That’s my point. I have no way of evaluating Kansas students individually, neither do universities. I have to trust that their school board is putting together an adaquite program, and in my opinion its up to the school board to prove their students are worth considering. If their school board cannot tell the difference between science and folklore, what conclusion should I draw? I don’t have the time or resourses to evaluate each of their students or each of their courses on a case by case basis. I’m sorry if that seems unfair, but you certainly can’t evaluated each Canadian student individually. You are left to judge them based on, unfortunately, their reputation.
I was willing to assume the Kansas biology program included generic biology concepts, taught by competent teachers, using challenging testing methods. I had no reason to assume otherwise. But if their school board believe that ID is a valid part of biology, what do they believe? Now I’m left looking at all of their programs and wondering what other non-sence their including.
Consider this: How do you rate Canadian highschool students? Are they on par with American students? Why, why not? Now, what if I told you that in chemistry class we learned that hydrogen and oxygen from water because Jesus wants it to. We don’t learn about valence electrons, S and P orbitals, vanderwal forces. We learn that Jesus said, “as I turn water into wine, I also turn 2H2 and O2 into 2H2O.” Honestly, what would that say about our chemistry program? Sure, maybe that only relates to H2 and O2, but would have have any faith in the rest of the program? Oh, we also learn about Inteligent Falling, and that gravity is just a theory. Now what does that say about our physic program? In history I learned the Earth is only 6000 years old, and aparently nothing happened before that. Would you have any respect for Canadian students? That’s the point here. Thankfully my school board saw fit to make sure I had the most challenging science program they could afford, and as a result I went on to a masters in mechnical and biomedical engineering.
Well they did attempt to rewrite the definition of science so that it would no longer be “limited to natural explanations.” If that doesn’t qualify as a definitive statement about how the KSB feels about science education, I don’t know what does. How could any college possibly have any faith in the kind of science education which comes from a system which refuses to recognize the very definition of the word?
No one expects every single minute of every single day to be used for teaching in high school. Its expected that a portion of it will be devoted to pizza parties and just sitting around chatting. High school isn’t merely a place where you get educated its also where you learn how to interact socially. Building relationships through pizza parties and sitting around chatting is fine and no different from “team-building” activities at work. Teaching ID on the other hand wastes a portion of the education time for absolutely no benefit. The two situations are not comparable.
Several of you seem to be forgetting that nearly every student who applies to college will be submitting standardized test scores.
And if it is the ACT, it will have a section on scientific reasoning.
Rather than proposing some other new ‘test,’ why not use the evidence that is before them, and part of every student’s college application. Why not look at ACTs, and subject matter tests that students take as part of the SAT and AP exams?
I think we’ve established in this thread so far that schools are certainly within their legal rights to reject students based on their academic preparation. Indeed, if they didn’t, their reputations would surely plummet.
We seem to have migrated onto the topic of whether or not the specific teachings in Kansas would merit such a reaction. How about we actually look at them?
Now, my experience as a teacher is that I have to file regular lesson plans, and the content of those lessons must be shown to align with our published curriculum guidelines, which are based in part on the state standards. If I showed a pattern of refusing to adhere to the standards, it would be grounds for disciplinary action.
On the Kansas Department of Education Website, there are two science standards. the more sober one approved in 2001, and the new one approved in 2005.
Standard #3 is Life Science. In both sets of standards, Benchmarks 1 and 2 of that standard are more or less identical, detailing that by the end of grade 12, students must understand about the cell and genetics.
It is at Benchmark 3 that we see the discrepancy.
The 2005 standard, however, includes “additional specificity”.
So they seem to buy speciation as a result of natural selection, but not that specific structures in different species resulted from evolution. Riiiiiiight…
The new standard really is dancing around the idea that genetic drift leads to macroevolution. They seem to have feinted the notion that very similar species have resulted from genetic drift, but that widely differing species never could have done so. They must think their students are true idiots not to put the pieces together.
Actually, they removed it from the “primary mechanisms”, which is more technically correct. Genetic drift does account for some evolutionary changes, but it is not a primary agent. So in that sense, the 2005 version is actually more accurate than the 2001 version.
Mainly because of the definition of bigot. If the meaning of bigotry is expanded from intolerance and prejudice to every possible discrimination, then how are you yourself not a bigot by selecting the student with a science background over the student with an ID background? I think you’re tilting at windmills. I interjected comment solely because you seem to fancy yourself to be “enlightened”, when in point of fact you seem decidedly otherwise.
In second year university, I took a course called The History of Natural Science that dealt with how the development and progression of science impacted society. We spent about a 5th of the course covering the conflict between evolution and creationism/ID. We studied the life of Darwin, and examined the fators that influenced him as he developed his theory. We also looked at what was accepted before him. We then spent a great deal of time learning about the Creationist viewpoint, as well as ID. That understanding took several lectures of explaination, as my prof went through each and every aspect of how Creationists explain away evolution. So there is certainly enough material to fill up a week of highschool education. We would all like to assume that a good biology teacher would work hard to teach the facts of evolution, and then provide a 5min blurb on, “oh by the way, some people think God did it.”
My feeling is that if there is an ID friendly school board, then there must be a significant number of ID friendly principals. Those ID friendly principals would no doubt select ID friendly biology teachers over and above evolution-friendly teachers. The result, I fear, is that a pro-ID teacher would begin by setting up a 5min evolution strawman, and then the remainder of the class using pseudoscience to knock it down.
I was watching CNN the other day as the followed BC Tours (see link in previous post). The creationist has plenty to say about ID and plenty to say regarding the errors and lies of evolution (including one comment about how evolution says dinosaurs became cats). If a teacher wanted to devote his/her time to ID, they could certainly find sufficient material.
Unfortunately, I can’t comment on what I think the result would be on students. I personally don’t see how a biology student could spend one day learning that the answer is, “God did it.” And the next day be expected to recite the complicated process from DNA to protein. As a smart-ass-student, I’d take every opportunity in every class to say, “God did it.” Protein? God makes it. I don’t need to prove the derivative of 2x is 2, because God did it. How does an acid and a base make a salt and water? Don’t care, because I’m pretty sure God did it.
ID is not science. Using the supernatural to explain sceintific process is counterproductive to the education of students.
My problem with this debate is that I can’t see past this superstitious fonybalony. Do you want a doctor that understands how anti-biotics works, and knows when to prescribe them? Or would you rather he just told you to pray? Religion does not belong is science class. Would you respect the doctors graduating from a medschool that taught prayer as a valid medical procedure? Why bother operating, a double blind study suggests that pray is equally affective.
But as I said above, I think it would be great if students had a history of natural science class. In which they could learn all about creationism and ID. And while they’re at it they can learn about how the Earth is flat and how the sun goes around it.
Actually, biological evolution does not specifically postulate gradual, unbroken sequences. There are many instances where sudden widespread diversification has taken place. These moments have not been shown to be inconsistent with the notion of variance as a result of biological evolution. To teach otherwise would be intellectually dishonest. As a member of any entity evaluating the quality of science education in the Kansas public schools, this would be a red flag.
Anyone know of a cite for these deiscrepancies?
Again, AFAIK, the lack of gradual change is not inconsistent with evolution, so this is problematic.
Again, if anyone has a cite for any such study, that would be of great help.
These are tbe exact points which caught my eye. They are all complete falsehoods. Punk eek does not conflict with any predictions made by the ToE. The idea that evolution predicts some kind of regular, unchanging gradulaism is a creationist strawman.
I don’t know what they’re talking about with the molecular claim, but genetic and molecular evidence has actually served to confirm common descent, not to undermine it (let’s see these bastards try to explain retrogenes).
That’s the problem with this. It isn’t just teaching a bit of non-science or acknowledging that some people ferociously dispute the facts for religious reason, it’s LYING. It;s teaching falsehoods as fact and expounding on “criticisms” which don’t actually exist.
The notion of “irreducible complexity” of bodily organs or systems is not, AFAIK, a generally recognized biological principle. Again, seeing a school teaching that it is is a big red flag to anyone evaluating their science curriculum.
(bolding mine)
And the notion that an ancient Hebrew mountain deity made it all happen in one big poof is what, exactly? Not that they feel they need to mention God, of course. It’s the old “If science is wrong, Brother Billy Bob must be right” fallacy made flesh. Introduce doubt into the minds of the students, and they will have nowhere else to turn but God.