Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: yonif
"It shall be the policy ... when teaching Darwin's theory of evolution that it is only a theory and not a fact. Teachers shall be allowed in a neutral and objective manner to introduce all scientific theories of origin, and the students may be allowed to discuss all aspects of controversy surrounding the lack of scientific evidence in support of the theory of evolution."

I have a degree in Biology. Evolution was briefly covered in my semester of Genetics and covered slightly more in my semester of Genetics of Populations. However, the idea of man evolving from chimps or birds evolving from snakes or dinosaurs evolving from whatever they evolved from did not come up - it was not necessary. The evolutionary concept that we dealt with in Genetics was the simple mutation of a gene. The evolutionary concept that we dealt with in Genetics of Populations was the simple, minor, observable change in genetic makeup of a given population.

I also took both standard Biology and Advanced Placement Biology in high school. Evolution was discussed for about one day - and that was in the context of other theories/hypotheses regarding the origin of species - aquired characteristics, creation, etc. It was not essential to understanding Biology - just a background of general knowledge on the subject biology.

This is a giant non-issue.

"High school student Charity Ward told the board she took one of Bellis' classes. She urged the board not to teach 'abstinence-only,' saying she found it helpful to learn about sexually transmitted diseases and other potential consequences of having sex."

How does one conduct "abstinence education" without covering STD's? What do they think abstinence education is - just a 10 second class where the teacher says "don't have sex"? There has to be an explanation - don't have sex before you're married, and here is why: pregnancy, STD's, the fact that condoms are not 100% effective, even if used properly. Of course, this is all operating on the assumption that sex education has a place in government school - it does not. And, that question is based on the assumption that there should even be government schools - there should not. Thus, the root of the problem - government schools.

3 posted on 08/30/2003 12:09:49 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Voice in your head
You are splitting my gut, making too much sense.

How does one conduct "abstinence education" without covering STD's? What do they think abstinence education is - just a 10 second class where the teacher says "don't have sex"? There has to be an explanation - don't have sex before you're married, and here is why: pregnancy, STD's, the fact that condoms are not 100% effective, even if used properly.

So true ...

High school student Charity Ward told the board she took one of Bellis' classes. She urged the board not to teach "abstinence-only," saying she found it helpful to learn about sexually transmitted diseases and other potential consequences of having sex. "Without that information I probably would have made bad choices," she said. Without that information, she "probably" ... uh wait a second, did she get the information or not? how so? Did she make bad decisions or not? If not, what is the problem, obviously the class didnt make go out and get pregnant out of ignorance? And what is a 'bad decision'? Is it that she was taught 'dont do sex' and now regrets following the advice?!?

8 posted on 08/30/2003 2:31:32 PM PDT by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson