Questions for the General Public

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

You missed my point......to state it in a phrase...your job as a science teacher is to make science come alive!

---

Which is what I plan to do while encouraging out-of-class learning. plain and simple. Can't put it in any clearer terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melicious

I'm a junior in college, and I just changed my major, so I'll be in college for a while. I know about these lazy students, and they are the driving force behind my wanting to teach. If I can get to these students, I've got it made. It'll take great amounts of dedication, frustration, etc, but I'm willing to give it a go. That, and if I can get Ophelia out from under my fingers, that'll be good too. ^_^

---

I went into teaching with that same idea... unfortunately, you are gonna have to realise, that most of the time, when you get an older student who is lazy or shows little driving force to be successful in school, it is rare to turn them around... so dont let them be your driving force for becoming an educator, let the ones who are not lazy and have that driving force to succeed be what you teach for.

Bottom line is, most kids learn through thier parents, that education is important, or they do not through failings of the parent to teach education is important. Many things also influence that.. geographically, socially, etc.

Here in my house, my kids have been taught from a young age that school is thier "job" of sorts and that they must attain a certain (reasonable) GPA to have certain privledges in this house and outside of my home. That in itself helps them to see that education is important.If you dont have that education, you go no where, you have no life, this is true as an adult also. So for me, it starts right here at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeanne

I went into teaching with that same idea... unfortunately, you are gonna have to realise, that most of the time, when you get an older student who is lazy or shows little driving force to be successful in school, it is rare to turn them around... so dont let them be your driving force for becoming an educator, let the ones who are not lazy and have that driving force to succeed be what you teach for.

Bottom line is, most kids learn through thier parents, that education is important, or they do not through failings of the parent to teach education is important. Many things also influence that.. geographically, socially, etc.

Here in my house, my kids have been taught from a young age that school is thier "job" of sorts and that they must attain a certain (reasonable) GPA to have certain privledges in this house and outside of my home. That in itself helps them to see that education is important.If you dont have that education, you go no where, you have no life, this is true as an adult also. So for me, it starts right here at home.

---

I'd definitely agree with you on education starting at home. I've also had the experience of hearing about some of my father's students. His first teaching job was in the middle of inner-city San Antonio. A lot of his students lived in cars, were fifteen and going on their second kid, etc. A lot of them leaned on my father as a rolemodel and looked up to his desire to teach. Most of the students that the other teachers were afraid of, claimed were bad learners, etc, turned out to be his best, favorite students. They worked harder. I don't see the geographical, societal reasons as true; I see them as excuses simply because I saw what man could evoke in his students. My father is my guiding light, whether he upset me or not. He pushed away those geographical and societal reasons away and he taught his students to love Algebra. They still call him. They still e-mail him.

You may disagree with me, but those students who're lazy and the students who don't have the support from family are the reason I want to teach. The ones who love learning on the icing on the cake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melicious

So...my job, in your eyes, as a teacher, is to regurgitate what the book says and not encourage independent thought. Am I right?

---

Bingo!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melicious

simply want to encourage my students to learn about their world. To learn how to better research. If that's a crime, I ought not to be a teacher.g to burn in hell. Fun stuff)! I don't want to persecute anyone for their religion.I was under the impression that school was for learning, expanding your skills in research, and becoming your own person with the aid/help/encouragement of people like me who want to teach.

Oh, and on a side note, I don't even know if evolution will even a part of the cirriculum.

---

There is nothing wrong with teaching and encouraging kids to learn. But it does cross a line when you step out of the curriculum and tread into religious subjects. At the beginning of this thread you stated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melicious

I eventually want to be a Biology/Science teacher in high school and I'm having a dilemma with what I want to teach and what the school district will allow me to teach; especially where evolution is concerned. I'll be the first to state that I am, as people go, confused about my own religious beliefs. Raised Christian, I dabbled in "Wicca" and then parts of the Kaballah, moving into Aleister Crowley's teachings. (I love that man, by the way)!

Anyhoo...I wanted to know what the general public thinks of the idea of gently nudging my students to look at other "alternatives" to the evolution theory. I realize that most would see religious alternatives to be a breach of Seperation of Church and State, however; I find that nurturing my students, and encouraging other ideas is the way to go. I personally have my own questions about evolution. It's unproveable, though a good portion of the science we teach today is unproven, but I find that if I teach them only this(evolution), and do not at least encourage them to test other waters, I wouldn't, as a teacher, be doing my job. I'm of the firm belief that a teacher not only addresses the material they are supposed to address, but also allow the student to mold their own knowledge.

So...I'm not hoping to start a huge argument. I'm simply hoping for some incite into what others would see fit for their offspring to be taught. Fire away!

---

Just because you are having "doubts" doesn't mean you have the right to put doubt in other peoples children. If you want to teach philosophy go teach college courses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Bill

Bingo!!!



There is nothing wrong with teaching and encouraging kids to learn. But it does cross a line when you step out of the curriculum and tread into religious subjects. At the beginning of this thread you stated



Just because you are having "doubts" doesn't mean you have the right to put doubt in other peoples children. If you want to teach philosophy go teach college courses.

---

1. That's sad.
2. I don't think that suggesting that there are alternative thoughts on evolution/our coming of existence would even be saying, "Go, my child! Go seek God! He will save you!" I'm simply stating that there are other alternative beliefs.
3. And I definitely don't think that suggesting they do their own research is encouraging doubt. If I wanted to teach philosophy, I'd be majoring in philosophy. I'm not.

Melanie, have you considered teaching something different like the Arts and Humanities? I took some of these classes in college and learned so much about the different cultures, religions, philosophies to name a few. I got exposed to many different ideas and perspectives in one semester than I have been in my entire life. The class always met at a museum or an art gallery and provided an enriching experience that defenitely broadened my horizons. But this does not mean that I would want to hear about creationism or ID in my biology class. I believe that this is not the place nor venue to encourage students inside or outside of class about such pseudoscience and simply does not make any rational sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iceman25

Melanie, have you considered teaching something different like the Arts and Humanities? I took some of these classes in college and learned so much about the different cultures, religions, philosophies to name a few. I got exposed to many different ideas and perspectives in one semester than I have been in my entire life. The class always met at a museum or an art gallery and provided an enriching experience that defenitely broadened my horizons. But this does not mean that I would want to hear about creationism or ID in my biology class. I believe that this is not the place nor venue to encourage students inside or outside of class about such pseudoscience and simply does not make any rational sense to me.

---

I originally wanted to be a choral director. ^_^ Then I wanted to be an English teacher. I "spoke" to Ophelia one night and I realized what I'd wanted to do for a very long time. Teach Biology, or possibly work at a zoo, specifically with the reptiles. I do at least want to teach for a while, though. I sort of do it all of the time when I go out. O_O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melicious

1. That's sad.
2. I don't think that suggesting that there are alternative thoughts on evolution/our coming of existence would even be saying, "Go, my child! Go seek God! He will save you!" I'm simply stating that there are other alternative beliefs.
3. And I definitely don't think that suggesting they do their own research is encouraging doubt. If I wanted to teach philosophy, I'd be majoring in philosophy. I'm not.

---

1.There is nothing wrong with teaching and encouraging kids to learn. But it does cross a line when you step out of the curriculum and tread into religious subjects. At the beginning of this thread you stated
Just because you are having "doubts" doesn't mean you have the right to put doubt in other peoples children. If you want to teach philosophy go teach college courses.
A.) How is this sad? You apparently dont like christianity and would balk at anyone putting church into school. when you mix your 'religion' with your 'science' you're doing the same thing but dont want to be told so.

2.No, what you're trying to teach is not state mandated, is of your own opinions/beliefs, and apparently your way to students which is not what your paid or trusted to do. I do not see how you're still stuck on this when everyone has been opposed to you teaching their kids things alternative to what the school requires. You keep saying the same thing and getting the same answer. What are some of these alternatives by the way? You have yet to produce a link to any of your 'beliefs' that i am sure have very little credible basis.

3.Encouraging kids to research does not create doubt. it creates learning. but what do you mean by doubt? doubt in what? what the school/state/nation/scientists are suggesting is 'new' and 'current' to teach, or your student's faith which IS overstepping the seperation of church and state.

4.If you're not majoring in philosophy, then why do you want to teach them your opinions? Still no links, so as far as im concerned, nothing you want to teach is agreed with by a majority of well respected educators and scientists.

The End, Love Ansli.

Also, could you refrain putting your 'religious' beliefs into statement form and not opinion. Try putting "I Believe christians fabricated the devil" and not "Christians fabricated the devil to embody evil". Actually, other older religions created their devils and demons long before christians did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melicious


I see it as a religious text book to be taken with a grain of salt as I do text books in science class. ^_^

---

If it is school text books you take with a grain of salt as you do the bible..then maybe you should reconsider going into the education career at all, because bottom line, school text books are what you will be teaching from. How and why would you even attempt to teach something you take with a grain of salt?

Melanie, i think you would be the coolest teacher ever if you tought other alternatives to how the world was created other then evolution which i can see no fact or proof in anyways. you have my vote! i thoroughly support you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr~python

Melanie, i think you would be the coolest teacher ever if you tought other alternatives to how the world was created other then evolution which i can see no fact or proof in anyways. you have my vote! i thoroughly support you.

---

Evolution does NOT deal with how the world came to be...it deals with "The origin of species...."

It seems like you have alternative ideas anyway....do you really feel they need to be promoted by a science teacher? Cant you try to learn something well even if you dont agree with it 100%?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

It seems like you have alternative ideas anyway....do you really feel they need to be promoted by a science teacher? Cant you try to learn something well even if you dont agree with it 100%?

---

yes i do. in my Christian school our teachers teach us about creation, but they also show us how evoltionists believe the world and animals became and how it could not have happened. i still find it interesting how evolutionist believe the world and animals became and i still can learn it, i just dont believe it.

i think in public school children (like my self) should be tought all the theorys of how the world was created.

no pun intended guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Evolution does NOT deal with how the world came to be...it deals with "The origin of species...."

It seems like you have alternative ideas anyway....do you really feel they need to be promoted by a science teacher? Cant you try to learn something well even if you dont agree with it 100%?

---

I plan to learn it well, and teach it to the best of my ability as everything else needing to be taught in the cirriculum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeanne

If it is school text books you take with a grain of salt as you do the bible..then maybe you should reconsider going into the education career at all, because bottom line, school text books are what you will be teaching from. How and why would you even attempt to teach something you take with a grain of salt?

---

Let me ask you something. Do you read the newspaper and take that as law? That everything in the newspaper is true? I would hope not.

I'm not stating that everything in the text books will be wrong, or that it's all false, I'm simply stating that I won't just accept what's in my textbook to be the complete truth.

Simple Example: The progression of the horse, which had been disproven is probably in that textbook. People who are of firm belief in that being a prime example of evolution believed in something that seemed to be so true. Yet it was wrong.

I simply want my students to realize that the textbook issued to them is not the end-all be-all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr~python

yes i do. in my Christian school our teachers teach us about creation, but they also show us how evoltionists believe the world and animals became and how it could not have happened. i still find it interesting how evolutionist believe the world and animals became and i still can learn it, i just dont believe it.

i think in public school children (like my self) should be tought all the theorys of how the world was created.

no pun intended guys.

---

I'd actually disagree. I think public school students shouldn't be taught all of the theories. That would take at least an entire semester and the rest of the curriculum would be left to another. I do, however, think it's the responsible teacher that encourages her/his students to look at these other "theories."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr~python

yes i do. in my Christian school our teachers teach us about creation, but they also show us how evoltionists believe the world originated and how it could not have happened. i still find it interesting how evolutionist believe the world originated and i still can learn it, i just dont believe it.

i think in public school children (like my self) should be tought all the theorys of how the world was created.

no pun intended guys.

---

If you think that, then your not learning American histroy or civics very well from your school.....

Its called Speration of Church and State.

The only place that these ideas belong in a public school are in a philosophy class, certainly not a science class.....

I took a class in high school during 12th grade called the "Theory of Knowledge"...its part of the IB program......it was a philosophy class that addressed these type of issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melicious

I'd actually disagree. I think public school students shouldn't be taught all of the theories. That would take at least an entire semester and the rest of the curriculum would be left to another. I do, however, think it's the responsible teacher that encourages her/his students to look at these other "theories."

---

I think you keep showing how you really dont get how the word theory is used in science......

You got to stick to scientific theories in science class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

I think you keep showing how you really dont get how the word theory is used in science......

You got to stick to scientific theories in science class.

---

And I think you don't understand the power of quotations. Theories in quotations emphasises the fact that a lot of normal, everyday people use the term theory loosely. I was emphasizing that point. Imagine that everytime I do that, I do the quotation sign with my fingers. ~Quoting fingers!~ That's why when I stated ideas, they're not in quotes. Alternatives isn't in quotes. However; "theories," "theory" etc are.

Aside from what you 'should' or want to do about this, one aspect to keep in mind is that you may very well not be authorized to touch on the things we are discussing. I had a spanish teacher in high school who was fired for just mentioning some school politics to a class, I can't imagine a science teacher that encouraged students to look at theological alternatives to scientific fact would last long at ANY public school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melicious

And I think you don't understand the power of quotations. Theories in quotations emphasises the fact that a lot of normal, everyday people use the term theory loosely. I was emphasizing that point. Imagine that everytime I do that, I do the quotation sign with my fingers. ~Quoting fingers!~ That's why when I stated ideas, they're not in quotes. Alternatives isn't in quotes. However; "theories," "theory" etc are.

---

your "theories" dont belong in public school science classrooms...do that on your own time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elevatethis

Aside from what you 'should' or want to do about this, one aspect to keep in mind is that you may very well not be authorized to touch on the things we are discussing. I had a spanish teacher in high school who was fired for just mentioning some school politics to a class, I can't imagine a science teacher that encouraged students to look at theological alternatives to scientific fact would last long at ANY public school.

---

True believers, heed this practical advice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

your "theories" dont belong in public school science classrooms...do that on tour own time.

---

They're not MY theories at all. They're others that should not be introduced in class, but ought to be explored if wished upon.

I can just imagine how fast my parents would have been on the phone with a school administrator if I came home and started talking about how my science teacher told me to do a google search on "creative design" and write a paper about it for extra credit.

Mel, I really hate to say it, what you are suggesting doing would be a basis for termination in most public school systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melicious

Let me ask you something. Do you read the newspaper and take that as law? That everything in the newspaper is true? I would hope not.

I'm not stating that everything in the text books will be wrong, or that it's all false, I'm simply stating that I won't just accept what's in my textbook to be the complete truth.

I simply want my students to realize that the textbook issued to them is not the end-all be-all.

---

Actually, no I dont believe everything in a newspaper, and I dont think text books are the end all be all... however, I just think there needs to be a separation of church and state that is gone by , by ALL educators... period. Church does not belong in a science teaching, nor a churchs beliefs.. they should have no bearing on that class whats so ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elevatethis

I had a heated conversation with a girl who was convinced that dinosaur bones were fake and placed on earth by the devil in order to lure non-believers to hell. WOW!

---

I like it! :sweeet: Wanna PM me her number? :twisted:

-adam

It was actually one of Lindsay's roommates from last year!

She was kinda cute, and a nursing major to boot! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elevatethis

I can just imagine how fast my parents would have been on the phone with a school administrator if I came home and started talking about how my science teacher told me to do a google search on "creative design" and write a paper about it for extra credit.

Mel, I really hate to say it, what you are suggesting doing would be a basis for termination in most public school systems.

---

It's intelligent design, but hey...I disagree with that idea to begin with. I look at the world today, and I damn-well can assume that there was little intelligence. ^_^

I guess I'm just truly astonished that the people in today's society would be so against an educator encouraging a student, whether for extra-credit or not, to look beyond just the curriculum. Whether it's about evolution, stem-cell research or viruses, I want to encourage them to learn more, see what's out there, and satiate a hunger for knowledge. (Maybe I was just the weird kid who wanted to learn. O_O)

But...I'm a firm believer in the flatulent raccoon theory. ^_^ ~Wonders if anyone knows where that one came from.~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melicious

They're not MY theories at all. They're others that should not be introduced in class, but ought to be explored if wished upon.

---

So why do you feel it's your job (duty) to encourage this as a science teacher?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elevatethis

It was actually one of Lindsay's roommates from last year!

She was kinda cute, and a nursing major to boot! ;)

---

Hook a brother up dude! :sweeet: :halohorn:

-adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xdeus

So why do you feel it's your job (duty) to encourage this as a science teacher?

---

I feel it's my job/duty to encourage them to learn outside of the text. To at least SEE what's out there. Whether they do it or not is their perrogative.

Mel, I would seriously reconsider your attitude about taking today's science "with a grain of salt" or wanting to explore theological explanations for natural phenomena. I assure you, there's no way you'll achieve a biology degree with that kind of perception.

Science is about knowing nothing, being completely unbiased, and making observations about the world around you in order to learn. The scientific method and theological perspective are mutually exlusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elevatethis

Aside from what you 'should' or want to do about this, one aspect to keep in mind is that you may very well not be authorized to touch on the things we are discussing. I had a spanish teacher in high school who was fired for just mentioning some school politics to a class, I can't imagine a science teacher that encouraged students to look at theological alternatives to scientific fact would last long at ANY public school.

---

Truer words have never been spoken.

I have a 16 yo son in public schools, Fairfax cty, Va schools. And they stay away from christian or evolution theories because you really can't teach any without offending someone, period. It's just the way the PC world has become.
I personally don't want any teacher adding their personal beliefs to any class my child is taking. Stick to what the cty/state BOE has auth. as the materials for that class. In this day and age I don't think you will find a public school who will let you go beyond there set materials. It is just opening a door to a lawsuit.
A hot topic like evolution or the bible is something each parent should discuss and have there children look and research beyond if they have questions or just to present other ideas/ beliefs.
I understand you wanting to be more than just a drone of a teacher but today's world and the people in it aren't going to give you that freedom.
If you want that freedom you will have to look to a private school or college.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

Hook a brother up dude! :sweeet: :halohorn:

-adam

---

Maybe you could give her a dinosaur bone, old man!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jotay

Truer words have never been spoken.

I have a 16 yo son in public schools, Fairfax cty, Va schools. And they stay away from christian or evolution theories because you really can't teach any without offending someone, period. It's just the way the PC world has become.
I personally don't want any teacher adding their personal beliefs to any class my child is taking. Stick to what the cty/state BOE has auth. as the materials for that class. In this day and age I don't think you will find a public school who will let you go beyond there set materials. It is just opening a door to a lawsuit.
A hot topic like evolution or the bible is something each parent should discuss and have there children look and research beyond if they have questions or just to present other ideas/ beliefs.
I understand you wanting to be more than just a drone of a teacher but today's world and the people in it aren't going to give you that freedom.
If you want that freedom you will have to look to a private school or college.

---

Well...I probably won't even get the chance to teach evolution in my biology class. In my college bio class, the teacher briefly mentioned it and flew right by it. She later told me she was afraid of getting into the topic even though she's got tenure. Either way, I'll still encourage my students to learn outside of class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elevatethis

Maybe you could give her a dinosaur bone, old man!

---

I could have sworn Adam was happily married with offspring...

And boys, I'm not trying to be an anal cow, but could you please keep the off-topic banter to a bare minimum, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melicious

I could have sworn Adam was happily married with offspring...

And boys, I'm not trying to be an anal cow, but could you please keep the off-topic banter to a bare minimum, please.

---

Be careful about what you assume. ;) :sweeet:

-adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jotay

I have a 16 yo son in public schools, Fairfax cty, Va schools. And they stay away from christian or evolution theories because you really can't teach any without offending someone, period. It's just the way the PC world has become.

---

Ramifications of this.....

From NY TIMES article here.....

"The usefulness of scientific theories, like those on gravity, relativity and evolution, is to make predictions. When theories make practicable foresight possible, they are widely accepted and used to make all of the new things that we enjoy -- like global positioning systems, which rely on the theories of relativity, and the satellites that make them possible, which are placed in their orbits thanks to the good old theory of gravity.

Creationists who oppose the teaching of evolution as the predominant theory of biology contend that alternatives should be part of the curriculum because evolution is "just a theory," but they never attack mere theories of gravity and relativity in the same way. The creationists took it on their intelligently designed chins recently from a judge in Pennsylvania who found that teaching alternatives to evolution amounted to the teaching of religion. They prevailed, however, in Kansas, where the school board changed the definition of science to accommodate the teaching of intelligent design.

Both sides say they are fighting for lofty goals and defending the truth. But lost in all this truth-defending are more pragmatic issues that have to do with the young people whose educations are at stake here and this pesky fact: creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does.

Since evolution has been the dominant theory of biology for more than a century, it's a safe statement that all of the wonderful innovations in medicine and agriculture that we derive from biological research stem from the theory of evolution. Recent, exciting examples are humanized antibodies like Remicade for inflammation and Herceptin for breast cancer, both initially made in mice. Without our knowledge of the evolution of mice and humans and their immune systems, we wouldn't have such life-saving and life-improving technologies.

Another specific example is resistant bacterial infections, one of the scariest threats to public health. The ones that are resistant to antibiotics are more reproductively successful than their non-resistant relatives and pass the new resistance genes on to more offspring. Just as Darwin said 150 years ago.

The creationists have devised a tortuous work-around for this phenomenon, which endorses natural selection and survival of the fittest, but says that evolution doesn't explain the original development of species. The problem is, there are hundreds of genes that occur in both bacteria and humans. It's hard to see why a designer would do it that way, since having the same genes in bacteria and humans makes infections harder to treat: drugs that act on bacterial gene products act on the human versions as well, so those drugs could kill both the bacterium and the human host. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

So evolution has some pretty exciting applications (like food), and I'm guessing most people would prefer antibiotics developed by someone who knows the evolutionary relationship of humans and bacteria. What does this mean for the young people who go to school in Kansas? Are we going to close them out from working in the life sciences? And what about companies in Kansas that want to attract scientists to work there? Will Mom or Dad Scientist want to live somewhere where their children are less likely to learn evolution?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Ramifications of this.....

From NY TIMES article here.....

"The usefulness of scientific theories, like those on gravity, relativity and evolution, is to make predictions. When theories make practicable foresight possible, they are widely accepted and used to make all of the new things that we enjoy -- like global positioning systems, which rely on the theories of relativity, and the satellites that make them possible, which are placed in their orbits thanks to the good old theory of gravity.

Creationists who oppose the teaching of evolution as the predominant theory of biology contend that alternatives should be part of the curriculum because evolution is "just a theory," but they never attack mere theories of gravity and relativity in the same way. The creationists took it on their intelligently designed chins recently from a judge in Pennsylvania who found that teaching alternatives to evolution amounted to the teaching of religion. They prevailed, however, in Kansas, where the school board changed the definition of science to accommodate the teaching of intelligent design.

Both sides say they are fighting for lofty goals and defending the truth. But lost in all this truth-defending are more pragmatic issues that have to do with the young people whose educations are at stake here and this pesky fact: creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does.

Since evolution has been the dominant theory of biology for more than a century, it's a safe statement that all of the wonderful innovations in medicine and agriculture that we derive from biological research stem from the theory of evolution. Recent, exciting examples are humanized antibodies like Remicade for inflammation and Herceptin for breast cancer, both initially made in mice. Without our knowledge of the evolution of mice and humans and their immune systems, we wouldn't have such life-saving and life-improving technologies.

Another specific example is resistant bacterial infections, one of the scariest threats to public health. The ones that are resistant to antibiotics are more reproductively successful than their non-resistant relatives and pass the new resistance genes on to more offspring. Just as Darwin said 150 years ago.

The creationists have devised a tortuous work-around for this phenomenon, which endorses natural selection and survival of the fittest, but says that evolution doesn't explain the original development of species. The problem is, there are hundreds of genes that occur in both bacteria and humans. It's hard to see why a designer would do it that way, since having the same genes in bacteria and humans makes infections harder to treat: drugs that act on bacterial gene products act on the human versions as well, so those drugs could kill both the bacterium and the human host. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

So evolution has some pretty exciting applications (like food), and I'm guessing most people would prefer antibiotics developed by someone who knows the evolutionary relationship of humans and bacteria. What does this mean for the young people who go to school in Kansas? Are we going to close them out from working in the life sciences? And what about companies in Kansas that want to attract scientists to work there? Will Mom or Dad Scientist want to live somewhere where their children are less likely to learn evolution?"

---

Not to completely undermind your entire lengthy piece, but I definitely don't take the New York Times with more than a grain of salt. If someone wants to mention a propoganda-spouting machine, then you've gone and done it.

That pretty much sums it all up.

I guess we should call on all the theoists out there to boycott antibiotics because their creators developed them with assumptions and inferences from evolution theory.

...and watch how fast they flock to the pharmacy when cold-season hits! Isn't it ironic, don't ya think? A little tooooooooo ironic......

The way I see it is that most teachers need to focus on basics. You are responsible for a certain curriculum, and have little enough time to go in depth on any of the fundamentals. You're job would be to cement those fundamenatals into place. If you are so inclined why not send a letter home to the parents, to have a discussion about certain items you are unable to cover. Outline it for them, and be the catalyst for that discussion. I do not want teachers pawning off their beliefs on my children. (this is evil or stupid, or whatever) I was even concerned over my son's kindergarten human studies class. As soon as I recieved that letter, I spoke with the teacher regarding what would be covered. It was completely benign, but it was my right to know what would be covered.

I dislike reading any one source of information and taking that as the 'right' way. That is only one person's perceptions, and I may or not agree with them. By taking in a wide range of views, you are more likely to have a better understand of the world around you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melicious

Not to completely undermind your entire lengthy piece, but I definitely don't take the New York Times with more than a grain of salt. If someone wants to mention a propoganda-spouting machine, then you've gone and done it.

---

Dont be so quick to throw labels on things..... Do you know the author of this piece?

More importantly....Did you address one point in the article?

NO! ARguments/Reasons, not name calling and labels, will earn you intellectual respect for your ideas!

That is all well and good and I understand your point.
I was just offering to what extent the school systems have gone to in order to keep people happy. Not saying it is right or wrong just saying how it is these days.
Evolution/ Christanity is a hot button topic to a lot of people. People who are Christians do not want there children taught evolution and non-christians do not want there children taught the bible.
Watch your newspapers and you will see this causes as much crazy debate as gay teachers or what books are consider "proper reading material" for school children.

Not arguing what's right and what's wrong just telling you what I see in my sons school system and what I read happening in others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Dont be so quick to throw labels on things..... Do you know the author of this piece?

More importantly....Did you address one point in the article?

NO!

---

One, I can't access the article to see who the article's author is.

Personally, I don't think that these alternatives should be forced to be taught in the class, nor do I think that in California, teachers should be forced to teach their students about all of the gay/homosexual people who made a difference in the world. (As if someone's sexual orientation was something to discuss beyond closed doors...)

I do, however, think that teachers ought to be able to express to their students that if they want to learn more, that they encouraged to do so outside of class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melicious

I do, however, think that teachers ought to be able to express to their students that if they want to learn more, that they encouraged to do so outside of class.

---

This is really all a grade school teacher can do. They are given a specific curriculum that they are forced to follow and can not include their own personal beliefs, especially religeous. I think that all you can do is explain to them that there are alternatives and that they do not have to take what is taught in the class to be the absolute truth. I wouldn't go any further than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jotay

Evolution/ Christanity is a hot button topic to a lot of people. People who are Christians do not want there children taught evolution and non-christians do not want there children taught the bible.

---

I'm Christian, but I do want my children taught about the theory of evolution. I do agree though that it is a super hot topic button.

This thread is getting a bit heated, but so far has remained pretty reasonable. Healthy debate is a great thing.

Mel. Please respond to the following:

1) I want to know what you plan to teach. Quit saying "Alternative Theories" and beating around the bush. Give me a synapse if its too long to explain. Glean the jist of it for me, okay?
2) Give me links to the sites where're you're learning your scientific beliefs.

Some how i have a feeling that what you want to teach are A. of your own agenda and not actually to 'encourage students to look at alternatives' just your alternatives and B. you have a problem with christianity, are biased, and do not care who you may offend because you are right, and what you are doing is just. I feel that your entire agenda is a rather gooey facade of a personal attempt to teach your own personal views including over tones your Religion regardless as to what state and national law dictate.

you want to be a teacher, not a preacher remember, and no- not all preachers are of the christian persuasion.
do any of these 'alternative theories' have viable evidence, because a dinosaur is pretty freaking viable to me. finch variations are pretty freaking viable to me. the ability of crows to learn and -evolve- is pretty freakin viable to me. plate tectonics are pretty freakin viable to me.
what im getting at- can you take the Scientific Method and come out with some results that support your theories, and then tell me what you did, let me try out your theory using the SM and get the same answer. that is, after all, the basis of science. though- the text book you had with a grain of salt would have taught you that

I agree, tigerlilly, that it is a hot topic.
Personally, My church and my boyfriend and I will teach my children our religion (when we marry and have them :3 ) but i want school to teach them the other things. BOE/State/and Nationally approved things. Not some backwood opinion that is barely skirting on the name of science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tigerlily

I'm Christian, but I do want my children taught about the theory of evolution. I do agree though that it is a super hot topic button.

This thread is getting a bit heated, but so far has remained pretty reasonable. Healthy debate is a great thing.

---

I am the same as you but we must remember not all people think logical like us :) and it only takes one to complain for the whole thing to come down.
I feel everyone should learn all sides of things. More trouble, wars etc have come from people not knowing or understanding other ways of life or views.
If it can be taught in a manner where it is generic. Some students really look up to some teachers and I wouldn't want my son to follow the teachers view just because it is their view, ( hope that makes sense) I want all the facts or views presented to him and then he can make his Own choices in life.

I think that God lives in the center of a supermassive black hole somewhere. Our telescopes got too good so he had to come up with some crazy **** to hide in.

:rolleye2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shhhli

Mel. Please respond to the following:

1) I want to know what you plan to teach. Quit saying "Alternative Theories" and beating around the bush. Give me a synapse if its too long to explain. Glean the jist of it for me, okay?

---

Mel, this has been asked a number of times. I'm not sure why you started this discussion if you don't have the data to back up your opinions on this matter. Perhaps many of us would be more open to your suggestion of providing alternative views if you actually presented some of those views for us to review.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shhhli

Mel. Please respond to the following:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shhhli

1) I want to know what you plan to teach. Quit saying "Alternative Theories" and beating around the bush. Give me a synapse if its too long to explain. Glean the jist of it for me, okay?

2) Give me links to the sites where're you're learning your scientific beliefs.



Some how i have a feeling that what you want to teach are A. of your own agenda and not actually to 'encourage students to look at alternatives' just your alternatives and B. you have a problem with christianity, are biased, and do not care who you may offend because you are right, and what you are doing is just. I feel that your entire agenda is a rather gooey facade of a personal attempt to teach your own personal views including over tones your Religion regardless as to what state and national law dictate.



you want to be a teacher, not a preacher remember, and no- not all preachers are of the christian persuasion.

do any of these 'alternative theories' have viable evidence, because a dinosaur is pretty freaking viable to me. finch variations are pretty freaking viable to me. the ability of crows to learn and -evolve- is pretty freakin viable to me. plate tectonics are pretty freakin viable to me.

what im getting at- can you take the Scientific Method and come out with some results that support your theories, and then tell me what you did, let me try out your theory using the SM and get the same answer. that is, after all, the basis of science. though- the text book you had with a grain of salt would have taught you that

---

• I guess I haven’t been making myself clear. I will teach evolution. That’s what the curriculum will more-than-likely allow me to do. However, I would encourage them to take a look at these other ideas/beliefs/ “THEORIES.”
  
  • The Flatulent Raccoon Theory: Please read Godless By: Anne Coulter
  • Creationism.
  • Intelligent Design.
  • Egyptian Creationist Story
• These are just a couple. I’ve got books. Books do well. Simple college textbooks.
  
  • Title: Biology Author: Campbell
  • Living World Author: Johnson

• If I can’t make it any clearer, I’m sorry. I’m wanting to teach the curriculum, making the learning process enjoyable, while also encouraging my students to look outside of their textbook and what I’ve offered for them. They’re not my alternatives. I don’t agree or disagree with them.
• I don’t have a problem with Christianity. You’re the only one to claim that thus far and you’re completely incorrect. I chose not to believe in it. That does NOT, under any circumstances whatsoever, mean that I have a problem with it, that I don’t like Christians or that I think Christians are bad people. My own agenda, if you must know, is to make science exciting just as my father made math exciting for his students. Plain, simple, probably a little arbitrary. A little girl’s hopes of making my class more interesting, of encouraging individual thought. That does NOT mean I want them to worship Satan, Allah, Iris, Osiris, the Christian God, or the Raccoon. I simply wish to urge them to think for themselves.
• Nope. Not all preachers are Christian. Some of them are terrorists, some of them are politicians, and some of them are everyday JoeSchmoes who want to shove their own beliefs down either their students’ throats or other JoeSchmoes’ throats. The difference between those preachers and little me? I don’t want to shove anything anywhere ever.
• And I’ll state again. They’re not MY “theories.” (And again, the quotations have significant meaning. Please note them). I am fully aware that most of these ideas/alternatives are not scientifically tested. If I wasn’t, I’d be an idiot. I’m not.
• Please, let me explain this to you in the simplest terms possible:
  
  • Hello class. My name is Melanie. I’d prefer to be addressed as Melanie for the duration of the year as I feel being addressed as ‘ma’am,’ ‘YO teach’ and other such means of addressing are unpleasant. I will state this clearly, so that no one will misinterpret what I’ve said, and, if after my explanation you still have justified questions, I’ll address them as respectfully as I can. The syllabus states that in October we will be discussing the Theory of Evolution as in direct correlation to Darwin’s theories. I will only say this to you: I encourage that you research Darwin’s Theory (notice that theory is NOT in quotations). I also encourage you to look at alternatives outside of class. I will not mention these alternatives. That’s for your own curiosity to find. I will, however; state that as of this point, if you have any personal concerns, please come speak to my after class. You will also note that attached to the syllabus, there’s a note addressing to your parents exactly what I’ve told you. If they have any qualms with this, my contact information is attached, and I most definitely encourage them to contact me first with any concerns or questions they might ask.
  • Now, may I introduce to you our class observer, Odysseus. He is a ball, or royal python. A note has also been attached to your syllabus addressing the rules for handling him. I would like your parents to also read over them, if you’d please. He’s very docile and very sweet, actually, but if you frighten him, or make him feel threatened, there’s a small possibility that he might bite you. I doubt it will happen, but I want you to be aware of everything. There’s antibacterial soap next to his enclosure. Please use it after every handling of him, and please wash your hands before you handle him.
  • Any Questions?