the Creator feared the world would soon become too crowded. So after that the women could have only one child per year, and it has been that way ever since.
I would personally adore Creationism to be ruthlessly examined in schools.
But that's because I'm mean, which is why my (or others) personal likings should not decide what is taugh in science classrooms.
The benefit of public schooling.
There is no theory of creationism or theory of ID. Neither one is scientific. Neither one has factual evidence for support. The reason so many conservatives get upset about this stuff is because it requires trashing science so it can include supernatural explanations. Based on your reasoning, should astrology be taught in schools along side astronomy? Science is not opinion based like other subjects. Science specifically does not permit debate on the supernatural, regardless of whether it's evolution or any other field.
Problems with evolution are not support for ID. Problems with evolution means your professor friend needs to spend more time doing research rather than saying that understanding the subject of evolution is too difficult. Sounds like it's over his head.
I know I've mentioned this before, but it still astounds me that supposedly "conservative" religious types don't see the inherent danger in encouraging the government to take up the business of teaching religious doctrine.
"He teaches at a prestigious public university, and he said the problems with evolution are so profound he feels ashamed mentioning it sometimes, but mentioning intelligent design would land him in hot water."
Everybody has an unnamed *expert* they can trot out, or a genius uncle. Can YOU tell us what these problems with evolution are?
"The more and more I see of the pro-evolution crowd, the more I appreciate the Inquisition. You are not a scientist. You are a liar."
If that was addressed to me I can see the level of debate you are capable of. If that is your best argument, then I have already won.
I disagree. I think they want it.
You win the lottery. You're the first to be called a liar by someone with a non-existent friend. The Creationists are out with their anti-science name-calling campaign early today.
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.