(no subject)
Nov. 9th, 2005 12:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockHappy as I am about many of the results from yesterday's elections, particularly here in California, this just about breaks my heart:
Supporters of the new standards said they will promote academic freedom. "It gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today," said board member John Bacon.
The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
The new standards will be used to develop student tests measuring how well schools teach science. Decisions about what is taught in classrooms will remain with 300 local school boards, but some educators fear pressure will increase in some communities to teach less about evolution or more about creationism or intelligent design.
"What this does is open the door for teachers to bring creationist arguments into the classroom and point to the standards and say it's OK," said Jack Krebs, an Oskaloosa High School math teacher and vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science, which opposes the changes.
Gosh, imagine the power each and every one of us could control if we could just redefine whatever the hell we wanted to. It's almost enough to make one giddy, isn't it? If you could re-write the definition of any term to suit your particular ideology or needs, what would it be?
Supporters of the new standards said they will promote academic freedom. "It gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today," said board member John Bacon.
The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
The new standards will be used to develop student tests measuring how well schools teach science. Decisions about what is taught in classrooms will remain with 300 local school boards, but some educators fear pressure will increase in some communities to teach less about evolution or more about creationism or intelligent design.
"What this does is open the door for teachers to bring creationist arguments into the classroom and point to the standards and say it's OK," said Jack Krebs, an Oskaloosa High School math teacher and vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science, which opposes the changes.
Gosh, imagine the power each and every one of us could control if we could just redefine whatever the hell we wanted to. It's almost enough to make one giddy, isn't it? If you could re-write the definition of any term to suit your particular ideology or needs, what would it be?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 08:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 08:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 08:20 pm (UTC)1. Describe the process wherein cells divide.
God wills it, and it happens. As science is no longer limited by natural explanations, I feel that this is a perfectly acceptible scientific answer.
From there, the rest of the test would pretty much be a cakewalk.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 08:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 09:28 pm (UTC)