Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Master's Thesis Proposal Needs a Review
imagemakker
Junior Member (Idle past 4707 days)
Posts: 2
From: Houston, TX
Joined: 04-08-2011


Message 1 of 15 (611920)
04-08-2011 6:40 PM


Hello,
I am working on my Master's of Humanities at Tiffin University, and I have been asked by my instructor to seek feedback on my thesis topic. Please review the information below and get back with me about your thoughts.
The conceptions of Copernicus yielded the nucleus of modern scientific theory; yet, the quagmire of biological science would remain unresolved until Charles Darwin. During the time of Copernicus, scientific theorists believed divine intervention formed all species. However, Darwin introduced the world to the nature of science, impressing the advancement of all life through cellular progression. With the publication, On the Origin of Species in 1859, Darwin became the father of biological science through evolutionary theory. Socially, the theory of evolution disturbed many religious leaders as it enfeebled the position of God in the equation of life (Ayala, 840-41). This concern developed into an ardent American dialogue in the mid-1920s during the trial of the State of Tennessee versus John Scopes.
The Monkey Trail nourished public concerned that a secular, scientific theory would essentially eliminate God from the concept of creation. More importantly, many parents worried that the teachings of God would no longer be presented to their children in public classrooms. Today, this debate continues to rage on in states across America. In the United States, each state determines the public education of children through a Board of Education; this includes curriculum design and textbook content. Since the 1950s, special interest groups began eagerly attending public hearings regarding curriculum design and textbook content; because many members of the public wanted a say in matters concerning the public education of their children (Armenta and Lane, 76-78). Currently, the nature of science in primary and secondary education is defined, not by professional scientists or educators, but by the political influence of special-interest groups.
Texas is one of the most powerful states involved in this debate. With the second largest textbook buying power in America, the political impact of Texas affects the textbook content and therefore, the curriculums of many other states (Manzo, 11). In 2010, the Texas Board of Education voted to change its biological science curriculum content to reflect a more open interpretation of modern evolutionary synthesis to include creationism and intelligent design (Harris, pars. 2-5). This key political action marks a significant social change. How do these changes affect Texas educators? How will these changes be reflected in Texas high school biology curriculums? How do these changes effect student performance in college biology courses?
The purpose of this study seeks to answer questions surrounding evolutionary theory through instructors. Queries will seek to understand how instructors resolve personal bias, pedagogical knowledge, legal controversy, peer pressure, and state-mandated curriculum. Other areas of uncertainty include instructor perception of time given to evolutionary theory versus creationism, pedagogical interpretations of the fundamentals surrounding the nature of science, and instructor perception of the effectiveness of an alternative theory in the classroom.
Interviews will take place from a cross-section of high school biology instructors in Houston, Texas. The 24 school districts that define the city of Houston comprise the largest student population in the state. 35-45 current and retired public school biology instructors will be chosen in a quasi-experimental group from members of the National Association of Biology Teachers and the Texas Association of Biology Teachers. One-on-one interviews with these individuals will be audio recorded, in a location of their choosing, and the identity of the participants will remain anonymous. Recorded interviews will be transcribed and coded for values related to creationist theory versus evolutionary theory.
The goal of these interviews is to determine the fundamentals of faith-based issues conflicting with scientific theories. A copy of the proposed open-ended interview questions is enclosed; probative or leading questions may be asked based on responses. Instructors will be encouraged to share their experiences, ideas, beliefs and pedagogical designs. The participant’s perceptions will represent emic voices; each instructor must be allowed to explore their own journey about their beliefs regarding evolution. The final presentation will constitute a phenomological design, with a null hypothesis of; religious belief or faith does not affect the presentation of evolution in the classroom. All participants will receive a performance test, of ten questions in biology, to assert their personal understanding of evolution. A copy of the proposed performance test is enclosed for review. As the discussion in the one-on-one interviews is controversial and perhaps emotional, participants can discontinue their participation at any time.
In addition, high school biology textbooks used in Texas will be presented for quantitative language analysis of the chapters covering evolutionary theory. Textbook content in Texas has been heavily debated since the 1960’s. Textbooks approved by the Texas Board of Education will be compared for the last 25 years. The language of these texts will be analyzed and coded. Results will seek determine when creationist language first appeared in biology texts and how the current references to evolutionary theory differs from previous references. The textbooks will be acquired from the Educational Research Analysts organization; their archives contain a collection of approved textbooks in Texas for the last 40 years. The political and social pressure of many organizations complicates the client relationship for national publishers. Ultimately, the language of the text suffers and therefore, the substance from which a student deduces critical thought is compromised (Ravitch, 157-70).
Studies conducted by Dr. Randy Moore in Minnesota since the 1980s indicate there is an increase of creationism being taught in Minnesota high-school classrooms; unfortunately, this extrapolates to poorly prepared students entering college science courses (Moore and Cotner, 2009, 95-100). Moore notes, that his research does not imply that a student’s experience with creationism is solely responsible for a student’s weak performance in college science, however the exposure to creationism often remains imbedded in student ideas after rigorous scientific evidence supporting evolutionary theory has been presented (Moore and Cotner, 2009, 1-4). At its core, this pedagogical quandary remains the fundamental principle of the nature of science. If a high-school student fails to be presented with a fundamental premise of evolutionary theory, their understanding of the nature of science stands threatened. Finally, Moore’s analysis concludes that his investigations clearly indicate that, student high school experiences in biology have a greater impact on a students acceptance of evolutionary theory then a single college-level introductory biology class (Moore and Cotner, 2009, 99).
Clearly, high school biology instructors require a deeper understanding of the relationship of student experiences to biological pedagogical theory. Understanding the human motivation to avoid controversial situations remains key to resolving the circumstances surrounding the social, political, economic, and psychological factors for instructors. Scientists and educators need to work together to establish procedures and curriculum for high school biology teachers to ease the pressure on individual instructors who must decide how to teach evolutionary theory, intelligent design and creationism (Moore, 2007, 268-71). This report will provide information to the public, special interest group leaders, educators, politicians and scientists in an attempt to resolve these challenges for future generations. The education of children must remain sacrosanct; providing students with the tools of critical thinking and scientific theory provides a solid foundation of knowledge.
Completing this study is estimated to take 12 to 18 months. Potential challenges surround the acquisition of instructors to support both sides of the argument. If necessary, a snowball approach may be implemented to complete the interviewee data set. Concerns surrounding reliability and validity remained focused on my ability to accurately articulate the emic concerns of the subjects of the study. Obviously remaining vigilant to the concerns of the data, with integrity and honesty will limit these challenges.
Work Cited:
Armenta, Tony, and Kenneth E. Lane. Tennessee to Texas: Tracing the Evolution Controversy in Public Education. Clearing House 83 (2010): 76-79. Print.
Ayala, Francisco J. Darwin’s Explanation of Design: From Natural Theology to Natural Selection. Infection, Genetics and Evolution 10 (2010): 840-843. Print.
Harris, Sean Phillip. The Evolution of Intelligent Design in Texas Schools (pt. 2). Examiner.com. Austin Examiner, 14 July 2009. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. .
Manzo, Kathleen Kennedy. History Repeats Itself in Texas for Textbook-Review Process. Education Week 21.43 (2002): 11. Print.
Moore, Randy. Creationism in the United States: (IV) The Aftermath of Epperson V. Arkansas. American Biology Teacher 61.1 (1999): 10-16. Print.
- - -. The Differing Perceptions of Teachers & Students Regarding Teachers’ Emphasis on Evolution in High School Biology Classrooms. American Biology Teacher 69.5 (2007): 268-271. Print.
- - -. How Well Do Biology Teachers Understand the Legal Issues Associated with the Teaching of Evolution? BioScience 54.9 (2004): 860-865. Print.
Moore, Randy, and Sehoya Cotner. Educational Malpractice: The Impact of including Creationism in High School Biology Courses. Evolutionary Educational Outreach 2 (2009): 95-100. Print.
- - -. Rejecting Darwin: The Occurrence & Impact of Creationism in High School Biology Classrooms. American Biology Teacher 71.2 (2009): 1-4. Print.
Moore, Randy, and Karen Kraemer. The Teaching of Evolution & Creationism in Minnesota. American Biology Teacher 67.8 (2005): 457-466. Print.
Ravitch, Diane. The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn. New York: Knopf, 2003. Print.
Edited by Admin, : Modify title.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2011 8:11 AM imagemakker has not replied
 Message 5 by NoNukes, posted 04-12-2011 10:58 AM imagemakker has not replied
 Message 8 by Blue Jay, posted 04-12-2011 3:50 PM imagemakker has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 15 (611922)
04-12-2011 5:48 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Master's Thesis Proposal Needs a Review thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 3 of 15 (611924)
04-12-2011 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by imagemakker
04-08-2011 6:40 PM


It sounds like an interesting project.
I hope I may say without giving offense that your proposal is often poorly written. Indeed, it often seems to be deliberately poorly written, in that you've gone for the elaborate and wordy phrase at the expense of meaning.
Some examples:
* "The conceptions of Copernicus yielded the nucleus of modern scientific theory"
Apart from this not being true, why invent the phrase "yielded the nucleus"?
* "yet, the quagmire of biological science would remain unresolved"
One does not resolve a quagmire.
* "Darwin introduced the world to the nature of science"
This is also not true.
* "impressing the advancement of all life through cellular progression"
That doesn't actually mean anything.
* "became the father of biological science through evolutionary theory"
What's wrong with "became the father of biological science by publishing his theory of evolution"?
* "Monkey Trail"
Trial.
* "nourished public concerned"
Concern. And why in the world did you choose the verb "nourished"?
* "the teachings of God"
Only if you think that Genesis is "the teachings of God". Otherwise maybe "teaching about God"?
* "content; because"
I'm a big fan of the semi-colon, but there you want a comma.
* "and therefore, the curriculums"
You either need to remove the comma after therefore or to put one in front of it.
My spell-checker would insist on "curricula" for "curriculums". Me, I'm good either way.
* "and state-mandated curriculum"
You want "the" or "a" after "and", or you want "curriculums". (Or "curricula".)
* "interpretation of modern evolutionary synthesis to include creationism and intelligent design"
Creationism and intelligent design aren't an interpretation of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
* "Queries will seek to understand"
Queries don't understand things, they elicit them.
* "The 24 school districts that define the city of Houston"
Again with the pretentious wording. They do not define the city of Houston. What's wrong with "The 24 school districts in the city of Houston"?
* "comprise the largest student population in the state"
Actually, the school districts don't comprise the largest student population in the state. Their students do.
* "quasi-experimental"
I have no idea what this means. If the people reading your proposals will, and it's a term of art in the social sciences, then that's fine.
* "to determine the fundamentals of faith-based issues conflicting with scientific theories"
Again, an odd verbal phrase ("determine the fundamentals of") that isn't really English.
"To determine the fundamental ways in which faith-based issues conflict with ..."?
* "participant’s"
Participants'
* "with a null hypothesis of; religious belief"
The semi-colon should be a colon.
* "phenomological"
As I'm not sure that that's a word, I'm not sure what you mean by it. Did you mean "phenomenological"?
* "to assert their personal understanding of evolution"
Assess.
* "and therefore,"
Again I'd suggest either a comma before therefore or dropping the comma after it.
* "this extrapolates to"
Is correlated with.
* "Moore notes, that"
Remove the comma.
* "this pedagogical quandary remains the fundamental principle of the nature of science"
To the extent that this is meaningful, it isn't true.
* "a fundamental premise of evolutionary theory"
Do you mean a fundamental understanding?
* "Concerns surrounding reliability and validity remained focused on my ability "
Is this English?
* "Obviously remaining vigilant to the concerns of the data, with integrity and honesty will limit these challenges."
Vigilant to the concerns of the data? What concerns can data have? It's not sentient. And then that "with"? That's no way to join clauses together.
---
I hope you don't feel too crushed. You suffer from a disease which seems endemic in the social sciences: while trotting out a ten-dollar vocabulary, you're still only vaguely gesturing at what you mean.
---
Can I see the enclosures?
---
I would reiterate that it does sound like an interesting and worthwhile project, and if you would like me to proof-read your thesis when you've written it, I'll do that too.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by imagemakker, posted 04-08-2011 6:40 PM imagemakker has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 04-12-2011 9:53 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 4 of 15 (611936)
04-12-2011 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Adequate
04-12-2011 8:11 AM


The Monkey Trail is covered in the Second Jungle Book in the story Kaa's Hunting. IMHO it is a must read and should have been referenced.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2011 8:11 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 15 (611945)
04-12-2011 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by imagemakker
04-08-2011 6:40 PM


Very interesting sounding topic.
I'm curious about the content of your evolution quiz, but I can understand why you would want to keep the quiz under wraps. Perhaps you can run the content past a biologist. But even if you get the content right, a poorly worded test could badly skew the results. In particular, I'm sure you want to probe the educators' knowledge of the subject separately from the educators' personal acceptance that evolution is true.
Dr. A has given you a number of specific edits. Concerning your writing style, I'd suggest being more sparing with your tendency to anthropomorphize. For example "The purpose of this study seeks..." uses a double handful.
I also noted a few uses of pronouns where the antecedent was difficult or impossible to identify. For example, you used "this debate" in the third paragraph when you really had not discussed a debate up to that point, and "other areas of uncertainty" where arguably you had discussed questions but had not introduced areas of uncertainty. In the phrase, "this includes curriculum design and textbook content", the intended antecedent for "this" is the determination made by each state, but you did not express each states' "determination" using a noun construct. Perhaps you can simply use "this determination". There were also some naked "this" instances.
One specific rewrite.
"The goal of these interviews is to determine the fundamentals of the conflict between faith-based issues and scientific theories."
Fascinating topic. The biggest problem is that we cannot read your paper for the next year or two.
I expect that the federal courts will play a role in the adoption of public school scientific curricula in Texas, Tennessee, and other states, but perhaps an exploration of that role really does not belong in your thesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by imagemakker, posted 04-08-2011 6:40 PM imagemakker has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2011 11:06 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 15 (611947)
04-12-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by NoNukes
04-12-2011 10:58 AM


I expect that the federal courts will play a role in the adoption of public school scientific curricula in Texas, Tennessee, and other states, but perhaps an exploration of that role really does not belong in your thesis.
Well, no. He's not a law student.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NoNukes, posted 04-12-2011 10:58 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 04-12-2011 3:28 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 15 (611987)
04-12-2011 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Adequate
04-12-2011 11:06 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
I expect that the federal courts will play a role in the adoption of public school scientific curricula in Texas, Tennessee, and other states, but perhaps an exploration of that role really does not belong in your thesis.
Well, no. He's not a law student.
I know, but I thought Humanities meant any non-techy human condition stuff that someone wants to study; including law.
In any event, I agree that the legal stuff is outside the scope of his paper.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2011 11:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 8 of 15 (611992)
04-12-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by imagemakker
04-08-2011 6:40 PM


Hi, Imagemakker.
Is that a rough draft of your proposal?
Are they often this short for Master's of Humanities?
Mine (a doctoral proposal in biology) was 45 pages long (including table of contents, references, course work outline and Gantt chart).
Also, I agree with the other posters: the ratio of substance to verbiage is far too low. I'll give in-depth comments on two representative sentences, and leave the rest to you.
The conceptions of Copernicus yielded the nucleus of modern scientific theory; yet, the quagmire of biological science would remain unresolved until Charles Darwin.
My comments on this sentence:
  1. "Conceptions" makes it sound perverse: say "ideas" or "theories," or, better yet, "studies" or "work."
  2. "Yielded the nucleus of modern scientific theory": this phrase has a certain aesthetic appeal, but it's pretentious and misleading. Try to capture Copernicus' importance in the development modern science without attributing all of modern scientific theory to him, because you can't do that.
  3. The "quagmire" is not only linguistically awkward, but also misleading. Neither Darwin nor Copernicus was a "finisher" who provided "resolution," as this sentence implies: they were both pioneers who took the first steps toward a resolution that we arguably still haven't achieved today.
To express the essence of this sentence, I would suggest something like this:
quote:
The work of Copernicus in the 16th century laid the foundations of the Scientific Revolution; yet, the biological sciences would remain in a state of dissonance until the widespread acceptance of Darwin's theory over 300 years later.
I don't like "a state of dissonance" at all: but, I'm not particularly willing to put any more effort into this right now. I'm sure you can figure out what to do with it.
-----
The Monkey Trail nourished public concerned that a secular, scientific theory would essentially eliminate God from the concept of creation.
My comments on this sentence:
  1. Typos: "Trail" = "Trial"; "concerned" = "concerns"
  2. You need to connect "Monkey Trial" with the aforementioned trial of Jon Scopes.
  3. "Nourished" is a bad word choice: try "aroused" or "fed" or "inflamed."
  4. No one was concerned that God would be eliminated from the concept of creation. Maybe He would be eliminated from academic discourse, or from scientific study, or from the cultural fabric of our nation, but not from the "concept of creation."
My revision of the sentence:
quote:
The Scopes trial (also called the "Monkey Trial") aroused public concerns that a secular, scientific theory would eliminate God from academic discourse.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by imagemakker, posted 04-08-2011 6:40 PM imagemakker has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2011 4:22 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 15 (611997)
04-12-2011 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Blue Jay
04-12-2011 3:50 PM


Mine (a doctoral proposal in biology) was 45 pages long (including table of contents, references, course work outline and Gantt chart).
Did anyone tell you that this was a good idea?
The introduction to my actual doctoral thesis was half a page including thanking my supervisor and the funding body.
In this case he ought to be guided completely by the person/organization in charge of awarding the grant. Should it be long or short? That depends entirely on whether they want it to be long or short. This will be best known to the person who urged him to do a master's degree. Imagemakker should consult with this person, not with us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Blue Jay, posted 04-12-2011 3:50 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Blue Jay, posted 04-13-2011 11:00 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 10 of 15 (612030)
04-12-2011 6:54 PM


General comment
This is more of a general comment as it relates to religion and science that might cast a little light on your introduction.
What Darwin and Copernicus seem to have in common is that they removed humanity from an elevated and privileged position. Copernicus did so in the field of astronomy by moving the Earth from the center of the celestial universe. Darwin did so by removing man from center of the biological universe. Both men committed the "crime" of killing the sacred cow. At the same time, both men are held in such high respect for doing just that, for asking dangerous questions that ultimately led to the downfall of cherished religious beliefs.
I have always found this intersection of heresy and science to be very interesting. I think this is still being played out in American science classrooms.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dr Jack, posted 04-13-2011 5:10 AM Taq has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 11 of 15 (612093)
04-13-2011 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taq
04-12-2011 6:54 PM


Re: General comment
Taq writes:
What Darwin and Copernicus seem to have in common is that they removed humanity from an elevated and privileged position. Copernicus did so in the field of astronomy by moving the Earth from the center of the celestial universe. Darwin did so by removing man from center of the biological universe. Both men committed the "crime" of killing the sacred cow. At the same time, both men are held in such high respect for doing just that, for asking dangerous questions that ultimately led to the downfall of cherished religious beliefs.
Actually, the religious establishment's problem with Copernicus was the reverse. In the conception of the time the Earth was the debased centre of the universe, seeped in sin, while the rise through the heavens was towards divinity and perfection. Copernicus, by removing man from the centre of the universe, wasn't lowering him from a privileged place but lifting him from his debased, sinful hovel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 6:54 PM Taq has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 12 of 15 (612110)
04-13-2011 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Adequate
04-12-2011 4:22 PM


Hi, Dr A.
Dr Adequate writes:
Bluejay writes:
Mine (a doctoral proposal in biology) was 45 pages long
Did anyone tell you that this was a good idea?
My committee said my proposal was a little on the long side, but 30-40 pages is normal (obviously, I'm talking double-spaced pages).
I was querying, rather than editing, anyway.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2011 4:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by imagemakker, posted 04-17-2011 6:37 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
imagemakker
Junior Member (Idle past 4707 days)
Posts: 2
From: Houston, TX
Joined: 04-08-2011


Message 13 of 15 (612698)
04-17-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Blue Jay
04-13-2011 11:00 AM


Thank-You
Everyones responses have been very helpful. Thank-you for your time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Blue Jay, posted 04-13-2011 11:00 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 14 of 15 (612926)
04-20-2011 4:29 AM


Good luck with your paper.
As a YEC creationist i would only point out a few errors as we see it.
You touch on the old ones correcting some points about church teachings. yet this is not a sample of Christianity and the study of nature. In fact Protestant Christianity is the origin for the sudden and great interest in nature since the reformation.
Christian civilization is the origin of scientific investigation.
its a myth of the bad guys that the Scopes trial was the high noon of the origin contentions.
In fact public opinion has always been the same or slow to any change about the truth of Genesis. Incidents don't matter when it comes to public opinion.
Creationism is well accepted by tens of millions and even some 50% of the pop has good doubts about evolution. I have heard some 705 agree both sides should be taught in classes that deal with origin issues.
you push that its special interests trying to get creationism into schools. Yet this inaccurate analysis of public involvement in the nation.
In fact the public has a right and duty to be involved and seek change in matters affecting them.
One could say its just a minority in the public and a over represented majority in high positions that are imposing their will on issues everyone should decide on.
Either the people have the right to decide in their schools, paid by them, and teaching their kids what IS to be taught or they don't .
if not then why are there elections to school boards or any right to discuss education amongst the public.
Your paper should not be about getting your side their way but about the way the truth is to be the priority in education.
Then who decides what the truth is.
Then is the truth to be exclusively taught or is it to be accepted there is great disagreement.
Your paper should conclude that in a free nation its impossible for the state to dictate what is true on very contentious questions.
It makes a aggressive power to impose its will and breeds a resistance in reaction.
The state of affairs today.
Good luck from Canada.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by fizz57102, posted 04-20-2011 4:58 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
fizz57102
Junior Member (Idle past 4006 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 05-24-2010


Message 15 of 15 (612927)
04-20-2011 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Robert Byers
04-20-2011 4:29 AM


Your paper should conclude that in a free nation its impossible for the state to dictate what is true on very contentious questions.
Wow, someone asks for comments on a thesis proposal and you provide the conclusion.
Is this how you think research is done, Robert?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Robert Byers, posted 04-20-2011 4:29 AM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024