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.
It's a rather red herring. Quite attractive when you've caught nothing else.
I am always amazed by the True Believer mentality of evolutionists. There is far more closed-minded fundamentalism among your ranks than among all the fundamentalists in all the religions of the wortld taken together. Makes it very difficult to have a rational conversaltion.
You are also comp[letely lacking a sense of humor. Don't take yourself so seriously. You might just be wrong about everything.
Chaos of the gap?
I prefer the belief in the natural and the supernatural.
If human agency is a unique cause, we are supernatural.
Looks to me like science and evo actually have very little to do with their agenda.
All your posts are belong to us.
Your earlier critics are correct. Your science is your religion
You are also comp[letely lacking a sense of humor. Don't take yourself so seriously. You might just be wrong about everything.
---
Being involved in education, specifically science education, it is a topic I take very seriously. I dont find it very amusing when people seriously suggest that lying to children is a good educational strategy.
The charges flew at the state capitol yesterday. I.M. Smarternyu, spokesperson for the nonjudgmental and highly qualified education union called the action "treasonous." "These poisonous and dishonest braying fundametalists want to burn books, teach Genesis as the creation myth, bring back witch trials, and burn heretics at the stake. People with such clear ideological bias should never be allowed to be in contact with our students, much less have a say in how we teach them." Senator Futzmeyer's office released a statement which said the charges were "not true." The one page paper looking remarkably similar to talking points script from the right wing religous group "Make Christianity the Law of the Land and Incarcerate the Atheists." The leader of that group, Bob Finklemeyer, was recently jailed for keeping his children in chains because they could not correctly recite the entire book of Leviticus in the original Hebrew, so he was unavailable to comment on the similarity.
The subject has come to the forefront on the national scene recently, with the entire scientific community speaking in a unified voice on the issue. A few rogue pseudoscientists -most of them friends of Karl Rove with ties to Haliburton and the Iraq war - have brought up the charge that 1) the argument that science is done in a secular setting is philosophical, not "scientific" and 2) the universe looks like it might be designed. This attempt to slip religion in under the door has infuriated respectable scientists like Oxford don Richard Dawkins, who stated "these damn religious inquisitionists are going to make my head explode some day. All the really smart people believe like I do."
For more reading on the subject, go to :
For the reasonable side, go to
www.whyreligionisafable.com
www.whyintelligentdesignisjustreligion.com
www.religionisfortheweakminded.com
www.truescienceisatheistic.com
www.onlytheuneducatedareagainstus.com
Religious loons may go to senator Futzmeyer's site for links. You can find it at www.google.com
The evos are soooo afraid of both sides being taught.
Why?
AHA! The face of the enemy.
As an educator does it seem appropriate to you to label as liars those who are in fundamental disagreement with you?
As one who honors the scientific method is it not more appropriate to respect the honor and integrity of your adversaries than to denegrate and belittle them? Or is this your application of the principles of science? What kind of lesson is your ad hominem tactics teaching our children?
The evos are soooo afraid of both sides being taught.
Why?
---
Because one side (evolution) is science and the other (creationism/ID) is not. Nothing wrong with teaching them both. Creationism should be taught in comparative religion classes along with things likethe Hindu creation story, or the ancient Egyptian one. However, to teach creationism as science is LYING to children.
Do you think we should teach children that astrology is a science?
Being involved in education, specifically science education, it is a topic I take very seriously. I dont find it very amusing when people seriously suggest that lying to children is a good educational strategy.
AHA! The face of the enemy.
---
You think that people who educate children are the enemy. Interesting..
As an educator does it seem appropriate to you to label as liars those who are in fundamental disagreement with you?
--
Yes. It does. When they lie, then they are liars. And claiming that ID/creationism is science is a LIE.
---
As one who honors the scientific method is it not more appropriate to respect the honor and integrity of your adversaries than to denegrate and belittle them? Or is this your application of the principles of science? What kind of lesson is your ad hominem tactics teaching our children?
--
When people HAVE integrity, then I respect it. But sadly, people who want to lie to children about science do not, in my opinion have integrity. And as a matter of fact, I have not used an ad hominem tactic. You should look it up before you use such words.
The simple facts of the matter are as follows:
Evolutionary biology fits the definition of science.
ID/creationism does not.
Claiming the opposite is a lie.
Your snarly rationale defines yourself as a liar. Thus you shall be known.
Ad hominem is perfectly clear to me, as it clearly is not to you.
BTW - The enemy is not educators, but educators who can be civil.
BTW The enemy is not educators, but educators who cannot be civil.
Evo is a science THEORY - guesses.
So what's it doing in a science class?
I don't care where they teach evo and ID, but they need to be taught side by side, so students can judge for themselves.
I am often very confused as to why otherwise intelligent people can believe that this big, beautiful and very complex world could have happened by CHANCE.
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.