in the same SCIENCE article (Science Vol 37 28 Jan 2005) that discusses the Dover area situation Mervis went so far as to say "the Supreme Court rules in 1987 that teaching of creationism consitutes an illegal dose of religion in the classroom" & linked "Dover" with the issue over in Georgia about validity of hypothesis non fingo or its rather real proposition under the labeling with stickers "a theory rather than a fact." The author JM attempted to write about this judgement by affirming the judge in the cases' statement that the stickers represented affinity for "religiously motivated individuals".
Unfortunately I would not disagree with you as just this last week I got this
higlighted and labelled BY MY MOTHER which belies that no matter the hypothesis the illegal dose was seeing evolution as IN FACT a theory. I know this might seem garbled but I will reexplain all this again as we have gone past this problem on EVC but my mother, being "religously motivated" is the reason that the stickers were needed. But removing the stickers or not reading the ID document and not talking about it can not be the answer as long as middle america still is able to raise good citizens no matter what the "dose" is. Yes my mother was and is wrong. She will use this as evidence that I must see evc her way. I cant, she doesnt know much compared with yous all here.
The pic and highlighted area is from Newsweek Feb 7, 2005
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-15-2005 16:24 AM
I live in Wisconsin, currently the high school graduation requirements include:
# Four credits of English which incorporate instruction in written communication, oral communication, grammar and usage of the English language, and literature.
# Three credits of social studies which incorporate instruction in state and local government.
# Two credits of mathematics which incorporate instruction in the properties, processes, and symbols of arithmetic and elements of algebra, geometry, and statistics.
# Two credits of science which incorporate instruction in the biological sciences and physical sciences.
# 1.5 credits of physical education which incorporate instruction in the effects of exercise on the human body,health-related physical fitness, and activities for lifetime use.
a minimum of 8.5 additional credits in vocational education, foreign languages, fine arts, and other courses - generally considered electives, though I believe some school mandate so many credits in a fine art or foreign language.
0.5 credit of health education which incorporates instruction in personal, family, community, and environmental health. (taken in either middle school or high school)
Now these requirements are general and children and/or parents can have quite a bit of leeway on just what classes to take. Some kids will not take much over elementary algebra while others will take calculus and beyond. Some will stick with the basic physical science classes and others will take higher level classes.
Most high school also offer what are called AP courses (Advanced Placement). These are college level courses taken in high school. The student then has the option of taking a proficiency test and getting actual college credit for it.
Asgara "Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
Just so we are clear - the UK has no graduation requirement, in fact you just leave when you finish.
Between the ages of 14-16, a student will take a number of GCSEs (General Certificate of Secondary Educations). A number of those are taken by everyone - such as Maths and English* and a few others. The students then pick a number of electives such as ICT, Business Studies, Drama. Generally a student will take between 6-10 of those (depending on the school and the ability of the student).
A GCSE is awarded in eight grades from A* to G but in reality people only assign worth to grades between A-C (in terms of employment and further study).
Your GCSE grades will determine the A-levels that you can take and the standard of the school that you can get into. Those A-level (taken between 16-18) grades are then used to offer places at university.
So if you want to be a doctor - they may want 3 a-levels in X,Y,Z at A (the grading is basically the same as GCSEs).
* it's slightly more complex that this but it gives you the idea.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 15 February 2005 18:32 AM
That's interesting. I attended a secular private school during high school. I vaguely remember having about ZERO choices at upper levels for courses. There was some flexibility in the order you could take them, but everybody took the same classes eventually. OTOH, those of us with a science bent had a number of non-traditional options available. In my case, I applied for and received a grant allowing me to spend my senior year doing an ecology study of a local man-made lake (the process for grant application and the reporting/methodology requirements were very similar to any similar research initiative at higher levels, including reading a paper on your work at a regional science symposium). I remember one classmate building a laser, another working on DNA polymerization, etc. There was quite a bit of leeway. I have no clue what non-science types did their senior year. We were able to take AP examinations for college credit, however.
Here is an op piece from Sundays York Daily Record titled: The Dover Dilemma. Finally we here what some of the students have to say. "He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife." ~ Douglas Adams
“I wish more people would shave with Occam's Razor.” Orson Scott Card
I found Ashley Love's plea to Stop The Learning! to be particularly moving:
If people are so worried about creationism being taught and do not want it in there, then evolution should not be taught as well. People are forgetting that there are people who do not like the idea of evolution either. If it is such a problem, then drop both from the curriculum. Everyone wins. Everyone is happy. That will keep it fair.
Students Speak Out, "Yeah, it was something like that."
Students are being taught about evolution in schools around the country. I recall being taught that people came from being monkeys to cavemen to civilized people, as they grew in number and began living together.
Yeah, it was something like that...
I remember leaving science class one day with a lot of unanswered questions. For instance, if people came from monkeys, then why didn’t all monkeys evolve into people? Also, how did people get spread out across almost all the continents? Did they monkey-paddle there?
I'd say that this is solid evidence that we need more extensive teaching of evolutionary theory, not less. How does this student have human migration twisted into a refutation of the theory of evolution?
When someone is so obviously outspoken against a scientific theory they do not understand, and sum it all up with, "Yeah, it was something like that," the educational system needs improvement, not deconstruction.
quote:...my mother, being "religously motivated" is the reason that the stickers were needed.
How so? She isn't a high school student so she isn't the target of the stickers. She seems to agree with the Pope, that Christianity and evolution are not in conflict. How do you get from that fact to the presumed need for these stickers?
quote:But removing the stickers or not reading the ID document and not talking about it can not be the answer as long as middle america still is able to raise good citizens no matter what the "dose" is.
Removing the stickers and not reading the ID document are precisely the answer, Brad, because this whole effort is nothing but an attempt to teach about God in science classrooms. God is a supernatural entity, he cannot be studied empirically.
There's nothing wrong with teaching about God in schools. Of course, everyone's rights must be respected and that means that no particular view of God can be advanced by the schools or the teachers, but there's nothing preventing them from teaching kids about widely held beliefs. However, for the same reason you don't teach about Mozart in spelling class you don't teach about God in science class.
If the stickers didnt say, or there werent any, "EVOLUTION IS THEORY NOT FACT" then my mother would not be able to maintain her position but she also couldnt think that a simple quote as she highlighted IN FACT verifies here progressive evolutionist BELIEF but she raises good kids nonetheless and there IS NO REASON people like her or her eggs should be squestered in society just because she would like NOT TO think all the science details in , that is why some people become doctors, lawyers, politicians etc rather than BEING submitted to the causality of/in science.Sociology opened up this larger anthropology but I do agree it would be a mistake to legislate in current schools NO TALKING about ID Ev etc but my experience is when Carl Zimmer and I were the first students in the first gifted and talented Biology class at Hunterdon CentralHIgh School. I was told that my "talk" about biology is part of the reason the class was introduced when it was but I was oblivious to that just as I am to the game of "tag"-yourIT, I think i see people participating in on this board.
Brad, doesn't your mother agree with the pope that there needn't be a conflict between Christianity and evolution? If so, why would she favor these stickers? You say that the quote she highlighted verifies her "progressive evolutionist BELIEF". I would argue that it isn't a belief at all, but rather an acceptance. Of course neither she nor you nor any of your siblings should be "sequestered in society" regardless of what beliefs or convictions any of you may hold.
quote:...I do agree it would be a mistake to legislate in current schools NO TALKING about ID Ev etc...
Absolutely! I think it would be a mistake to pass legislation ruling out any sort of discussion in school. What I am opposed to at present is legislating a requirement that ideas which have nothing to do with science should be discussed in science classrooms.
I am sorry if I confused you into her beliefs. Yes she DOES think them compatible but it in a sense that ICR does not support. I had to learn that that IS ICR's position and I continue to not agree with her. It seems that seperate magesteria is really the only way it might work and I cant see that but I thought I personally saw something different in the Pope's actual published words. That is for another thread and has been discussed here in the past. I was needing the stickers so that she could see that she can not assert her position out of fact but ONLY in theory. She holds to it like a religion or fact when it is likely but an expression of her faith. I dont want to deny her that. Its hard to say as she doesnt give it all Soomuch thought. She certainly doesnt think about as much as the average EVC poster.
I think you fail to see that in a capitalist system the control would be with individuals and families. They would make the decision about what to buy, and they would not choose an education program that is too heavy. And even if they would, the government would be a strong regulator to stop them, where now it is a weak regulator that is much guilty of excitable politicians forcing things on overloaded students.
That is why I brought up child labour, to emphasize what the government's role should be, a regulator.
I have some examples from the Netherlands, where the government education curriculum had to be pulled because of overloading students. Also recently I read in the paper some university-doctor pensioning talking about a mysterious increase in fatigue among students, during his many years as university-doctor.
As the information age develops, information will relatively cost more to other products, and so commercialization of education is inevitable, unless you want to start an economy without money.