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.
Agreed.
Time to tro this out again. :-)
Let me post my example of gravity:
A little history here: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”
F=Gm1m2/r2
Where:
F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m1 equals the mass of the first object
m2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)
(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)
Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.
A few of the problems are:
It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.
Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.
A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.
And finally:
From an NSF abstract:
“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.
In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
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.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
There's no such professor. No professor of genetics would be intimidated by fear of criticism. Science profs thrive on criticism. Now maybe if it were a sociology or theology professor....
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.
High school science is NOT the place to debate theories really. After all, we dont sit down and debate whether 2+2=4. In high school kids get the basic science. And scientifically, the evidence points overwhelmingly towards evolutionary biology. Of course, in comparative religion classes, or in a lesson on the philosophy of science, then of course creationism and other myths could be discussed.
I'm not sure what the ID "movement's" perspective is, or even if there is just one or many. If it's a veiled attempt restate the world was created in 6 days by a cosmic potter, then it should be opposed. But (and here's where I'm going to raise the ire of both sides) if it's an attempt to understand why evolution happens, I believe it deserves inclusion and discussion in our classrooms! I'm not saying that the theory that everything happened by pure chance must be silenced, but when even the geneticists themselves start doubting the plausibility of that aspect of the evolution theory, I see no reason to oppose the idea that perhaps something else is involved. I'm coming to believe that organic evolution is governed by a set of universal natural laws that we have not yet discovered. If some want to call them the "hands of God" (as I do) what harm is there in saying that to our children? Only the dogmatic atheists could oppose that, and they should have NO SAY in the matter!
BTW, I've recently learned that Hebrew word for "DAY" can mean daylight, 24 hours, or an indeterminate period of time much like the English word "ERA". Just food for thought about the Genesis story.
Is quantum physics a science?
If so, then somebody needs to tell some quantum physicists I have read that they better quit mentioning things like intelligence.
I would assume here that you are talking about Penrose, as he is the only one I have read that actively talks about "intelligence", but he is not talking about intelligent design, rather the nature of intelligence on a quantum level.
Of course, you could be referring to the idea of observer-observed interactions at the quantum level, but that is not really about intelligent design either.
Creationism is *not* a theory.
Two men see a working clock, nailed to a tree in the forest. One man theorizes, "perhaps someone put it there." Another says, "that is not a scientific theory! I won't even discuss it! It doesn't qualify!"
That's the road you are trodding...
--
Piss poor analogy. We KNOW clocks are created. We know who created them. We have seen them be created. We know how they are created. Thus, when we see an object that we already KNOW is created, we can assume that it was probably placed there.
> there is something very curious about someone claiming a tribe of amoral, remorseless animals as kin when there is no observable evidence that anything remotely like this sort of parenthood could exist.
What's even *more* curious is that people smart enough to type grammatically correct sentences would be able or willing to so completely mis-state the level of evidence. Why is that, I wonder? Why does the idea of evolution fill you with such fear?
You must be new.
> Those who dismiss ID as a theory can only do so because they insist on defining the language in a way that allows them to frame the debate
Words mean things. "Theory" has a meaning. Look it up.
> The observable world as opposed to the ghostly shimmer of the fossil record gives us the reality of the way things work, and they proceed by design, intelligence, and not accident.
Ah. So, complex structures like, say, *clouds* are the way they are because soemone *wants* them to be that way? Cloud sprites, for example? Should we now teach the Cloud Sprite Theory in science classes?
> complex systems are created, designed.
They also arise through random chance, as everyday observation shows. Unless one is a Cloud Sprite Theory adherant, of course.
> My ABS breaking family van did not mutate from my 1963 Ford Falcon.
Tell me: was your Ford Falcon capable of reproducing itself? If not, then it is completely inappropriate to use as an analogy to the biological world.
> It says a lot about the civility--and breadth of mind--of the pro evolution crowd.
Really? Which one of us has had a post pulled in this thread?
Not at all. My two peasants had never seen one before, just as Marco Polo had never seen gun powder before he visited China. He didn't assume that if "evolved" from mud, did he?
The orthodox faith of evolutionists is indeed a profound and frightening thing
--
Then its a new analogy, but equally flawed. Marco Polo was TOLD by people that gunpowder was created. He also got to see it being made.
As for the peasants, if they had never seen clocks before, then they could take it home with them and examine it for evidence. If they did that they would, if they were clever enough, be able to see certain marks on the wood of the clock. They could then realise that those marks looked VERY like the sort of marks you get on wood when it was sawed. they would also be able to see that it was painted, and they would know that painting was a human activity. They would also be able to see that it was held together by screws, or nails and they would use screws and nails themselves. All of which would give them the opportunity to test their theory about the origin of the clock. However, as we have no knowledge of the methods used by some "intelligent designer" of bacteria flagella, how would we be able to test for artefacts of this creation?
There's no such professor. No professor of genetics would be intimidated by fear of criticism. Science profs thrive on criticism.
You don't know what you're talking about. The professor sat in my very living room, told that very story, and confirmed that personal prejudice, politics, and totally irrational impulses sometimes not only influence--BUT GOVERN--the scientific community.
--
Sure, and an un-named advisor to George W Bush told me that George knew all along that there was no WMDs and that he just fancied invading Iraq because he had nothing better to do that day.
See how silly unnamed sources are?
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.