Get Schooled

By Jeff

October 24, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

Stick to the facts of the matter, present ALL of them, NEVER editorialize, and you can never go wrong in controversial issues.

By GeezGuys

October 24, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

Wow, interesting topic, I’ll be interested to hear any personal experiences.

I’ve never really thought much about what it’s like to be on the front lines of this issue. My H.S. biology class was uneventful. My college professor was great at handling the subject. He announced in the first couple of classes evolution would be taught as fact, was the basis of our course, and the scientific community (himself included) understood evolution to be a fact. Anyone who had a conflict could see him outside class. He didn’t take a challenging tone, he was quite sincere and respectful. He’s a devout, born again Baptist, so I suppose it was really helpful to anyone who felt there was a conflict between evolution and their religious belief. He should be a model for how to handle the subject in a non-confrontational, sensitive way. For some kids, evolution really does rock their concept of the world. It’s gotta be tough on them.

Gotta disagree with you there, Jeff, evolution is sticking to the facts of the matter. When you have “christians” using their children as little passive-aggressive tools, facts aren’t going to help.

By decaturparent

October 24, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

Oh boy… this is going to get ugly.

If parents don’t like evolution being taught they can move their kids to a fundamentalist Christian school or homeschool them.

Don’t deny my kids of a proper science curriculum so that you can practice your particular form of Christianity. There is no remotely credible scientific evidence that dinosaurs were here 2000 years ago. There is endless scientific evidence supporting evolution… evidence that you can witness every day. I would like my child to be taught things in SCIENCE that are backed up by … oh…… how about SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. If you want to teach religion (aka “Creationism”) teach it to your kid at home, but don’t impose your religous beliefs on my child in a public school.

The fact that this issue even comes up in Georgia is frightening.

And… no I’m not an evil devil worshipper, I’m a practicing Presbyterian who attends church every Sunday and teaches Sunday school half of the year.

By Jeff

October 24, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

GeezGuys:

Actually, there are as many FACTS that dispute evolution as there are that support it. That is why a policy similar to the one I stated is imperative. Truth has a nasty habit of making itself known when it is presented, even in the middle of thousands of lies.

Which is why the liars - of both liberal AND conservative persuasions - don’t want Truth presented alongside any other facts they bring to the table.

And that goes for ANY issue.

By jim d

October 24, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

Actually Jeff,

I too disagree. Open discussion by students with the teacher as a moderaator can and will help them to respect or at least accept the fact that everyone is not of the same belief. This can be a great lesson in tolerance. (a key in salvation from self destruction)

By Jeff

October 24, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

jimd:

Schools are not the social laboratories some would wish them to be. Schools are there to impart academic knowledge ONLY.

The problems we now have in education in this country stem from the fact that this fact was forgotten about 50 years ago.

By LJ

October 24, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

So Jeff, can you remind us again how the scientific method can and has been used to study creationism/intelligent design?

By GeezGuys

October 24, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

Jeff: Laura SPECIFICALLY asked commenting to stay away from creationism vs. evolution. So I’m going to respect her request and not respond to your statements in that area.

If you want to be a jerk and start ranting, raving, and blog hijacking, I certainly can’t stop you. I can point out if you style yourself as a Christian, maybe you should show some common decency….however rare it might be on these blogs. If you don’t, I can point out you don’t make a good case for teaching creationism by being a jerk.

By jim d

October 24, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

Unfortunately many people beliefs caan’t survive unless they ground them in some type of reality, even if that reality is distorted.

I believe that science and religion will always conflict as long as they both make claims about how the world is and claim each is the only truth.

The simple fact is that a belief, any belief, needs some kind of rational basis and that faith needs proof. Which is why the religious fear science so much. Science is capable of finding the real truths in the universe while religion is often a muddle of ignorance, fear, and bigotry that we’d be better off without.

Here’s the thing my friend, when I accepted Christ into my life, I no longer looked for evidence. My acceptance is and was based on faith alone. I have no need to provide or search for evidence to support my faith. (maybe that’s why it’s called faith ya think?)

By V for Vendetta

October 24, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

My own thoughts on the matter notwithstanding, I think having to endure something you might not agree with is part of life. If I could, I would love to tell the parents to take that argument to the college level, whether the discourse be focused on science, religion, or political preferences. We sentient beings, last time I checked, had the power of free will. I’m pretty sure that’s something we can ALL agree on.

So, if little Johnny doesn’t like the evolution unit, or little Johnny’s parents don’t agree with it, then they are more than welcome to talk to him at home. Yes, I understand that it’s being taught in school and presented as a fact, and if the reaction to it is SO strong then enroll your student in a Christian school, but don’t expect the majority to adhere to your beliefs.

There. I believe I’ve made a decent point without taking us into a He said/we said debate. But if people would like to go that route, I’m all ears … .

:-)

By Jeff

October 24, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

GeezGuys:

I didn’t go in to it. I simply pointed out that you must present ALL the facts when teaching controversial topics - even if you don’t agree with those facts, it is your OPINION that they are wrong.

Take the classic illustration of the blind men feeling the elephant. Jim has FACTS that say one thing based on him feeling the leg. Bob has FACTS that say something else based on him feeling the ears. Jane has FACTS that say something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT based on her feeling the trunk. And Jill’s facts kinda-sorta fit in with Bob’s, but she doesn’t arrive at the same conclusions with her FACTS based on her feeling the tail.

Just because their FACTS were different and they reached different conclusions based on what they knew does not make ANY of them completely wrong, just as it makes NONE of them completely CORRECT.

Again: Present ALL facts with ZERO editorializing, letting the chips fall where they may. Do this, and you avoid controversy.

By jim d

October 24, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

Back on topic here,

Laura,

Perhaps a more pointed question of “should we attempt to remove the controversy from our classrooms?”

In that regard I’d answer NO!!

There ios an interesting article on ERIC regarding the benefits of controversey being raised in the classroom which basically states “Research indicates that classroom controversy facilitates student problem solving, creativity, perspective taking, epistemic curiosity, conceptual conflict, and transition in stages of cognitive and moral reasoning. Thus, creating controversy is an important teaching strategy for increasing learning and intellectual development.”

Isn’t that, after all, what education is about?

By V for Vendetta

October 24, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

Good point, Jim D. But as blogs are so adept at pointing out, is it possible to keep controversy in the classroom without the lesson devolving into a whole sale shouting match between students or, worse yet, parents?

I submit that it is not. Unfortunately, most people are not capable of calm, cool, and open-minded conversation—thems the breaks.

By Jeff

October 24, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

V:

True.

Which is why I say present ALL facts with ZERO editorializing.

If a parent doesn’t like facts presented, they can always teach their kid differently using various other facts - or even their imagination.

As long as the teacher has done their job and presented ALL facts, nothing can be said about the teacher.

It is when a teacher starts choosing sides that s/he is likely to get caught in the crossfire from BOTH sides.

By jim d

October 24, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

V,

I tend to agree more with another Eric article which indicates true learning is a real positive outcome.

“Student teachers often find themselves in a dilemma when leading classroom discussions about texts. These conflicts may not necessarily be a reflection of student behavior or classroom management. Instead, they may be a sign of active engagement and students taking the challenge beyond their current knowledge level. Two kinds of conflicts were identified by this study: procedural and sociocognitive. A close look at these episodes suggests that sociocognitive conflicts are significant, and once they are elaborated and explored, they have the potential of breaking down the traditional IRE discussion pattern (Almasi, 1995; Nystrand, 1997) and engaging students’ active participation in classroom discussion. How the teacher responds to a sociocognitive conflict influences the course of the discussion and the students’ learning. (emphasis mine) These findings suggest a need for teacher educators to move beyond preparing preservice teachers for general questioning techniques to explore the different kinds of conflict and how the teacher and students handle these conflicts (Boyd & Rubin, 2002). By identifying those sociocognitive conflicts and welcoming them as “productive tensions,” student teachers can become aware of their instructional decisions and develop a reflective stance toward their teaching. These episodes of sociocognitive conflicts can be the “intellectual high point of the lesson” and have the potential of leading to true discussion and true learning.”

By TheBlogger

October 24, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

First of all, it not only depends on the specific topic, but also what subject in class (science, math, history, etc.).

History teachers can present various sides of a topic. Some of these are facts - something that actually did happen. Some of these are one’s opinions - explain why an event happened (war, etc.).

Science teachers have it more difficult, IMHO, because some people want science teachers to present opinions as scientific facts when they are not. I don’t think it is right for a science teacher to present any opinion or ideology to students as scientific unless it has been proven and accepted to be so.

For example, it is simply not right for a science teacher to state that the moon is made of cheese. They can say that it is someone’s opinion, but it is not a scientific fact.

In science too often, some people want so badly to sway opinions of others they try to confuse the definition of a “scientific fact.”

By V for Vendetta

October 24, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

Jim, you’re absolutely correct. I would have no trouble leading such a discussion in a gifted or honors level class. However, such idealized articles often gloss over the difficulties of keeping undisciplined kids and/or ignorant kids on task—much less participating in a meaningful and controversial discussion. Long story short, I completely agree with you in this instance, but I would have some reservations depending on the skills of the students (and, subsequently, of their parents as well).

Jeff, without taking this off course, let me remind you that you are using the word “fact” rather loosely in this case. As Jim pointed out, there are certain things which you must accept based on Faith. I believe religion falls squarely in that category. To attempt to define it otherwise is to be both ignorant and naive. It also perpetuates an argument in which there can be no winner.

By GeezGuys

October 24, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Jeff, again, I’m not debating evolution with you. Stop being a jerk. If you can’t control yourself on this issue, there are a million other places on the internet to argue creationism is a science. Laura has SPECIFICALLY ASKED US NOT TO DO THIS. Please stop with the underhanded “I’m just discussing the facts.” What you are trying to do is argue creationism should be presented to students by teachers, because you consider it FACT.

The FACT of this discussion—-the curriculum in Georgia is based on evolution. Period. There is no creationism, “intelligent design,” or any other of these variations you seem to support. They are not accepted as FACT. Therefore, if a teacher decides they want to teach anything besides commonly accepted biology, they are not teaching FACT, but their own opinion. If they don’t accept the curriculum of the school, they have no business teaching there.

If the kids want to discuss creationism, etc, out of their own doings, fine. A good teacher should handle such questions, but not allow the kids to take over, or disrupt the class. The other students are there to learn the FACTS. Not debate a political issue. And parents who program their kids to do these nasty little tactics should be publicly tarred and feathered. You want to change the curriculum, take it up with the school board. Don’t teach your kid to disrespect whoever is in charge of the classroom in order to promote YOUR ideas.

By jim d

October 24, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

Here’s a fact—Teachers must teach the curriculum.

Here’s another one—Any teacher worth their salt would introduce a subject (by the book) and then allow class discussion to take over. In the case of evolution, the insuing conversation would inevitably introduce the belief in Creationisim or ID possibly even the flying spaggetti monster. While no resolution would be possible in the conversation, it would open eyes on all sides. Creating a learning environment while keeping the teacher within the legal bounds. Of this I am confident.

Can’t remember where it was but I recently read an article regarding a survey of students that indicated they have greater faith than most of their parents. If I can find it, I’ll post the link. There were some staggering results in that survey.

By par

October 24, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

“Almasi, 1995; Nystrand, 1997”….”Boyd & Rubin, 2002”…… SOCRATES 469-399 BC!!! and jim d, re: your last comment to tamika on 10/23, that would be ” a good WHITE house n” son….

By jim d

October 24, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

V,

You might be surprised to find that some of the average or even well below average students have a raionale that is over the top, so to speak. Finding a topic on which they are unsure or questioning can be most productive, creating a life long learning on that topic. IMHO, Controversy isn’t a bad thing when it creates learning.

By Jeff

October 24, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

GeezGuys:

I’m not the one of the two of us consistently mentioning evolution. In fact, in the majority of my posts I’m simply stating my opinion that ALL FACTS are to be presented with ZERO EDITORIALIZING. YOU are the one consistently mentioning evolution, not me.

Just because the Government takes sides in a controversial issue does not mean that teachers should not present ALL facts regarding any given issue.

But, this goes back to the whole ‘indoctrination camps’ issue of government schools, which is another discussion altogether.

Taking V head on and mentioning evolution by name (my first time actually going into this debate, for those keeping score):

Science is just as much a religion as those other ‘religions’ science tries to denounce. It takes JUST as much FAITH to believe life came about the way evolutionists say it did as it takes to believe that life came about the way the creationists or even the intelligent design crowd says it did.

And THAT is my whole point in this topic: When you present ALL sides and ALL facts, you have done your job as a teacher and can withstand any scrutiny - assuming you editorialized on NONE.

After all, aren’t we supposed to ‘tolerate’ all ideas? Aren’t ALL ideas supposedly equally valid?

Or is it that only ideas you agree with are equally valid?

Talk about a whole other topic….

:P

By par

October 24, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

V: those “undisciplined kids and/or ignorant kids…” as you call them might become more disciplined and less ignorant if they were engaged in meaningful, structured, controversial discourse….they might even move on into the ‘gifted and honors level’ huh?

By V for Vendetta

October 24, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

Jim, I’m not disagreeing with that statement; I’m just pointing out how difficult it is to make meaning out of discussion when the conversation is hijacked by a few more vocal individuals.

Not that we could relate to that or anything. :-)

Jeff, again your definition of fact is a bit loose. The difference between the three is that one has many years of scientific fact to back up the claims of scientific theory whereas the other two rely on FAITH to back up their respective theories.

By jim d

October 24, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

Par,

I appologize for that rant yesterday. I just sortta loose it when i realize someone without a clue as to the issues or the candidates stand on them, has a vote that counts just as much as one from someone thaat has kept up with them.

I harbor no hard feeling towards Mr. Obama, I just don’t think he is the calibre of leadership that we are in dire need of at this point in history.

By Jeff

October 24, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

V:

You don’t think there has been JUST as much - if not MORE - research done to DISPROVE evolution as there has been to prove it?

And yet, and this is my point, the facts are so unsettled as to STILL be debateable!

The only ones that wish to present ONLY one side or the other are the ideologues/true believers of both the right AND the left.

Again: Present ALL FACTS with ZERO EDITORIALIZING and let the chips fall where they may.

I guarantee you you’ll do a better job of setting up intellectual dissonance and inspiring research this way than by exclusively presenting one side as Gospel.

By jim d

October 24, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

V,

“Not that we could relate”

Funny stuff!

By GeezGuys

October 24, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

Jeff—-I keep bringing up evolution because it’s the topic. 3/4ths of Laura’s column centers on it as a controversial topic. Her specific question was how people approach teaching controversial topics. Again, It’s not about how something not contained in the curriculum should be taught as fact. Or your opinion on the government. Or whatever.

If you have an issue with the government “taking sides” “indoctrination” or so forth, I’m not biting. I hope V doesn’t. FACT is, you seem to want to run off off on these subjects because creationism has been kicked to the curb, aside from small political toeholds in places like Kansas. Your frustration does not warrant hijacking Laura’s blog, IN DIRECT DEFIANCE OF HER REQUEST NOT TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Don’t try and shove the responsibility for your little side trip on V, or me, or anyone else. The “who, me, talking about teaching creationism?” has all the subtlety of a five year old standing in front of a broken vase.

Now, everyone else, please excuse my shouting and interruption. I’m done. I posted my tangential secondhand experience. Now I’d like to read what people have to say on the actual topic. Hopefully, there will be some real responses.

By Jeff

October 24, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

GeezGuys:

YOU have been the one off topic in just about every single one of your posts.

Mine have ALWAYS centered on my view - as a former teacher - of how to handle controversial topics.

And say what you may about anything else about my teaching career, but one thing stood true:

In any controversial matter- or even in any matter that could POTENTIALLY be controversial - I presented ALL facts, editorialized on NONE, and let the students and their parents sort it out for themselves.

Even to the tune that I would point out that there are branches of mathematics where 2 + 2 = 1. It doesn’t make any sense in the normal math curriculum of K-12 in GA, but it IS out there and in fact is pretty common in some mathematical circles - specifically group theory. Though they are technically a group, not a circle. A circle would be a ring, and ring theory is another topic altogether! (OK, sorry, little bit of a pathetic attempt at high level math humor…)

By jim d

October 24, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

Here’s the thing V,

Why in heavens name would we want to stifle students having meaningful discussion on issues such as abortion, religion, assisted suicide or the use of drugs even if they did break down some? My point is that even with a heated discussion we learn. We learn tolerance. A rather important lesson—No?

By FultonTeacher

October 24, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

This is something that I’ve dealt with all of my years teaching! As a choral director, during the holiday season (and even not), I have to be sensitive to the fact that not all students celebrate Christmas. While it’s recommended that I focus on singing about snow or jingle bells, I choose to teach music that is specific to all winter holidays. Of course, I always get the question about saying “Jesus” in a song, but I am able to explain, and contrary to what some of you may believe, engage my students in meaningful conversation without shouting about why it’s okay. I don’t teach Christian doctrine. I truly respect everyone’s religion. But Christmas is about the birth of Jesus. Now, we also sing Hanukkah songs, Kwanzaa songs and songs about snow and jingle bells. But I can’t tip toe around why we’re really having that concert in December. Yes, principals have questioned me. But I stand my ground. I’m here to educate. Many of my students knew nothing about Hanukkah or Kwanzaa until I told them. And if we’re lucky enough to have someone in the class that year that celebrates one of those holidays, we let them share. I don’t allow mean spirited comments and it does work. Teaching tolerance is a lesson that should be taught to all students.

By Jennifer

October 24, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

OK - both of my kids in public school during middle school and high school did “independent study” on the evolution chapters. I never understood that. I am curious if any other parents had the same experience. I brought it to the middle schools attention and so they ended up devoting some time to it in the classroom toward the end of the school year.

By Jeff

October 24, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

Teaching tolerance is a lesson that should be taught to all students.

Just not in the schools.

By DB

October 24, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

Instead of fearing a discussion on heated topics, I’d like to see the teachers get training on how to facilitate discussion and debate instead of allowing a discussion to disintegrate into a wholesale shouting match. Learning how to listen to someone else’s position, disagree with it, and yet not take it as a personal affront is one of the more valuable lessons we can teach kids.

BTW, did anyone ever see the Ben Stein movie a few months ago, “Expelled”? Fascinating stuff.

By Brian

October 24, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

warning, sarcastic post ahead

I just remember a hugely controversial topic in high school/middle school. One so upsetting between students and teachers that name calling happened. Parents got involved. School board members were called. I think maybe the president was even called.

A tomato is a fruit…not a vegetable.

Shock and gasps all around.

By FultonTeacher

October 24, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

Jeff you couldn’t be serious. Should we allow students to ridicule a child for being different? It happens everyday. Teaching tolerance can be as simple as informing students that just because Johnny doesn’t celebrate Christmas doesn’t mean he’s not a good person. Just because Suzy is a different race doesn’t mean she’s less of a person. And if more parents were doing their job of teaching tolerance, we wouldn’t have to address them at school.

By abb3w

October 24, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

No, not all ideas are equally valid; “2+2=17” is not as valid as “2+2=4”. Yes, evolution is proven, in the same sense and by the same standards that it may be proven that your brain did not turn into a piece of cauliflower last Thursday.

If kids ask why religion has a different answer than given in the science classes, note that science is only one method for looking at the evidence, and that while and that various religions have their own way to look at it; that under the disestablishmentarian First Amendment since not all religions agree on how to view the evidence it’s inappropriate for a public school teacher to speak for any one; and that students should TALK WITH THEIR PARENTS about what their own religion teaches. Beyond that, chant “I don’t want to give you an incorrect answer”. Sic ‘em on their parents for further questions about what religion says and why it’s different, and sic ‘em on the Social Studies department for questions about the First Amendment (although as a courtesy, you should warn your colleagues of a need to bone up on Epperson, Edwards, and Kitzmiller).

In a public school, stick to teaching Science. You might need to note that science is philosophically demarcated by demanding the exclusive assumptions be that Logic is valid for inference between propositions, that the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory axioms may be jointly asserted without self-contradiction, and that Reality is relatable to Evidence. Everything else (even “cause and effect”) are merely inferences from these. Since Logic and ZF are properly the province of Mathematics, you can sic students on your colleagues there (or at a local college) to help students work through the Principia Mathematica, Church-Turing Automata, and computability.

Science is not merely about teaching the facts, but about teaching the methodology used to determine whether relationships inferred between evidence are valid relationships. Science consists of gathering evidence; forming conjectures about the relationships between evidence; using the conjecture to convey the data as a hypothesis; competitive testing of all available hypotheses (including the null hypothesis) to see which is “best”; and the present hypotheses which have been proven (from Latin “probare”, to test) best under current evidence, known as “Theory”.

The formal definition of “best” is explained in the papers “Minimum Message Length and Kolmogorov Complexity”, by C. S. Wallace and D. L. Dowe (doi:10.1093/comjnl/42.4.270); and “Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity”, by Paul M. B. Vitanyi and Ming Li (doi:10.1109/18.825807). The proof in these two papers rests solely on the aforementioned philosophical assumptions; however, the math is post-college level, since introductory automata theory isn’t considered high-school material. Since biology is usually taught in early high school, leaving the basis of competitive testing as “a form of Occam’s razor” may be enough… but a biology teacher should have no qualms about giving a disruptive student the two papers at lunch and walking them over to the Math department.

By Tony

October 24, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

Brian, That issue became so controversial that the Supreme court had to rule on it!

History is another subject with great controversy. A friend of mine was nearly fired for his lessons on racism and segregation. I know Jeff would have us present only the facts. Unfortunately, much of the information in any subject is interpretation of the facts rather than the facts themselves. The question “Why?” must be asked and students must be able to respond.

jim d - I commend you on your clearly stated, well articulated response on faith. Thank you.

Although some “scientists” would have you believe that something is a fact, it is hardly ever the case. How was the fact measured? Who recorded the fact? Has there been verification of the fact? Can the fact be tested through experiment? There are some ideas that have strong theoretical merit, but many scientists treat the theory more as religious dogma. They don’t want anyone to entertain any questions about their “fact”.

Students should be taught that debate is an essential component to learning. Whether the discussion is literary, historical, scientific, musical or whatever, people should be able to raise questions and hear other points of view.

Another area that is controversial is in the teaching of mathematics. There is a highly organized group of people who work diligently to shut down the use of better math teaching methods. Some people call this group “The Anti-Knowledge Campaign.” They work just like any other group with an agenda. Scare tactics, myths and outright lies are used to scare parents.

I guess the problem with highly charged issues in schools is because students and teachers cannot set aside emotions. This shuts down dialogue and debate on many issues. Evolution is only one of myriad topics that become highly charged. Homophobia, birth control, sex education, tolerance, politics, wars, racism, ecology, greenhouse effect and global warming, ice ages, …. and on and on.

It is usually the parents who shut down the needed discussions, but not always. As I mentioned, there are organized groups, too. Another friend of mine used to teach in India. It seems in Indian schools open discussion of various ideas in encouraged rather than cut-off. She has been quite amazed at the ignorance of narrow-minded people in our country who want to control all the discussions.

By abb3w

October 24, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

Again, there’s more than one way to look at the world. Whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable depends whether you are looking from a biological (ripened ovary of a flowering plant) or a legal (Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 1893) point of view.

By par

October 24, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

alrighty then…. the consensus is that age appropriate controversy in the classroom can be a good thing….however, here’s one controversial topic that IS NOT up for discussion in gwinnetts classrooms:

Gov Perdue’s recent request of the BOE to issue more waivers of class size caps in ‘08-‘09 & ‘09-‘10 as a money saving tactic

jim d: no apology necessary, really. No one person can get us out of this!! It’s going to take an enormous GROUP effort and much more participation by all of us, even the dopes!

Jeff: You meant to use the descriptive “as gospel” with a small ‘g’ didn’t you? (low level english humor)

By Jeff

October 24, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

abb3w:

Actually, using Group Theory - and maybe some other branches - in Mathematics, you CAN prove that both 2 + 2 = 17 AND 2 + 2 = 4.

Which brings my point into focus once again: There are certain issues - particularly those sitting on the line between the religions, including science - where a higher understanding of the concepts than we currently possess is CRITICAL before making a truly logical fact-based, reasoned decision. We call these issues ‘controversial’ because people make decisions WITHOUT possessing all the facts and WITHOUT truly using the principles of Reason.

Just as a high-school educated person will call the statement ‘2+2=17’ ludicrous, even though a college educated mathematician knows it can be quite reasonable, so too will a human call certain things ludicrous, even though these things may actually be so possible as to be routine to an entity - God, the Universe, whatever - with sufficient knowledge.

THAT is why we MUST present ALL the facts with NO editorializing.

Humans have do not yet possess a sufficient level of knowledge of ALL factors to produce a truly fact based, reasoned decision within these topics.

Therefore - and I know I’m repeating myself even within this post - people who make a determination are expressing their OPINIONS, and not FACTS.

By Jeff

October 24, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

par:

No, the capital ‘G’ was in furtherance of my point…

By TheBlogger

October 24, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

As a high school science teacher, I refuse to teach anything that isn’t science.

The Bible says that planets and our Sun all revolve around the Earth. I don’t teach religon, I teach science. So, I teach that all planets in our solar system revolve around our Sun.

The Bible says that humans were created. I don’t teach religon, I teach science. So, I teach the theory of evolution.

There is nothing wrong with teaching religon. However, it doesn’t belong in the science classroom.

I don’t mind teaching and discussing controversial topics in science….. as long as it is science.

By Jeff

October 24, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

Blogger:

Again: Science IS a religion. It takes just as much FAITH to believe in evolution as it does to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God.

I MAY be willing to give you that ‘Science’ should be replaced by ‘Evolution’ in my first sentence in this post, but only if you’re willing to conceded that Evolution is not science. As long as you insist that matters of faith are strictly religion, then you MUST concede that Science IS religion, due to the faith involved.

By LJ

October 24, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

Jeff, could you explain for me what it is about evolution that is religious and not scientific? I would agree that some people support evolution with a fervor that is typically only seen in religious settings. However, there is a great deal of empirical evidence supporting evolution, and the scientific method is used to to study it. Therefore, evolution is evidence based, rather than faith based.

By LJ

October 24, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

More on topic, I think the issues surrounding evolution provide a golden opportunity to really teach the process of science. Students can discuss/learn about how questions surrounding evolution are addressed using the scientific method. This type of discussion could be extended to include why ideas such as creationism can’t be substantiated using the scientific method, thus demarcating science and religion. Science doesn’t have all the answers…that’s half the fun! Science is about using a process to increase what we know based on evidence that we can collect.

By Peadawg

October 24, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this

TheBlogger…what verse in the Bible does it say the sun revolves around the Earth? That’s a new one on me. The Bible says the Earth was the center of God’s creation, but no where does it say the sun revolves around the Earth. Nice try though…anything else?

By Texas Pete

October 24, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this

Everyone knows that God made us as we are and dinosaurs never really existed.

By RandolphCountySchoolBoardMember

October 24, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

Jeff always has crazy ideas and there is no reasoning with him. That is why he is no longer teaching.

By Bob

October 24, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

The majority of the people I know are Christians. By the statements of some of your bloggers it should be creationism taught and not evolution. Why not both as theories.

By Bob

October 24, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this

Even better. Spend less time teaching theories like evolution and more time with Biology, Chemistry, etc. And it wouldn’t hurt to teach kids more American Government so that they know the effect that it has on our daily lives, how it works, etc. Today, kids really don’t get enough of that because teachers are too busy trying to preach anti-American sentiment. I had teachers at UGA that would tell you they are socialists. I want to learn about how OUR government works and not about principles have not worked in other countries.

By Liha

October 24, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

I urge everyone to see Ben Stein’s new movie, EXPELLED. It’s a brilliant film that explores current mindsets on evolution vs. intelligent design. It may change your mind on how you see these subjects.

EXPELLED is a must-see!

By the Carnivore

October 24, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this

What the hell?

Only in the deep south is this possible. Everywhere else it is controversial if you DO NOT teach evolution. The religious freaks are completely out of control. Less than 15% of the people on this planet really believe all that garbage in the Bible, and yet that is somehow the de facto standard here?

Georgia RICHLY deserves its low ranking in education. If teaching evolution is controversial, then I say end all public education in this state immediately. Its not worth my tax money, nor anyone else’s, to continue with this silly charade that you call education.

By LJ

October 24, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this

Liha, are you aware of the deception that went into the making of “Expelled”? Not to mention the occasional copyright infringement. You may want to look at http://www.expelledexposed.com/ for some information on the other side of the story.

By Evolution is theory

October 24, 2008 6:48 PM | Link to this

Evolution is theory…a scientific theory. For those of you not really scientifically inclined (this means YOU Jeff), a scientific idea has to have a LARGE amount of evidence to support it to be called a “theory”. For instance; it isn’t correct to say “Hilary Clinton didn’t get the nomination for the democrats because she is a woman, that’s my theory.”; that isn’t a theory, it is an opinion. (If you read that last part real slow it may make more sense to those who are a little slow.) Scientists don’t often use the term “fact” (as Jeff seems to like to throw around the term so much). We like to use terms like “valid”; as in “the theory of evolution is accepted as valid by scientist”. I mean REAL scientist not Ben Stein. If you want to learn about some imaginary being in the sky…go to church.

By Dana Huff

October 24, 2008 7:05 PM | Link to this

Teaching controversial topics is something I’ve had to do quite a bit as an English teacher. In some cases, I think editorializing isn’t a bad thing — I don’t mind telling my students I think folks who want to ban The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn on the grounds that is racist are misguided. I explain where I think they might be coming from. Then, I like to have students explore controversial issues in writing — for example, if students read A Lesson Before Dying, they might write an argument for or against a topic that underpins that book — the death penalty. Students can argue both sides using facts, evidence, and statistics as support. So far, I haven’t had any problems with this stance, and I have not had a parent request not to read something.

By Lee

October 24, 2008 8:30 PM | Link to this

I don’t know. Maybe, just maybe,

God created evolution.

Works for me…..

By catlady

October 24, 2008 8:48 PM | Link to this

I’ve never shied away from any of this stuff. I call it like I see it, and if someone has a problem they can go talk to the principal. I have been “made aware” only once about any of it. My principal supported me. I think it had to do with dinosaurs.

Now, when my students want to talk about what I believe, well, I don’t like to go there. I tell them to talk to their parents about their beliefs and understandings. Or their pastor.After that, if they want to tell me about it, I will listen.

I initiate conversations about discrimination, racism and sexism, for example. These are important for the kids to have a frame for.

I think the most serious things I have been pinned on are the Santa Clause/Easter Bunny/Tooth Fair stuff. I tell them that they come to my house. Most of the kids I work with are aged 7-10.

Some of them witness to me.

By V for Vendetta

October 24, 2008 10:20 PM | Link to this

While people are shilling for movies (since that’s apparently where they get their information from), allow me to point out another film they might consider watching—Bill Maher’s Religulous. I suggest watching Expelled and Religulous back to back. You know, just for fun.

By bobxxxx

October 25, 2008 12:37 AM | Link to this

I think it would be horrible for a biology teacher to waste even just one minute talking about creationism or intelligent design creationism. It would be like talking about whether or not the earth is flat. The stupidity of Christian beliefs should never be discussed in any science classroom. If any students have a problem with that, let them fail the class.

By love my 4 kids

October 25, 2008 2:30 AM | Link to this

There is no controversy on this topic in our home school. They have been taught the truth, “In the beginning, God created…” My kids all love math, science, and computers. The twelve year old taught himself programming and computer animation. He couldn’t wait to get started on Algebra this year because he wants to study physics so he can write a physics engine for a game program. In 6th grade he had an ITBS composite score of 95% with a 92% in math and a 98% in science. The 11 year old scored a 92% composite with a 95% in math and 84% in science. Remember, these scores are measured against public school test takers as well. So, the scientific data shows that our Creationist beliefs do not have a detrimental effect on my children’s ability to excel in the sciences. I personally have done graduate work at the medical school level, and I met many future doctors and medical school professors who rejected evolution in favor of scientific creationism. The writings of Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, who has FIVE earned PhD’s in the medical field and taught at many prestigious Universities in Europe, were especially influential in my understanding of the limitations and fallacies of the theory of evolution. He passed away before I could meet him, but two of his sons (all four of his children are research doctors and speak multiple languages) put on a symposium of the leading creation scientists in his honor. My spouse attended the event held in Switzerland and became good friends with one of the sons. We visited the family in Switzerland, France, and Germany over the years and have the highest regard for the son’s scientific acumen as well as his genuine faith and Christian hospitality. Therefore, it is with the utmost confidence that I allow my children to be taught great scientific truths through the many videos and books by Dr. Wilder-Smith. My kids know enough about evolution to refute it and to bubble in the “correct” answer on a government approved test. : )

By bearcasey

October 25, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

Ignorance is its own reward! Let parents (I’m one) take turns teaching classes.

By luvs2teach

October 25, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

It seems only in the United States is this subject a controversial issue - so much for our supposed “separation of church and state.” Properly explained, evolution is not a “belief” or a “religion” - it does not require faith. You are either a critical thinker or not. You either understand what the evidence supports or not.

That this is still an issue also goes to show how extremely scientifically illiterate the general public is about the differences among fact, theory, law, hypothesis, testable evidence, inference, observations, supporting evidence…I could go on.

People also don’t understand how, as new technology allows new discoveries, previously scientific ideas can be changed - the general public thinks it’s that scientists can’t make up their minds - it’s not; it’s that scientists are flexible enough to change their ideas when new evidence is presented. I find that Creationists spend their time trying to make the evidence fit the story, when scientists try to make the story fit the evidence.

As an 8th grade science teacher, I don’t have to teach evolution - when 8th grade science was earth science, I did have to teach about the Big Bang theory, and the formation of the solar system and earth, as well as the earth’s age. This did bring up questions and some controversy. I would explain that, to me, “The Lord said let there be light” and “The universe was created in a Big Bang” didn’t conflict. As a child I was always told that God’s day wasn’t necessarily the same as an Earth day - why should it be - He’s a supreme being, right? I have never had difficulty reconciling my faith with my science, and I would tell the kids that. I would also direct them to talk about their questions with their parents and their pastor, but ultimately it was this information that was going to be expected to be known for the test because it was this information that was the most-widely supported by evidence and accepted in the scientific community at the present time.

BTW - the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was a sphere. It was the Church and the Church-controlled scientists in the Middle Ages that created the idea of the flat Earth in an attempt to make geography match theology. Church-scientists went along with it because of fear of excommunication or worse. One would think, more than 600 years later, that we would’ve moved past this silliness.

By love my 4 kids

October 25, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

Luvs2teach, could you please tell us your scientific research credentials? Also, could you please give us a detailed scientific explanation for the evolution of “information”? Thanks. Also, the Hebrew writings mentioned the “circle of the earth” long before the Greeks. Regarding the “Big Bang”, could you please explain to me, that if comparatively teeny black holes have such high density and gravitational pull, that even light cannot get out, how could a theorized “Genesis egg”, ie all the matter in the universe, suddenly explode and push everything outwards defying the gravitational pull that held it together in the first place? Where did all the matter come from? How did mathematics evolve? Man did not create it. Otherwise we could never have sent men to the moon. Math merely describes the order that already exists. I guess you would say that random events are the mother of logic and order? As Spock would say, that is illogical…. Oh, and then there is always that pesky scientific law called the Second law of Thermodynamics.

By luvs2teach

October 25, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

Love 4 my kids - why? It won’t matter to you anyway. You’re set in your ways; you have your beliefs. You know (in your opinion) that you have all the answers. It was the Supreme Being that you call God - all of it - the Big Bang, matter, even entropy (yeah, I caught the reference - I may be a public school teacher but I’m not an idiot)- He made it - He’s responsible for it. It’s all tied up in a nice, neat Biblical ribbon.

Science never claimed to have all the answers; religion does. Science does claim that there are questions worth answering and we’re still working on it. IMO, yours aren’t worth answering. I don’t need “research credentials” to know my subject (which my degree is in, BTW, not science ed). Your ad hominum attack (in which you attack me and my credentials instead of attacking the ideas I present) shows me that I’m not going to change your mind, and so I’m not about to waste my time. Have a good day.

By c'mon

October 25, 2008 5:27 PM | Link to this

Who created god?

By par

October 25, 2008 6:54 PM | Link to this

Did ANYBODY read the original blog?

jeff: re: I thought your point was “all the facts and zero editorializing”? Capital ‘G’ is editorializing jeff….It’s ok to further your point jeff, just don’t tinkle on our heads and tell us it’s raining…..

By Love my 4 kids

October 26, 2008 12:26 AM | Link to this

Well, here’s my entry for this year’s “Darwin Awards”… http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,442562,00.html

By luvs2teach

October 26, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Look, L4MK, I respect the fact you choose to homeschool - I have friends who homeschool, and for those that do it intentionally (and not just to avoid the ‘hassle’ of ‘government schools’ or the exposure to ‘controversial’ subject matter), it can be a great choice.

I don’t think public schools can serve every learner’s needs. Some people chose or even need to use public schools, however, and since my dream of seeing every school privatized isn’t likely to happen, I work on doing the best job I can in my corner of the world - in my neighborhood school.

That being said, your ‘entry’ for the Darwin Award wouldn’t qualify. The Darwin Award ‘winners’ generally have to die or be sterilized, thus saving the collective gene pool from ‘less-fit’ genes. You know, that whole pesky ‘survival of the fittest’ idea - now, I know Dr. Wilder-Smith had a little trouble with dinosaur and human foot prints side-by-side - even his 5 PhDs couldn’t help him identify the hoax - but I’m pretty sure he was not a Lamarkian - I hope the same could be said for you.

Now if your mis-identified snake had bitten the teacher in the testes, thus rendering him sterile, it might qualify.

Apologies to par, among others, for the off-topic post.

By A.E. Wilder-Smith??

October 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

Oh please tell me you aren’t basing your biology teachings on books written by a chemist (by training). I also believe he is the same guy who got embarrassed in a debate by Richard Dawkins on the subject of creationism and evolution. If you want your kids to be scientifically literate, please don’t use the rantings of someone biased.

By love my 4 kids

October 26, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

L2T The Darwin award was for the students who trusted their public school teacher to accurately identify a wild snake. If not for the intervention of others, the students could very well have died. According to the article, they are still in the hospital.

Whether or not you “respect” the fact that I home school is irrelevant. It is foremost my God-given duty to teach my children as well as my LEGAL right, according to Georgia state law.

If anyone is truly interested in reading for THEMSELVES what Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote on the subject, try THE SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATIVE TO NEO-DARWINIAN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: INFORMATION SOURCES AND STRUCTURES. TWFT Publishers, Costa Mesa, California, 1987

Here are his published credentials: “A.E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at Oxford, England. He received his first doctorate in physical organic chemistry at Reading University, England in 1941. During World War ll, he joined the research department of ICI in England. After the war, he became Countess of Lisburne memorial Fellow at the University of London. Subsequently, Wilder-Smith was appointed Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. Later he was elected to teach chemotherapy and pharmachology at the medical school of the University of Geneva for which position he received his “habilitation” (the senior examination required for porfessional appointments to European continental universities). At Geneva he earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH ( a senior university in Switzerland ) in Zurich.

1957-1958 Wilder-Smith was a visiting Assistant Professor at the Medical Center of the University of Ilinoise, 1959-61. Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Bergen Medical School in Norway. After a further two years at the University of Geneva, he was appointed Full Professor of Pharmachology at the University of Illinoise Medical Center. Here he received - in succeeding years- three “Golden Apple” awards for the best course of lectures, together with four senior lecturer awards for the best series of senior-year lectures.

Wilder-Smith is also a well known speaker on many other topics. He is author and co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books which have been published in some 17 languages. His “Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny” and “The Creation of Life” are Christian Classics.”

As for “the rantings of someone biased” I would propose that ALL individual’s views are biased. All begin with a pre-existing world view; a structure by which they organize, confirm, or reject all subsequent information they are exposed to, based on logical conclusions. Sometimes illogical conclusions are retained because of an overriding valuing of the world view. Darwinists, by definition, cannot logically accept the God of the Bible as an explanation for the origin of man. A Biblical creationist, (a factual interpretation of Genesis) cannot accept a purely materialistic explanation for the origins and nature of life. Both groups make personal observations and learn facts, which are then explained according to their pre-existing bias. The real issue is which bias is the best bias with which to be biased? Because no one living today was around “in the beginning” to make a first hand observation of what actually happened, this debate can never be resolved scientifically. It is my personal opinion, that after having initially been brought up to believe the claims of evolution, and later having been exposed to the claims of Creation scientists, that the latter is the best bias. The evidence is a better fit. Name calling has no bearing on the issue at hand.

By luvs2teach

October 26, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

Whether or not you “respect” the fact that I home school is irrelevant. It is foremost my God-given duty to teach my children as well as my LEGAL right, according to Georgia state law.

Good for you - did I say otherwise? I was simply trying to establish that any bias I may have against your ideas is not because you choose to homeschool. You are correct in saying we are all biased - your bias against ‘government schools’ shows clearly.

Being published and having an audience doesn’t mean that one’s science is valid - people are willing to pay good money to have their opinion validated by ‘research’ and a name - you know the old expression don’t believe everything you read? My original point is that a lot of this faux science flies because people are scientifically illiterate, and I still believe that. That’s MY bias.

As far as your Darwin nominees are concerned, as they are neither dead not sterile - they don’t win - although I hope sincerely that they have a full recovery. They would not be the first to trust an adult who was mistaken - and not all those adults are teachers - some are parents who may think they have their children’s best interest at heart.

By love my 4 kids

October 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

L2T: Here is a great website to acquaint you with Dr. Wilder-Smith’s work. It also links to a site where you can download audio recordings of his lectures. Remember, I have personally met his wife and two of his sons. I have personally stayed in their home in Switzerland. He is the real thing, in my humble opinion. A very Godly role model.

http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm

By abb3w

October 26, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

Jeff: I’m quite familiar with algebraic group theory. Your assertion is incorrect; there is no group where you can construct “17” and have “2+2” equal to it. The only possibilities are 0, 1, and 4; that’s why I picked 17 for the example.

Your assertion that “Humans have do not yet possess a sufficient level of knowledge of ALL factors to produce a truly fact based, reasoned decision within these topics” is an example of bare assertion. Science is inherently a tool from limited knowledge to the probable nature of the unknown; and yes, we have plenty of knowledge to make inferences from. The inferences are not absolute; they are subject to revision, but only on presentation of new evidence or a “better” (under the formal Wallace-Dowe/Vitanyi-Li criterion) hypothesis being presented. You must establish that our knowledge is intrinsically inadequate at present if you wish to make your claim, or your assertion is unjustified.

That the facts are politically debatable does not mean any arbitrary position is in any way rational.

Your assertion that “Science is a religion” is another unjustified assertion. In the field of religious studies, the core requirements for being a religion are Sacred Scriptures (sometimes in non-written form), Rites associated, and Moral Precepts. STAR TREK is a religion; Science, lacking these, is not.

Your assertion that “It takes just as much FAITH to believe in evolution as it does to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God” is also incorrect. Logic, ZF, and Reality-Evidence Relateability are the only points which Science requires be taken on Faith. Belief that Jesus was God requires these and additional premises, and thus more Faith.

Bob: creationism is not a theory in the formal scientific sense of the word. You might benefit from reviewing the Florida Education Benchmarks SC.3.N.3.1, SC.6.N.3.1, and SC.912.N.3.1 to help understand this point.

luv4mykids: for “a detailed scientific explanation for the evolution of ‘information’”, please see “Natural selection for least action”, By Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178), which details how natural selection may be derived directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics for systems with a mass-energy flow between them.

You’re also incorrect that “Darwinists, by definition, cannot logically accept the God of the Bible as an explanation for the origin of man.” This is a valid conjecture. The difficulty is they will not allow it to be accepted as a primary premise, but require it be derived from an inference, and the balance of evidence at present points in a different direction. Your assertion that “the evidence is a better fit” for creationism is not justifiable without assumption of premises beyond the Logic/ZF/Evidence-Reality-Relateability I’ve noted.

By love my 4 kids

October 26, 2008 9:47 PM | Link to this

abb3w

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:K9U3AMecqNgJ:www.swarmagents.com/thesis/download.asp%3Faddress%3Ddoc/jake_230.pdf%26type%3D1%26id%3D231+natural+selection+for+least+action&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari

“The role of (genetic) information is undoubtedly important in evolution but it has not been elaborated in this study.”

You obviously have not read what Dr. Wilder-Smith had to say on “information” found in DNA “code” as explained in Chapter VII, section 1, “Information Theory as a Decisive Factor Negating the Darwinian Evolutionary concept but suggesting a Scientific Alternative” of his book THE SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATIVE TO NEO-DARWINIAN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: INFORMATION SOURCES AND STRUCTURES. Aila and Anila miss the point entirely! Information as defined by Shannon is NOT physical. Only the code is. The DNA code is the only mechanism by which Darwinism is explained. However, if the theory cannot explain INFORMATION ITSELF, it completely fails. Isn’t that the kind of logical thinking one learns in basic Geometry?

“and the balance of evidence at present points in a different direction.” This is an assertion.

“Your assertion that “the evidence is a better fit” for creationism is not justifiable without assumption of premises beyond the Logic/ZF/Evidence-Reality-Relateability I’ve noted.” I clearly stated at the outset that the goal is to DECIDE which bias is the BEST bias with which to be biased. The conclusion would obviously be my own opinion. The fact is, no human now living has ever lived in the past such that they could observe first hand (scientific method) just what happened. Scientific method cannot PROVE history. The Coelacanth fiasco is a perfect example. Evolutionists claimed that fossils of these fish were an intermediate form (with its odd limb-like fins) , which could be predicted according to evolution. This fish was half way to walking! No scientist at the time had seen or heard of a living specimen. Because it was fossilized it was assumed to be long extinct. Then in the 1920’s (I think) some natives of Madagascar pulled up a “living” fossil! Later underwater cameras recorded these very much alive fish using their odd fins as,well, FINS! Because it was directly observed in the PRESENT, just how these fins worked, it was conclusively rejected that coelacanths were an “intermediary form”. And it was also demonstrated that oddly enough, they had not evolved one bit over a supposed “millions” of years. If the fish had not been discovered in the present, the evolutionists would still be putting their picture in school books as a poster child for intermediary forms. Creationists might challenge the claim, yet NEITHER could PROVE it.

By love my 4 kids

October 26, 2008 10:53 PM | Link to this

L2t I just had a thought regarding our “Darwin Award” exchange. You said that if these students had died, then they would qualify. I brought up the issue of altruism, and pointed out that it was the action OF OTHERS that perhaps saved them from their “non-survival ” behavior. What we really have is “survival of the not- so- fit ” by way of altruism- another non self-preserving behavior. So in the world of Darwin, two wrongs equals survival? Scientifically, how do you explain this?

By luvs2teach

October 27, 2008 12:08 AM | Link to this

L4MK - you can’t. Humans often act in non-logical ways. Call it our emotional response (even Spock would consider that illogical) - call it our humanity - even call it our godliness, if you will (and I’m not sure whether to capitalize that or not, so please forgive me).

We save people that would’ve died even just one hundred years ago (diabetics, for example). It’s what we do, and it’s not necessarily in the best interest of our genes, but it’s in the best interests of our hearts and souls.

The Darwin Awards are what they are - I didn’t invent them. According to the site, the rules are:

*Reproduction - Out of the gene pool: dead or sterile.

Excellence - Astounding misapplication of judgment.

Self-Selection - Cause one’s own demise.

Maturity - Capable of sound judgment.

Veracity - The event must be true.*

Their ‘tagline’ so to speak is: In the spirit of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives. Darwin Award winners eliminate themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species’ chances of long-term survival.

By abb3w

October 27, 2008 2:15 AM | Link to this

L4MK: “However, if the theory cannot explain information itself, it completely fails” is incorrect, and fails to understand the formal sense of the word theory. (I suggest again the three Florida benchmarks mentioned earlier.) The role of science presupposes the existence of information: IE, data. A hypothesis needs only indicate the relationships within the data set “better” than any other alternative proffered to be proven.

You also should look up the definition of “elaborated”.

Yes, I assert “the balance of evidence at present points in a different direction”… as a formal mathematical inference. Specifically: the modern evolutionary synthesis is the present hypothesis which best meets the WDVL criterion of Minimum Induction Length; the criterion requires (roughly) conveying as briefly as possible sufficient information to allow all nuances of the data to be reconstructed. Occam’s razor, in modern formal form, proven from the more basic premises I’ve been repeating.

As to the question of “best bias”, your inferences also require use of the premises I have repeatedly listed as required for science (Logic/ZF/EvidentReality), and additional premises. As such, the probability of these premises being correct is itself subject to inference; unless you have reached the common end by unusual means, your additions are arbitrarily unlikely. If you have some alternative meaning for “best” in mind, please feel free to be specific as to the criteria.

Your assertion that the “scientific method cannot PROVE history” depends on the sense of the word “prove” one uses. To an absolute philosophical standard, no; however, you cannot prove to such a standard that your brain is not a piece of cauliflower. Similarly, it depends on the sense of “scientific method” used; I prefer the “competitive testing” description (from one of my early posts) as it overcomes the problems with historical sciences such as forensic medicine. I’ve previously also explained the exact sense of the word “prove” in science, and see no reason to repeat that either.

You also appear to misunderstand the nature of “transitional forms”. I suggest reading the Wikipedia article, as it explains it better than I can; not my area of focus. You might also wish to research the Tortuga, long considered a “living fossil” but recently found to have had extensive evolution at the biochemical level. (Appearance isn’t everything.)

Oh, and an aside to the Darwin awards: since it was the teacher’s action at fault (misidentification), he’s the only one eligible, and neither he nor his kid died.

By abb3w

October 27, 2008 2:22 AM | Link to this

Oh, as to the evolution of altruism, I think the main work on that was from the early 1970s.

Evolution selects at the species level, as well as individual. Traits tending to lead to help relatives are of benefit to the species. The dominant conceptual example is of a bird at the edge of a flock raising a cry at the approach of a predator. The one giving the warning is put at risk, but the rest of the flock is less likely to be harmed. If the flock includes relatives (EG: children), the odds of the gene-line with the trait continuing are improved.

Cooperation can be an evolutionary asset.

By Jeff

October 27, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this

abb3w:

Another example:

Walk into a room with nothing but a chair.

Sit in the chair.

Do you have your hand putting pressure on the chair at all times, or do you simply sit?

99.99% of people (including myself) simply sit.

HOWEVER, that 99.99% are taking the chair’s continued existence and presence in the spot they are trying to sit - as well as its ability to support them - on FAITH.

Another example on evolution (warning, classic joke, but it has a point):

A scientist and God are debating one day. The scientist claims that God is irrelevant, that science can do anything He can and that the source of all knowledge is science, not God. God says “OK, let’s test that theory. My greatest creation is Man. Since I’ve already created him, it is your turn.” The scientist readily agrees to this challenge and picks up a handful of dirt. God says “No no no! I already created the dirt. Get your own.”

By MocaMarc

October 27, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this

Jeff is an imbecile.

By abb3w

October 27, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

Jeff, is your Faith really that weak and feeble? Most people will also look (or at least feel) around for the chair before trying to sit in it. The idea of the chair is thus not a tenet of Faith, but merely belief and trust in an inference, which rests on more fundamental ideas and which, in turn, rest eventually and ultimately on Faith. If the balance of evidence about the chair changes (say, if when you try sitting in it, you fall through it to the floor, revealing it a hologram), or the more fundamental ideas change (because of of other evidence, or a change in the ultimate basis of Faith), so too does the consequent belief in a chair. Contrariwise, true Faith is primary, fundamental, inherent, unchanging and unchangeable, the basis by which we measure all else.

Consider this anecdote out of Florida, via the NYTimes (and hopefully, keeping this discussion more to the intent of the original columnist about teaching).

“But there is scientific proof that there is a God,” {one student} said. “Over in Turkey there’s a piece of wood from Noah’s ark that came out of a glacier.” Mr. Campbell chose his words carefully. “If I could prove, tomorrow, that that chunk of wood is not from the ark, is not even 500 years old and not even from the right kind of tree — would that damage your religious faith at all?” Bryce thought for a moment. “No,” he said.

Sorry if I repeat myself; it looks like my post from about an hour ago was eaten by a Grue.

By V for Vendetta

October 27, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

Really interesting debate happening here! Sorry to fuel the fire since that wasn’t the original intent of this blog, but it’s nice to read exchanges back and forth between educated people for once. Well, most of them are educated … .

By Nixon71

October 27, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

OK guys, Jeff is 25, been married less than a year, no kids.

I love the line about his “teaching Career”. OK, if the guy is 25, how long do you suppose his teaching career really is? 1 maybe 2 years. He now works for a District attorney, and has been there less than 6 months. So he should have some really good insight to the criminal element in his “DA career”…..don’t ‘cha think????

And don’t forget his “25 years of human observation”.

By RandolphCountyTeacher

October 27, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this

Nixon71

Jeff taught for less then a year before he ran out the classroom crying never to come back. Ask anyone in Randolph County if you don’t believe me.

By wrkgma3

October 29, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

As a future high school teacher, what do you parents out there think of teaching, making available or recommending young adult literature with LBGTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trangender and questioning) content?

By Tim Flagler

November 24, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

It is not a matter of keeping controversy out of the classroom. It is a matter of teaching controversial issues in a nonpartisan manner to stimulate critical thinking, encourage thoughtful dialogue on important current topics, and help prepare students to understand the world better. That should be a critical goal in education. The problem is finding quality nonpartisan sources of information on controversial topics. Here’s one: www.procon.org. There may be others but I haven’t found them yet. Don’t hide from controversy. Use controversy to teach critical thinking.