Thread: Might as well start teaching kids about the Stork theory...

Oh poop.

Even more reason I dont wanna live in the U.S.

Yeah but that is the biggest pile of fucked up shit my eyes have ever seen.

Lolmerica.

I'm looking forward to the "Demonic possession theory of disease" appearing in US classrooms soon.

Fools. Not content with their own stupidity and ignorance, they now seek to destroy the education of others. Sickening.

Wow.

It is really not surprising since there is no concensus on just what are the important things to learn to begin with. For one thing, it is not possible to devise such a course when the minds of educators are so dark to begin with.

If one is not clear on what a thing is, and what it is suppose to do, it is not likely one could write an instruction manual on it worth a damn.

When one has not, or can not, abstract a concept, then it does not matter if you use the linguistic construction involving that concept--they cannot comprehend what you say.

Originally Posted by Xei

Lolmerica.

exactly

It's weird a country so determined on democracy has these problems... this doesn't happen anywhere in Europe. I'm guessing not in Canada, either?

This is just sad.

*sigh* Gladder than ever to be out of the public school system and into a field of study where there really isn't much room for religious political agendas. This is how you dice an onion; this is how you julienne a carrot. No debate over the morality of dicing or whether carrots exist.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's weird a country so determined on democracy has these problems... this doesn't happen anywhere in Europe. I'm guessing not in Canada, either?

Canada is normal and.......... isn't McDonalds ridden. USA has so much crap there it's scary.

Originally Posted by The Doctor

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views.

.

Don't worry!

The bill also says that its "shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."

Nothing is being promoted!

hey... yea i know some of america is fat... and stupid... but really, how do you think the more intelligent americans feel? really i dont see this much, just in the southern part. really wish we were 2 seperate countrys, how do you think i feel having to live in the same country as these idiots?

Why is presenting more options a bad thing? If the letter of the law is followed, this should produce smarter, critical thinking open minded individuals who are able to reason for themselves instead of just accepting the popular doctrine of the time.

Originally Posted by siuol

hey... yea i know some of america is fat... and stupid... but really, how do you think the more intelligent americans feel? really i dont see this much, just in the southern part. really wish we were 2 seperate countrys, how do you think i feel having to live in the same country as these idiots?

Not everyone in the south is like that. Not all of us are Bible-spankers.

And how can you keep religion out of teaching creationism? That's the freakin basis of creationism...

I do think that teachers should be able to bring up controversial topics in the classroom without soccer moms flipping their shit, but I don't know about creationism being taught as an alternative to evolution. Evolution is obvious, with or without God being involved.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Why is presenting more options a bad thing?

Because it's not scientific. It's taking time out of a science class, away from teaching real science, to go on about subjects that didn't cut the mustard in the scientific arena.

The point of learning science is to understand the methodologies that lie at the heart of science, learn the skills needed, and to impart knowledge about the field one is studying. Notice that all of those topics mentioned in the bill are all under attack from religion or other anti-scientific proponents, not science itself.

It's a deliberate attempt by the religious right to undermine science by cheating the system and forcing their ideas into science classrooms. And it's working.

Sure, but when I was in highschool science I was taught that I can only taste sweet things on the tip of my tongue. I knew then, and I know now, that this is of course wrong and also not science. What is the difference? If you go back over your highschool text books you'll probably find a lot of other stuff in there that isn't real science (like "airplanes fly because of lift"). Why aren't you making a big stink about any of those things?

Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

The "strengths and weaknesses" part is highly ambiguous. Who decides what the strengths and weaknesses are? How can people in Tennessee be sure teachers are actually being honest and unbiased in their evaluations of the "strengths" and "weaknesses" of various scientific concepts? How can they be sure they're presenting REAL weaknesses rather than whatever nonsense they heard from "Dr." Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, etc.?

Not only is the bill unnecessary, but it leaves such things wide open to misinformation and misconstruing of actual science.

well the article says there is much they are still learning about receptors. with evolution, there is so much evidence to support it that it is more than safe to call it a fact. also these are two completely different things, one is an incorrect (or only partially incorrect, since they say there may be parts with a higher concentration of certian receptors) conclusion that scientists came up with using scientific method and later being corrected by other scientists, also using science. so a case showing scientists finding flaws in past ideas and fixing them shows little relation to something with as much evidence as evolution being challenged by people trying to get their religious beliefs into science classrooms.

Sure, but when I was in highschool science I was taught that I can only taste sweet things on the tip of my tongue. I knew then, and I know now, that this is of course wrong and also not science. What is the difference? If you go back over your highschool text books you'll probably find a lot of other stuff in there that isn't real science (like "airplanes fly because of lift"). Why aren't you making a big stink about any of those things?

In some cases it's a massive oversimplification, but if it's bullshit like the areas of the tongue, then I do support it being removed. Making the education system more about concepts, and making it more accurate and well thought out is something I definitely support. Certainly I'm pretty critical of the education in my own country, and how much it's influenced by political correctness, but that's a topic for another time.

This thread isn't so much about the incompetence and ignorance of those responsible for determining what children need to be educated on - as much of a problem as that is - but that those outside a domain can wield the political power to force their ideas down people's throats in a completely inappropriate setting, and by cheating because they fail when doing it properly.

I don't see how this bill counts as "cheating". It doesn't require teachers to do anything different; only protects them from reprisal for teaching alternatives to the currently accepted theories. Basically it leaves things up to the competence of the treacher, and no matter how much I personally disagree with that practice since I've had more than my fair share of incompetent teachers in the past, it brings science class up to par with every other department. You won't see any teacher being fired for teaching their own personal interpretation of "the Giver" or teaching children that some people know the civil war as "the war of northern aggression", after all.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If you go back over your highschool text books you'll probably find a lot of other stuff in there that isn't real science (like "airplanes fly because of lift").

Just want to point out that airplanes do fly because of lift.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Just want to point out that airplanes do fly because of lift.

Lift is not a noun. Maybe the reference goes back to something Plato said through Socrates, or again, in set theory, A thing is a thing because it is a member of a class, meaning that definition determines class membership.

However, this is a fine point we don't often think about. We be rusty thinkers. I would think that a plane flys, because of available air, or material by which it may be lifted--but this would be wrong too, a definition includes not only material difference but form as well, air and velocity by which lift may be created. One is actually creating a solid through the use of velocity.