Education panel stalls curriculum vote for creationism appeal [S. Carolina, another Kansas?]

MyrtleBeachOnline ^ | 14 December 2005 | Staff

[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.

[Dimensio]

I thought that was taxesareforever who, as far as I can tell, is still around.

[cornelis]

Teleology loves you, even if you hate it.

[farmer18th]

You seemed to be putting forth the idea that mutations were impossible in a universe that behaved according to consistent physical laws

That's precisely what I am claiming. How could it be otherwise?

[cornelis]

What's a mutation?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Teleology loves you, even if you hate it."

Cosmic teleology is not testable.

Noted: Your non-answer to my critique of your Thrasymachus charge.

[cornelis]

Popularity of belief is not an indication of the validity of that belief

That gives hope that error is not merely a statistical deviancy.

[hosepipe]

[ Popularity of belief is not an indication of the validity of that belief. I am sure you realize this is a logical fallacy. ]

I said nothing of validity, some see God in soap scum on windows.. I said believeing is God was NATURAL; not valid.., and NOT believing in God, was Super natural or maybe even NOT NORMAL.. i.e. abnormal

Read the music..

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" That gives hope that error is not merely a statistical deviancy."

Are you trying to say that popularity IS an indication of the validity of a belief?

[farmer18th]

What's a mutation?

God's will?

I was always taught to understand a mutation as an accident, or as the Virginian put it, a copying error, but that was by the same people who expected me to believe that a projectile will always follow a predictable hyperbolic trajectory.

[farmer18th]

Or was that parabolic? (I'm a historian by training.)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I said believeing is God was NATURAL; not valid.., and NOT believing in God, was Super natural or maybe even NOT NORMAL.. i.e. abnormal"

So you will agree that whether 90% of the population believes in God is not relevant to the truth claim that God exists? If so, why bring up the popularity of the position if not to attempt to give it added weight as a truth claim?

[cornelis]

I am saying that you can't have A as part of nature if you deny teleology.

A is the concept of organism, or parts to a whole. Such a thing doesn't exist if you deny teleology.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I am saying that you can't have A as part of nature if you deny teleology. A is the concept of organism, or parts to a whole. Such a thing doesn't exist if you deny teleology."

Yes it does. You are confusing the different meanings of teleology.

[Virginia-American]

Thanks.

[cornelis]

God's will? Since all change, whether biological or not, could not be a just God's will, I would tweak it a bit. Otherwise it's all determinism.

On the other hand, if accident or irregular change is to a teleological advantage, that could be considered part of someone's will if that will caused it.

[Dimensio]

I was always taught to understand a mutation as an accident, or as the Virginian put it, a copying error, but that was by the same people who expected me to believe that a projectile will always follow a predictable hyperbolic trajectory.

Then the problem is that you don't understand that events don't occur in a vaccuum. An ideal projectile in an ideal environment (that is, one without any air resistance or anything else that could subtly alter its trajectory) will always follow a predictable hyperbolic trajectory, however in the real world there are other events occuring at the same time that will interfere with this trajectory and skew its path off of the predicted one. That doesn't make the events "irrational"; the events are behaving according to the same physical laws that affect everything else. The issue is that various events interfere with other events, creating non-ideal situations and our formulas and predictions can't keep up with all of the various interactions.

[Dimensio]

Parabolic.

[cornelis]

You are confusing the different meanings of teleology.

That's very possible, especially since there are kinds of teleology. On the other hand, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but we couldn't answer that until we know which kind you'd like to discuss.

[farmer18th]

Then the problem is that you don't understand that events don't occur in a vaccuum.

Neither do we. Neither does the donkey nor the jaybird. You're only arguing for a more complex set of realities that are no less predictable. The copying mechanism doesn't exist in a vacuum, or an ideal reality, so the error is a product of that non-ideal, but no less predictable world. If evolution depends on accident, it admits God.

[cornelis]

Then the problem is that you don't understand that events don't occur in a vaccuum. An ideal projectile in an ideal environment (that is, one without any air resistance or anything else that could subtly alter its trajectory) will always follow a predictable hyperbolic trajectory, however in the real world there are other events occuring at the same time that will interfere with this trajectory and skew its path off of the predicted one. That doesn't make the events "irrational"; the events are behaving according to the same physical laws that affect everything else. The issue is that various events interfere with other events, creating non-ideal situations and our formulas and predictions can't keep up with all of the various interactions.

That's nicely put. Interference then is a function of some observed norm. And I guess most of what you see when a car crashes is the norm. Interference may be more interesting with biological life. Yet again, the interence is a function of some observed norm.