Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

But the real crime was when 'science' abdicated the humanities.

You scientists are bitching about something you caused.

You keep saying science abdicated the humanities. Science did not abdicate the humanities.

Abdicate:

Definition: give up a right, or power, position

Science never had the humanities. Science is distinct from the humanities by virtue of the methods it uses and the topics which are subject to those methods of study.

The humanities are academic disciplines which study the human condition, using methods that are largely analytic, critical, or speculative, as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural and social sciences.

Humanities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As for your not wanting to pay taxes and live in a society which sets the rules and requires you to follow them, well, if you find one that doesn't do this, let me know, and we can discuss the merits of living in that society as opposed to the merits of living in this one.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Nitack:

I find your argument some what hypocritical. Your take objection to forcing people to pay for schools that teach a topic that they don't believe in, evolution, but in order to teach Intelligent Design you would be forcing people who don't believe in that topic to fund it as well.

How on earth did you draw that conclusion?

[modest]

Steve,

Who should decide which of these tax dollars pay for:

• Prisons
• Roads
• Schools
• Military

Understand, I'm not asking you which you think your tax dollars should go toward. I'm asking who decides which of those programs are funded by tax dollars. You said it shouldn't be the majority - so, who decides if not elected members of the majority?

~modest

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Originally Posted by Overdog

You keep saying science abdicated the humanities. Science did not abdicate the humanities.

Abdicate:

Definition: give up a right, or power, position

Science never had the humanities. Science is distinct from the humanities by virtue of the methods it uses and the topics which are subject to those methods of study.


Humanities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As for your not wanting to pay taxes and live in a society which sets the rules and requires you to follow them, well, if you find one that doesn't do this, let me know, and we can discuss the merits of living in that society as opposed to the merits of living in this one.

I think that we agree that science doesn't look at the humanities because, and I said this earlier, that you can't measure goodness or evil using empiricism. Basically, the unit of measure was too hard to identify, so 'science' walked away from it.

The only thing we can count on is the clarity of the thinking of the people who vote. And you're saying our public school system makes that happen. If you actually believe that, well, I guess I'll be damned. The public schools don't work, they never have worked and they never will work. And I'm talking here of grades K - 12.

By turning its back on the humanities, science also turned its back on Morality and handed it over to the church. And now we have the sad situation where some religions are training people to be martyrs and to willingly strap explosives around their waists and walk into crowds and commit mass murder. All in the name of 'goodness', you know, the thing that science says can't be defined.

Morality is a real thing but science has given it to the church and all of us PRETEND that morality isn't involved in the creation of laws. And perhaps some of you think that it's an esoteric subject. So, keep your eyes closed and don't look at it and maybe it'll change. But maybe you wont have to close your eyes. The blindspot of science effectively keeps the subject safely out of your sight.

When you justify theft through taxation for something that can be better done by the private sector, you take the moral low ground and create a monster - which is what I think public education has become.

In my town, a town of barely 3000 people, the school and a few people pushed a referendum through for a brand new 18 million dollar High School. All the kiddies got involved and talked their parents into backing it. It took them 7 or 8 tries, I lost count, but finally it passed. That was over a 15 year period! Now we have this big white elephant that has not and never will have an effect on the children any different than the old, ugly school had. which is to say, a bad effect.

No metrics to measure before and after. Nobody will be held accountable for what happens now that property values are falling like stones. It still has to get paid for and it will and the cost, the liability, won't go away with the sinking property values. And how will it get paid for? By raising the tax rate or by cutting back other services. In the name of public education. Great idea.

You claim that this country is better than any other. I don't really disagree with that, but if I'm standing in a bucket of shit waist deep whereas everyone else is neck deep, I'm still in a bucket of shit.

And I get to bitch about it because my head's not under the surface, yet.

I contend that the whole argument of Evolution versus I.D. is a red herring to keep us from considering the real issue which is that Public Schools aren't working.

If we privatized it, you'd see advances in learning akin to advances in the technology sector. And it would end up costing all of us about 1/10th of what it does today and the product would improve at an unheard of rate.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

I think that we agree that science doesn't look at the humanities because, and I said this earlier, that you can't measure goodness or evil using empiricism. Basically, the unit of measure was too hard to identify, so 'science' walked away from it.

The place where I think we disagree it that 'science' walked away from it. Science can't deal with it, never could, not even if it wanted to, not without changing the definition of 'science'.

The only thing we can count on is the clarity of the thinking of the people who vote. And you're saying our public school system makes that happen....

Did I say that?

Here's what I said...

You keep saying science abdicated the humanities. Science did not abdicate the humanities.

Abdicate:
Definition: give up a right, or power, position

Science never had the humanities. Science is distinct from the humanities by virtue of the methods it uses and the topics which are subject to those methods of study.

Humanities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for your not wanting to pay taxes and live in a society which sets the rules and requires you to follow them, well, if you find one that doesn't do this, let me know, and we can discuss the merits of living in that society as opposed to the merits of living in this one.

I don't see where I said anything about the public schools.

You claim that this country is better than any other....

I don't see where I claimed that either.

I contend that the whole argument of Evolution versus I.D. is a red herring to keep us from considering the real issue which is that Public Schools aren't working.

I would agree that the whole argument of Evolution versus I.D. is one of the things that is getting in the way of focusing on improving the public schools, when the school systems end up in litigation over teaching religion as science they end up wasting money that could be used more productively.

If we privatized it, you'd see advances in learning akin to advances in the technology sector. And it would end up costing all of us about 1/10th of what it does today and the product would improve at an unheard of rate.

There already are private schools. The public schools are available to all who chose to use them, but are especially important for those who could never afford private schools.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

You claim that this country is better than any other. I don't really disagree with that, but if I'm standing in a bucket of shit waist deep whereas everyone else is neck deep, I'm still in a bucket of shit.

And I get to bitch about it because my head's not under the surface, yet.

I contend that the whole argument of Evolution versus I.D. is a red herring to keep us from considering the real issue which is that Public Schools aren't working.

I don't agree with every point you are making Steve, but the two above are amazing. I love the quote, and agree that we ARE being distracted by this silly issue.

It's just that if something about which you are passionate gets attacked, you respond. Our kids and our accurate understanding of the universe are being attacked by religious nuts, and that's why this battle is occurring.

But, you are quite right. We deserve to be focussing on the bigger picture and more important things.

It reminds me of how we have tended in the past to focus on gay marriage during elections (and who brought that issue up?) instead of the real issues we face as a country and a planet.

Either way, really loved the quote, and agree that we should hope to make things significantly better. Treat the source, not the symptoms.

[Buffy]

Go read the love letter yourself, but here's an excerpt:

Originally Posted by tristero at Digby's Hullabaloo, 7/9/08

Dear Scientists,

If you haven't read The Origin of Species, go thou, take it and read, and do so this summer. If I can read it and enjoy it, and I'm not a scientist, so can you.
...
(In my opinion, Darwin's main flaw, as a writer, is an overuse, of the comma. You just learn, to ignore, it.)
...
It is a literary masterpiece whose influence on English literature has been incalculable. In The Origin, Darwin struggled mightily to find the language for processes of life and nature that, in his time, had never been conceived of in quite the way he did.
...
So get reading, dear scientists. Read Your Darwin! You will enter a world where science and the humanities are not falsely separated but are as connected as all life. Which is as it should be.

So even those who insist that it's "only a theory" will have to suffer having it be considered a great work of literature, and have their precious impressionable children subjected to its evil siren song...

Sit down, Samson, you're about to get a haircut,
Buffy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Overdog, thanks for correcting some of the stuff I said. I apologize for some of my assumptions, they were pretty inaccurate.

InfiniteNow, love ya man, thanks.

Buffy, it's good to hear from you again. Nice picture by the way.

....

about the school system.....

How do we link to another thread that speaks to why it can't work.

I love the teachers in our school system, at least some of them and I know a lot of them personally. But the system we have just can't work. And the idea that all of us can just choose to send our kids to a private school is false, because we're paying for public schools and that's draining the life out of our society. It isn't the teacher's fault. And it isn't the administration either. Market forces are not having any kind of an effect on the system and that's just plain wrong for practical reasons.

Our children need to compete. Whichever society identifies this and acts in a way that ensures change and doesn't presume a static identity will work, will become the superpower of the future.

We need to focus on the fundamentals. And we need to first identify them. We need to develop a very solid understanding of specific mental skills and teach those skills. If we teach any specific 'facts', they should always be in the context of the specific mental skill we are trying to teach. That's why any specific theory is really a moot point when it comes to this subject.

A perfect example of what's wrong is the subject of algebra. If we, as a society, were serious about education, we would have taken the 10 best teachers of that subject and created an automated course and all of the related tools necessary to deal with it properly. Hell, we'd trip over so many patents it would gag us. But see, that's something that will happen if it's privatized. The tools to do this sort of thing would spring onto the shelves of walmart like GPS devices or cell phones.

This should be a separate thread. And so should my idea that 'science' abdicated the study of the humanities. I need to try and prove my case there and this thread isn't the right place for it.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Overdog, thanks for correcting some of the stuff I said. I apologize for some of my assumptions, they were pretty inaccurate.

No prob...

We need to focus on the fundamentals. And we need to first identify them. We need to develop a very solid understanding of specific mental skills and teach those skills. If we teach any specific 'facts', they should always be in the context of the specific mental skill we are trying to teach. That's why any specific theory is really a moot point when it comes to this subject.

I agree with much of what you are saying here, but...

A lot of very smart people have spent their entire lives focused on developing this solid understanding of the mental skills you are refering to. I'm not sure the real problem is as much a lack of understanding as it is a plethora of political and economic factors that get in the way of applying what we know in the public schools. This might be a good topic to discuss in that other thread you mention.

Also, I would not say that specific theory's are moot, because they "explain" the "facts".

A perfect example of what's wrong is the subject of algebra. If we, as a society, were serious about education, we would have taken the 10 best teachers of that subject and created an automated course and all of the related tools necessary to deal with it properly. Hell, we'd trip over so many patents it would gag us. But see, that's something that will happen if it's privatized. The tools to do this sort of thing would spring onto the shelves of walmart like GPS devices or cell phones.

Perhaps my wife's bio might be a good reponse to this...

Priscilla Norton is Professor of Education in the Graduate School of Education, George Mason University. She joined the faculty there in 1997 after thirteen years at the University of New Mexico. She has been involved with educational technology since the late 1970's, working with teachers to understand the role of the newer electronic technologies to support teaching and learning. Dr. Norton is currently Director of the Integrating Technology in Schools Certificate, Master's, and Doctoral Programs with specialization in Technology Integration, K-12, as well as The Online Academy, a collaborative virtual high school project. Dr. Norton is the co-author of numerous articles and two books – Teaching with Technology (2003) and Technology for Teaching (2001). More recently, Dr. Norton has been designing and developing e-learning environments for teachers and high school teachers. Her work has resulted in the filing of a patent application for COPLS, an alternative learning system.

Note the mention of the Online Academy and the patent application, is this the kind of "automated course and all of the related tools necessary to deal with it properly" you are talking about?

The Online Academy - Information Site

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Overdogg:

Note the mention of the Online Academy and the patent application, is this the kind of "automated course and all of the related tools necessary to deal with it properly" you are talking about?

I would have to check it out more thoroughly before I could answer that. Integrating technology into the current system will be too slow. As in the case of my small town all that meant is that we built a new building and brought the PC into classrooms. The problem is that by the time it gets finished the technology has already changed.
My approach to the problem is basically from two different directions: automating specific courses and individualizing the experience (taking the learning experience out of the classroom setting). And by automating specific courses, I mean allow immediate interaction by the student with the course. The subject should be taught in as many ways as we can identify learning methods. This is an area that I presume is being studied? Each course should be analyzed second by second and interactive branching should be under control of the student. They should be able to halt the subject and ask for a breadkown of the concepts being covered at any moment in time and then ask for clarification if there is a weakness in an area. The tools to do this for the course creators are what is key here.
The second major area is the physical environment for the student. But in my mind 'student' is anyone and this sort of thing should be integrated into the work environment too. basically, toss out the classroom.