Texas "fact-optional" science education bill

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>It is more like when a science teacher penalizes students when they argue that man ativities . . .

Hey, look! A climate change argument, RushMC's favorite! Perhaps you could start a thread about climate change.

>Which it has not yet been proven and, I have seen a student get a lower
>grade even though the tests and class work proved a higher grade was earned.

Right. And if a student wrote on his test that the earth was flat, the moon was made of cheese and diseases are caused by evil spirits, should he get an A? What if he really believed that?

You see dear sir. You post to something that is today perfectly provable. By that I mean the topic you list have been answered today. YOU want to believe man made climate change is in the same boat and it is not.

A very childish and dishonest tactic. You should be ashamed.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,426]

So in other words, you cannot answer the question, and you just want to get your daily quota of insults in. The classic RushMC post.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

So in other words, you cannot answer the question, and you just want to get your daily quota of insults in. The classic RushMC post.

Sorry you were insulted on being called on what you posted but, if you want a question that is much more relavant let us try this one.

A student debates a science teacher on the topic of man made global climate change. This student puts out information such as some research showing Temps levels changing BEFORE CO2 level changes. Deep ice research that brings some scientists to believe that man is not having a large effect if any, on the planets climate. Tree ring data research that supports his views. He also brings up the manipulation of the computer models and errors in some of the temp data and the interoperations of that date.

All the while during the class he studies the material, finishes his assignments and does well on the tests.

The teacher flunks him in the class because he will not say that man is a cause of climate change.

It that the right thing to do?

Much more germane to this thread than the debunked old ideas that were help a time when science was still a relatively small activity.


What do you think?

Edited to fix my reversal of the what was first, temp changes or CO2 levels...my bad

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Religion being taught? There is a fine line. I would have a problem withy Creationism being taught as fact. I do not have a problem with Creationism being cited as a competing idea/theory etc.

It seems that the law supports analysis and critique. Maybe it's just me, but ignorance is not education. It can teach that people believe in Creationism and it does not constitute dogmatic indoctrination.

Does having Machiavelli's "The Prince" as part of the curriculum indoctrinate despotism? Does teaching about Communism and the Communist Manifesto starting revolutions necessitate a that the students become indoctrinated?

In the 50's they tried to make that ridiculous nexus with communism.

How is explaining Creationism equate to religious training? How about art depicting Dead Christ? Let us not show "David" to students. If one asks, "who was David" the teachers should say "I cannot comment upon it, for to do so would be religious education?"

I don't thunk so. Put it out there. Say, "there is a theory that xxx.". That is fact. "There is a theory that the universe is composed of sub-atomic strings.". That is a fact.

Discuss.

Ignoring something doesn't make it go away. Education does not deliberately obfuscate or ignore ideas.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,426]

>It that the right thing to do?

A student studies the material, does all his assignments, and then says the earth is flat on the final planetary science test. The teacher flunks him. Is that the right thing to do?

[billvon 2,426]

>I do not have a problem with Creationism being cited as a competing
>idea/theory etc.

In science class?

Just so I am understanding you, you'd have no problem with your kids being taught that:

-the earth might have been created from a disk of interstellar gas and dusst that condensed into a star and several orbiting planets

-the earth might have been created in six days by God, and he rested on the seventh day

-the earth might have been created from Vishnu's navel when he emerged from the eternal waters of prehistory, cradled in the coils of a cobra

-the earth might have been created when a great colorful light separated the primordial chaos into Ying and Yang, which then separated further into the five elements - water, earth, metal, fire and wood (covers chemistry too!)

You'd be fine with your kids understanding that all those are equally valid theories on how the earth was created?

>Does having Machiavelli's "The Prince" as part of the
>curriculum indoctrinate despotism?

If you teach it in a literature class as a classic, no. If you teach it in science class as the right way to control a society, yes.

> Does teaching about Communism and the Communist Manifesto
>starting revolutions necessitate a that the students become
>indoctrinated?

If you teach it in history class, no. If you teach it in science class to prove that Lysenkoism worked, then yes, that's a problem.

> How about art depicting Dead Christ?

If you teach it in art class as art, no. If you teach it during an assembly as "This is your Lord, Jesus Christ, who sits at the right hand of the Father, and who will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" then yes, there's a problem.

>Education does not deliberately obfuscate or ignore ideas.

Of course it does. BDSM is ignored in public schools, which is quite appropriate. So is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Homunculus theory of generation, and the flat-earth theory. At the very most they are mentioned in passing as a "well, they thought X once."

Which is a good thing. That is not an attempt to "ignore ideas" but rather a quite rational approach to education.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>It that the right thing to do?

A student studies the material, does all his assignments, and then says the earth is flat on the final planetary science test. The teacher flunks him. Is that the right thing to do?

Flunk him. But by all means, if that child says, "but the world looks flat" the student should be penalized. Let us not explain to the child.

The student has questioned the supremacy of the eenztructor. Banishment to Zzzyberia eez zee appropriate remeedee.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,426]

>Flunk him. But by all means, if that child says, "but the world looks
>flat" the student should be penalized. Let us not explain to the child.

Sorry! Under the new bill, you are specifically prohibited from penalizing the child just because he subscribes to a different scientific position (provided he has an explanation, of course, such as the one you provided.) His scientific position is, by law, as valid as everyone else's. No explanations, no arguments - he gets an A.

[lawrocket 3]

No, bill. The bill says not that teachers are required to teach that sexual pleasure is the work of Beelzebub.

It does say that students are encouraged to analyze and poke holes. It does not say, "Teachers shall teach ab out God."

so if a science tests asks to describe the fate of pyruvate, then discuss it.

If it asks to describe the creation of life on earth, well, now, we've got ourselves a problem. Miller-Urey was as close as they got.

But nothing definitive.

Biological ancestors? For test purposes, homo habilus should be included. For discussion purposes? The door is open...

There is what I like to call a "middle ground.". I believe I am in the minority in supporting same.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

>Flunk him. But by all means, if that child says, "but the world looks
>flat" the student should be penalized. Let us not explain to the child.

Sorry! Under the new bill, you are specifically prohibited from penalizing the child just because he subscribes to a different scientific position (provided he has an explanation, of course, such as the one you provided.) His scientific position is, by law, as valid as everyone else's. No explanations, no arguments - he gets an A.

And he should get an A . Spacially speaking, depending on the perspective the world is flat.
Flat as a piece of paper . Of course if you zoom in under a microscope the paper isn't flat.
I don't think that any true scientist can reasonably or credibly speak in absolutes. YOMV

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Flunk him. But by all means, if that child says, "but the world looks
>flat" the student should be penalized. Let us not explain to the child.

Sorry! Under the new bill, you are specifically prohibited from penalizing the child just because he subscribes to a different scientific position (provided he has an explanation, of course, such as the one you provided.) His scientific position is, by law, as valid as everyone else's. No explanations, no arguments - he gets an A.

You really should read the bill - the things you are saying are not supported by the actual text.

If the child says the earth is flat on a test, he'll get points deducted for a wrong answer, regardless of what his personal beliefs are.

If the child believes the earth is flat, but answers that it's a sphere according to what has been taught in science class, then he gets full credit for a correct answer, just like every other student that answers the question correctly. The student cannot be punished simply because his personal beliefs don't correspond with the teachings, as long as he demonstrates that he understands the material.

There really is no ogre here. It's just common sense anti-discrimination legislation.

And based upon some of the anti-religion responses here, it's well-needed.

[lawrocket 3]

Hijack warning:

Under some theories in science, there are infinite parallel universes with infinite possibilities.

If true, would that not suggest that universes (actually, infinite universes) exist in which God is the creator? Secular scientific theory supporting the existence of God, if not I'm this universe, then in infinite others?

Indeed - there are infinite universes where I am not atheist. That's pretty groovy

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,426]

>You really should read the bill - the things you are saying are not
>supported by the actual text.

Ironically it is supported by the very section you posted:

"Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because he or she subscribes to a particular position on scientific theories or hypotheses;"

That's in plain English. No student may be penalized for having his own position on scientific theories (like the shape of the earth.)

>If the child believes the earth is flat, but answers that it's a sphere
>according to what has been taught in science class, then he gets full
>credit for a correct answer, just like every other student that answers the
>question correctly.

Correct. And if he answers that it is flat because he subscribes to that position, he may not be penalized in any way (including losing points on the test.)

[lawrocket 3]

Bill-

Student may be failed based upon his lack of demonstration of understanding of course materials.

his personal viewpoints don't matter.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nerdgirl 0]

Thanks for the link to the bill's text.

Quote

All it means is that teachers can't discriminate against students who believe in creationism rather than evolution. But the student will still have to pass tests showing that he understands the theory of evolution, even if he doesn't personally agree with it.

That's not too far off from my reading of it ... or what a number of folks have written: evolution is a scientific theory, i.e., public, repeatable, falsifiable ...not a hypothesis or speculative notion.

And creationism/intelligent design is a Judeo-Christian-Muslim religious tenet, which is not a theory, i.e., it's not falsifiable, public, or repeatable. Therefore, it does not belong in a science curriculum (with perhaps one possible exception that I'll note in subsequent post, although I probably would not recommend it for 6-12 grades.)

What the bill's text states, as you and I are interpreting it, sounds to me like what science teachers already do. Therefore prompting me to wonder: why is an additional law needed?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Religion being taught? There is a fine line. I would have a problem withy Creationism being taught as fact. I do not have a problem with Creationism being cited as a competing idea/theory etc.

It seems that the law supports analysis and critique. Maybe it's just me, but ignorance is not education. It can teach that people believe in Creationism and it does not constitute dogmatic indoctrination.

Your scenario does bring up one viable way in which creationism might be incorporated into a science class. Not as a challenge to evolution ... but as a case to illustrate what differentiates scientific theories (public, repeatable, falsifiable, with demonstratable and predictive causal relationships) from non-scientific explanations for physical phenomena.

In a notional way, "Why is creationism not a scientific theory?" would be an insightful means to test whether students understand the scientific method.

That probably would not be palatable in most communities, however.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 2,426]

>Student may be failed based upon his lack of demonstration of
>understanding of course materials.

Is it your claim that the new law merely states that a student cannot be failed because of a personal (and unwritten) religious belief even if he answers all the questions on tests per the syllabus? That's true already.

In any case, failing a student due to his strongly held personal beliefs (as stated on a test) would surely seem to penalize him. It would be difficult to get around that part of the law to do as you state.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

If it asks to describe the creation of life on earth, well, now, we've got ourselves a problem. Miller-Urey was as close as they got.

Science toward understanding the abiotic origins of life has come a bit further than Urey-Miller not unlike skydiving has progressed a lot further than what was being used and done in 1953.

And if you are looking for a large sign or single experiment - the closest is Stanley Miller-Harold Urey's now-classic 1952 experiment showing that amino acids, the building blocks of organic life, can be formed inorganically.

There's even more from the Urey-Miller experiment that was discovered this past October: "Lost' Miller-Urey Experiment Created More Of Life's Building Blocks."

These days there's *a lot* beyond that.

The internet notwithstanding, the contentious debate is over direct abiotic synthesis of RNA or DNA versus biotic derivation of RNA/DNA from TNA or GNA (the latter are forms of RNA/DNA with other sugars).

Just one example with which I am familiar: pre-biotic synthesis of RNA from Jack Sutherland's lab (Univ Manchester). Other people who've worked in the area subsequent to Miller & Urey include the late Leslie Orgel from Scripps.

Some other thoughts on prebiotic synthesis of amino acids. (And this is *way* beyond Stanley Miller-Harold Urey’s classic experiment.)

It gets even more fascinating, im-ever-ho, when you start examining the intersection of organic synthesis and photocatalysis with early Earth geochemistry of reducing atmosphere.

And that’s all terrestrial synthesis, other folks (mostly astrophysicists, like Lew Snyder, UIUC) are pursuing the search for amino acids in the interstellar medium, of which the component molecules have already found.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

If true, would that not suggest that universes (actually, infinite universes) exist in which God is the creator? Secular scientific theory supporting the existence of God, if not I'm this universe, then in infinite others?

no, beacuse if god the creator exists in another universe (or this one), there would be only that universe and all others wouldn't exist.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Selling out your childrens education just to get a superstition into a science class, that's nothing short of child abuse.

Yes, such as the man made climate change argument.

No. As contraversial as you think climate change is, it is based on science and therefore it legitimately belongs in science class. Creationism however, is based on superstition and has no basis in science whatsoever.

The fact is that if these laws are established, they will leave the US with an education system that is the laughing stock of the developed world. People who think creationism is a valid alternative scientific theory obviously do not understand what science is and they are forcibly condemning their children to be at least as dumb as they are. That is child abuse, plain and simple.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>It that the right thing to do?

A student studies the material, does all his assignments, and then says the earth is flat on the final planetary science test. The teacher flunks him. Is that the right thing to do?

Will not answer huh....

To answer your question, if that is the only question then yes, that student should flunk. But the question is crap because proof beyond argument exists. In my senario it does not, does it!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Thanks for the link to the bill's text.

Quote

All it means is that teachers can't discriminate against students who believe in creationism rather than evolution. But the student will still have to pass tests showing that he understands the theory of evolution, even if he doesn't personally agree with it.

That's not too far off from my reading of it ... or what a number of folks have written: evolution is a scientific theory, i.e., public, repeatable, falsifiable ...not a hypothesis or speculative notion.

And creationism/intelligent design is a Judeo-Christian-Muslim religious tenet, which is not a theory, i.e., it's not falsifiable, public, or repeatable. Therefore, it does not belong in a science curriculum (with perhaps one possible exception that I'll note in subsequent post, although I probably would not recommend it for 6-12 grades.)

What the bill's text states, as you and I are interpreting it, sounds to me like what science teachers already do. Therefore prompting me to wonder: why is an additional law needed?

/Marg

Maybe because of the real life example I gave.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Selling out your childrens education just to get a superstition into a science class, that's nothing short of child abuse.

Yes, such as the man made climate change argument.

No. As contraversial as you think climate change is, it is based on science and therefore it legitimately belongs in science class. Creationism however, is based on superstition and has no basis in science whatsoever.

The fact is that if these laws are established, they will leave the US with an education system that is the laughing stock of the developed world. People who think creationism is a valid alternative scientific theory obviously do not understand what science is and they are forcibly condemning their children to be at least as dumb as they are. That is child abuse, plain and simple.

Yes, I agree climate change does belong in the class room. I never said it should not be. But, it is unproven and still highly debated. For anybody to say that is not the case is not arguing from a science perspective.

As for the relgious side of this debate, I dont go there, it is usually pointless.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

and by the way, our system is already the laughing stock of the world.

Our solution, keep throwing money at bad teaching and unions............

Until local control and free school choice returns, nothing will get better.

I think this law so many are so distressed about is simply to stop teachers from making student toe the political line with impunity

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Marg:

Thank you for describing a lot of the ewxperiments about the synthesis of amibo acids.

You didn't describe how life waa created. The assigment told you to describe how life was created.

You get "D." You demonstrated a fine understanding of the subject (one thing that prevented an "F") but you did not answer the question.

But it's good for you that you did not include the line, "not to mention those who believe in Creationism." Then you would have received an "F" because you mentioned it and I don't believe in it.


My point? Boy, Marg, you provided EXACTLY the answer that I explained to billvon. Your answer was a brilliant "history of science" answer, richly supported. An answer that would be perfectly wonderful in schools that describes the history of the science behind the origins of life.

Nope - no room to mention that some believe in a Creator in the history of science. That will put you from an "A" to an "F" instantly, right there.

My wife is hotter than your wife.