Anyone have major objections to a high school biology curriculum that involves and only involves natural selection, mutations, and speciation (with no mention of God or origin of species)?
In other words, teach evolution but call it something else?
I would rather have a class on philosophy of science, that can cover the natural history of the development of science and how it operates. Teach logic, the scientific method.
I would also not be adverse to a philosophy course that looks into the question of ID and whether it really is science or just philosophy making USE of science to pursue philosophical questions.
It has also seemed to me that we have an opportunity to take people interested in ID and wean them into science, rather than shut the door, but I just don't think an already overloaded high school science course is the place to do it.
It should be earlier on the ladder of learning.
I have also though of having high school voluntary but free to those who do want to learn - let those who do not want to learn (then) go out in the world and leave the classes to those who do want to learn and go on to higher learning.
Make it through middle school and it's your choice, one you can always come back to later too.
and it states that as the climate of the early earth changed, it spawned new molecules (RNA, DNA, etc)which had the remarkable capability to self replicate. Over time, these molecules could have begun to get more efficient due to competition for limited resources.
This is abiogenesis rather than evolution. Evolution is the change in species over time: it requires life as a starting point, but make no predictions about it.
ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy
and if you use the reply button at the bottom right of the message you are responding to then they will be linked and the person will get an email (if they have set up to do so)
I also disagree and other than some poor excuses from Dover biology teaches about why they cannot teach more in the classroom I challange you to find any substantial evidence to support this that does not rely upon the temperament of the classroom.
My dad used to teach a (university) course in biology for non-biological majors - students who wouldn't need biology to graduate but were curious about it. One approach he had was to have the dissection lab with no instruction: he passed out alternately frogs and mice and had charts on the wall of human anatomy. The kids were amazed to be able to find the same organs in each and thus learn what to call the parts for their reports.
Right now our standards play to the lowest common denominator to make sure that no one is 'left behind'.
I call this program "let no child get ahead" for that reason. There is also too much tolerance for disruptive members in classrooms. My sis-in-law speaks of teaching hispanic gang kids and the hurdle it was to get them to do anything. Teach them english and they say you are taking their heritage away from them. Put them in spanish class and they fail because they don't know it well enough, but think what they know is good enough.
I have to wonder if it would be better to have mandatory school through middle school and then let students decide if they want to go on to high-tech school -- school that would provide the remaining high school years plus two years of tech school education (with associated degrees). This school would be free to participants but the students would have to want to learn. Let those that do not so choose the enter emplyment with the minimal skill they have and get a dose of reality: they could always apply to tech-high for the next year.
But there is also, it seems to me, a culture of ignorance, that revels is being stupid. This program would allow them to live on their terms and not pull down the rest of students.
Where this is concentrated in certain ethnic areas (ghettos?), there needs to be more of a program to cause a desire to learn. Here I think of having summer education camps - get the kids out of they cycle environment to one where learning is fun because fun stuff is all around them.
ps - always meant to ask, is that a Bach trumpet (and yours?), I've just been listening to Harry James, "Keep em Flyin" with Glen Miller & his Orchestra.
The problem is right now we treat teachers like domestic workers instead of professionals. IMO teachers should be one of the most respected and revered professions in our society. Yet my wife is "part-time", works over 60 hours a week, has her masters degree, and makes less than I did when I was a bus-boy at a hotel. If she did not love the work she did, I have no doubt that she would quit immediatly.
That in a nutshell is what is wrong with education. Not just the pay but the social honor of being a teacher. It should be one of respect.
My main horn though is a Maynard Ferguson
Too cool. I have two trumpets and a cornet (my oldest of the three) and one is a Bach.
Right now they are collecting dust unfortunatly. I gave up music for a more practical carear.
Have you looked into community orchestras\bands? they generally practice once a week and do concerts for old folks, etc. No pay but lots of fun. Kept me from going bonkers while I was unemployed several years back.
I also think the loss of art, music and such classes is another part of the problem, as it doesn't give kids who can't be stellar athletes or students a place to shine.
... but I am not for making high-school optional. At the very least, kids who have no intention or desire to learn acadmic topics should be made to learn a trade and basic life skills.
What I see happening is kids opting to try work and later going back to school when they are ready and want to learn. The option would always be open. The reason I included tech schools with the high schools was so that either preparation for further university (replacing freshman year there) OR a trade would be included.
You would actually end up with two more years of free school before having to pay tuition at a higher university.
Under such a scenario, the basics of readin,' writin,' and cipherin' would have to be covered prior to high school, ...
And logic and the basis for rational thinking AND the ability to find things out and verify their truthfulness.
Those alone would go along way towards stemming the tide of ignorance.
I would also make the new schools state funded and run, and they set the standards for admission to the classes available (including remedial thinking if necessary).
The standards THEY would have to meet would be set by the combined state universities for admission to upper colleges. Trade or skill organizations would also set standards for graduates in those programs.
If they teach evolution they need to keep the big bang part out. ...
And the physics involving the early formation of the universe is not taught as part of biological evolution.
... If we evolved from the big bang then why are there still bangs on earth today?
A nonsensical statement demonstrating ignorance or misunderstanding.
... If they are going to teach the theory, they at least need to teach that maybe god, or "a god of some type which science can't figure out" made the bangs. ...
The theory of inflation is an explanation of hows the universe may have developed, and as yet is the best explanation for the stages of that formation. An alternate theory is the 'brane' theory, based on string theory, and it also explains how the universe may have developed.
If you are religious you are free to believe in some agent causing this formation, and if you are non-religious you are free to believe that it occurred by natural mechanisms. The theories don't force you to take either position.
... I just wish science class was all about what science knows for absolute sure (just the laws not the theories), not what they think they might know but aren't sure.
What you wish is irrelevant. I wish I had an extra million dollars in my bank account, but that doesn't mean that it should happen.
Science without theory is not science, and that is a fact. The difference between science and opinions and beliefs is that science forms hypothesis to explain mechanisms and then tests those mechanisms against objective evidence. Tested hypothesis become theories used to predict new information which is then tested to see if the predictions are valid or invalid, and falsified (contradicted by evidence) concepts are discarded.
In this way we approach a more complete approximation of reality. Theories are tentative explanations that can be used to find more evidence or uncover more facts, and this is how valid knowledge grows.
Being unsure and skeptical of all theories, continually testing them rather than assuming they are absolute fact, is how science operates.
... knows for absolute sure ...
There is nothing that is known for absolute sure.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.