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.
" You are a bit slow aren't you, cool, I'm not too smart either..."
I'm smart enough to to know that the popularity of a claim has no logical bearing on the validity of that claim.
Time for bed, night all! :)
My King and father WILL NOT be happy if that is not so.. The citizens of this place are being WATCHED and recorded.. I prefer to not defame their choices.. They will and must live with them.. and have a perfect RIGHT to be WRONG..
Well:
There ya go.. Whats true is true and whats not is either partial truth or wholly wrong.. has nothing to do with popularity.. Something popular can true, and something unpopular can be true too.. vice versa.. Populararity is based on opinion.. and is a straw man.. The truth is the truth even you are the only one earth to know it.. OR NOT.. its STILL true..
SO cool.. 1st reality or 2nd reality..?...
I don't understand the problem at all. Even if you believe fully in evolution and believe creationism is totally false, WHY do you want your children to be closed-minded and ignorant to different theories? Doesn't everyone want their children to learn everything they can? Why shouldn't they learn about both?
non-controversial placemarker
For about the ninety-eleventh time, ID is not a theory. It has no science, no data, no observation, no way to verify it--it is belief or dogma, not science!
I think it is dishonest to equate evolution, one of the best-supported theories in science with ID, a Trojan horse promulgated by the Discovery Institute to force creation science, under false pretenses, into real science classes (see the Wedge Strategy for details).
As for the definition of theory, and other definitions, see the following (from a google search):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
Additional reading, for extra credit. From an NSF abstract:
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
Thank you both so much for your pings to this conversation! I've been trying to catch up, but it's late now and I have to go sleep. Perhaps I'll have a comment or two tomorrow?
Feathered farmers placemark
You are on a roll guessing the authors of quotations. Who said the following:
---
Someone who was talking about faith, not science. And thus someone I am not really interested in discussing right now.
So put up or shut up.
The very fact that I am honor bound to keep his identity secret is a testament to the Stalinist mentality of the average evolutionist. As to not posting, well, some of us need to make a living.
---
Just as I am honour bound to keep the identity of the Bush advisor who told me that Iraq was invaded because the president was bored secret.
These idiots need to worry a lot more about Marx and a lot less about Darwin in schools.
On the contrary, tell a child he is the accidental offspring of an ape, and he will act like an ape. Care to compare crime statistics among Christian and post-Christian cultures?
---
I would LOVE to. Where will you get your crime statistics on 14th Century Europe from? Oh.. from your professor friend no doubt!
My friend--I know you think he's Harvey the Rabbit--but listen for a moment to what he said: the complexity of the human genome is just too great, the chain of events is too improbable to explain with conventional evolutionary theory. I've seen--his words--something that looks like an evolutionary process in very minor genetic transactions, so to speak, but species to species evolution requires a leap of faith.
---
Even though we have actually SEEN species to species evolution?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Has your "friend" ever read a scientific journal.
Nope. It's just how various factors within the universe interfere with the copying process to produce a result that is not identical to the original.
So the forces that interrupted the otherwise predictable copying mechanism were themselves the irrational and unpredictable part of the physical universe? The gust of wind that knocked the predicted protein out of place was, in fact, a random wind not answering to meteorological realities? Evolutionists, even on their own flawed terms, are forced to accept that even their own predictions must be rooted in order, not chaos.
---
We went through this before. Mutations are often determined by quantum mechanical events such as nuclear decay. Quantum events are random.
It dawned on me by eureka revalation that there is an absolute proof of the theory of ID, sex. The theory of evolution can not account for a separation of species into unique individuals utterly dependent upon each other for procreation. Sex is a statistical and scientific impossibility.
Additionally, there is no reasonable (sic. evolutionary) justification for sex. Species are perfectly capable of multiplying by cloning. The specious argument that sex increases random selection thereby insuring the perpetuation of the species is on drugs and has not met my parents. Make of that what you will.
Only a whimsical and all-knowing God could have conceived of sex.
Christianity was the driving force behind the abolition of slavery in England. Go figure.
---
It was also the driving force behind the ANTI abolitionists. Religion is a wonderful thing, it can be used to justify pretty much any action, if you use it well enough.
300
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.