Questions for the General Public

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!