| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
13 Dec 2005 06:19:19 AM |
| Object: |
In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
From the article:
--------------------------------------
Vote supports teaching human origin theories
By BILL ROBINSON
Staff Writer
A proponent of teaching various theories of human origin, which include
creationism, gained support Monday from the state's public school reform
oversight panel.
At the urging of Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, the Education Oversight Committee
voted 8-7 to strike from high school biology standards wording that tied
schools to teaching only evolution.
Fair wants schools to go beyond Darwinism, and oversight panel members said they
would draft new rules before February to address his concerns.
"What I'm trying to encourage is critical analysis of a controversial subject in
the classroom," Fair said.
What happens next is unclear.
"This is unprecedented," said Dale Stuckey, the state Department of Education
chief lawyer. "It's my interpretation of the law that (EOC members) have no
authority to change the standards."
----------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/13394245.htm
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "Jason Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
14 Dec 2005 05:07:45 AM |
|
|
Also see 'Education panel considers changes to SC biology teaching
guidelines' at http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4241592
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
(Columbia) Dec. 13, 2005 - An education oversight panel has put off a
final recommendation on the state's biology teaching standards at the
urging of a state senator.
Greenville Republican Senator Mike Fair has always been upfront about
his Christianity. Now, Fair's beliefs could help change the way South
Carolina high schools teach biology.
"Let science happen in the classroom. Let's debate it. Let's encourage
our kids to debate."
Tuesday, on an 8-7 vote, Fair and other members of the State Education
Oversight Committee moved to modify several biology teaching
guidelines. The decision could allow students to consider creationism
to explain human origin.
The vote drew immediate fire from some educators like Dr. Robert
Dillon of the College of Charleston, "We're just terribly
disappointed. It's a sad day for science in South Carolina."
Kitty Farnell of Lexington-Richland Five reacts, "We don't want to be
teaching things in the science classroom that aren't real science.
That just provides a foundation that's not strong for our students to
advance in the 21st century."
The committee's executive director JoAnne Anderson says the group
plans to put together a panel of scientists and science teachers to
advise committee members on the biology standards dealing with
evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "A.Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
14 Dec 2005 10:54:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 06:07:45 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
Also see 'Education panel considers changes to SC biology teaching
guidelines' at http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4241592
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
(Columbia) Dec. 13, 2005 - An education oversight panel has put off a
final recommendation on the state's biology teaching standards at the
urging of a state senator.
Greenville Republican Senator Mike Fair has always been upfront about
his Christianity. Now, Fair's beliefs could help change the way South
Carolina high schools teach biology.
"Let science happen in the classroom. Let's debate it. Let's encourage
our kids to debate."
That lying SOB! I'm sure that the only reason he is for 'debate' here
is because he is so diametrically opposed to the scientific position,
a position actually reached by a very rigorous form of 'debate' where
the evidence is what ultimately rules.
Try and get past this same senator a proposal to openly debate issues
reflecting his own religious or political doctrines and see how fast
he'll change his tune.
That said, a class or two in critical thinking is probably badly
needed in most schools that I have come across. But that's not what
the senator is really asking for here.
Tuesday, on an 8-7 vote, Fair and other members of the State Education
Oversight Committee moved to modify several biology teaching
guidelines. The decision could allow students to consider creationism
to explain human origin.
Assuming that these illustrious panel members who voted in the
majority are products of this same state education system, this
doesn't say much for it. It's a real pity when the dumbest members of
society are hell-bent on dragging the education system down to their
own level.
The vote drew immediate fire from some educators like Dr. Robert
Dillon of the College of Charleston, "We're just terribly
disappointed. It's a sad day for science in South Carolina."
Kitty Farnell of Lexington-Richland Five reacts, "We don't want to be
teaching things in the science classroom that aren't real science.
That just provides a foundation that's not strong for our students to
advance in the 21st century."
The committee's executive director JoAnne Anderson says the group
plans to put together a panel of scientists and science teachers to
advise committee members on the biology standards dealing with
evolution.
No doubt made up of the 'brightest' scientists available? Yeah,
right!
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "OvC" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
14 Dec 2005 10:01:10 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 06:07:45 -0500, Jason Spaceman posted in article
<o3vvp197bppodpprf083a1qle7n7tjgrki@4ax.com> ...
Also see 'Education panel considers changes to SC biology teaching
guidelines' at http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4241592
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------
(Columbia) Dec. 13, 2005 - An education oversight panel has put off a
final recommendation on the state's biology teaching standards at the
urging of a state senator.
[...]
The committee's executive director JoAnne Anderson says the group
plans to put together a panel of scientists and science teachers to
advise committee members on the biology standards dealing with
evolution.
A very wise move, since it will force the Recalcitrant 8 to display
their religious motivations and ignorance of science to the scientists
and teachers who wrote the standards.
Also from the article:
'Sen. Fair clarifies what's being considered, "Intelligent design is
not on the table for discussion in the Education Oversight Committee,
nor am I aware of any bill that's been offered."'
Not unexpectedly, Sen. Fair, who represents Greenville, the home of
the bastion of critical thinking Bob Jones University, is
disassembling </Bush>. He pre-filed Bill S.909, which reads:
'SECTION 1. Chapter 5, Title 59 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
'"Section 59-5-160. In the promulgation of policies and regulations
regarding kindergarten through twelfth grade education, the State
Board of Education shall implement policies and a curriculum that
accomplish the General Assembly's desire to provide a quality science
education that shall prepare students to distinguish the data and
testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims
that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may
generate controversy, such as biological evolution, the curriculum
should help students to understand the full range of scientific views
that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how
scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."'
From the unassailable Agape Press
<http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/262005f.asp>:
'State Senator Mike Fair says his bill would not prevent teachers from
discussing evolution, but would require them to present other theories
such as intelligent design, which says that life is too complex to
have evolved by accident. The bill has gained local support from U.S.
Senator Jim DeMint and Congressman Bob Inglis.'
--
OvC
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
13 Dec 2005 08:49:26 AM |
|
|
Guess which half of the national education/intellengence scale this
state is in?
CT
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------
Vote supports teaching human origin theories
By BILL ROBINSON
Staff Writer
A proponent of teaching various theories of human origin, which include
creationism, gained support Monday from the state's public school reform
oversight panel.
At the urging of Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, the Education Oversight Committee
voted 8-7 to strike from high school biology standards wording that tied
schools to teaching only evolution.
Fair wants schools to go beyond Darwinism, and oversight panel members said they
would draft new rules before February to address his concerns.
"What I'm trying to encourage is critical analysis of a controversial subject in
the classroom," Fair said.
What happens next is unclear.
"This is unprecedented," said Dale Stuckey, the state Department of Education
chief lawyer. "It's my interpretation of the law that (EOC members) have no
authority to change the standards."
----------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/13394245.htm
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "OvC" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
13 Dec 2005 10:45:34 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:49:26 GMT, CreateThis posted in article
<WbBnf.37035$tV6.6416@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> ...
Guess which half of the national education/intellengence scale this
state is in?
Which intelligence scale would that be?
--
OvC
.
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
13 Dec 2005 12:48:58 PM |
|
|
OvC wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:49:26 GMT, CreateThis posted in article
<WbBnf.37035$tV6.6416@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> ...
Guess which half of the national education/intellengence scale this
state is in?
Which intelligence scale would that be?
Can't find the post that contains it right now, but somebody posted
recently a link to a chart that ranks US states by average IQ. It
showed (not surprisingly) that "red" states occupy the bottom of the list.
I've seen similar rankings by average educational level showing the same
results.
Comparing either of these with rankings by religious adherence (however
measured) shows a *strong* inverse correlation between
intelligence/education and religiosity.
Religion and Republicanism is for dummies. Having so much of both makes
the US look dumb. Rightfully so, I guess.
CT <-- American, but not particularly proud of it these days.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OvC" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
13 Dec 2005 04:20:06 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:48:58 GMT, CreateThis posted in article
<uIEnf.28794$BZ5.7227@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> ...
OvC wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:49:26 GMT, CreateThis posted in article
<WbBnf.37035$tV6.6416@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> ...
Guess which half of the national education/intellengence scale this
state is in?
Which intelligence scale would that be?
Can't find the post that contains it right now, but somebody posted
recently a link to a chart that ranks US states by average IQ. It
showed (not surprisingly) that "red" states occupy the bottom of the list.
Ah. Would that chart be the one purporting to derive average state IQ
from ACT or SAT scores? I was looking for something having a bit more
rigor.
I've seen similar rankings by average educational level showing the same
results.
I've seen that one too. Did you also see the report correlating IQ
with average latitude among northern hemisphere countries?
Comparing either of these with rankings by religious adherence (however
measured) shows a *strong* inverse correlation between
intelligence/education and religiosity.
A source for that would be nice to see. Home schoolers, perhaps the
majority of which self-profess 'high' religious adherence, like to
tout results showing that their kids routinely do better on
standardized tests (and therefore have a higher IQ?) than public
school kids.
Religion and Republicanism is for dummies. Having so much of both makes
the US look dumb. Rightfully so, I guess.
That well may be. But what does that have to do with Mike Fair's
assault on South Carolina's academic standards for science, which is
the topic of the article? Unlike Kansas, the SC BOE and Ed Department
have already adopted positive changes to the rigorous science
standards, which already treat evolution as the linchpin of biology.
And as noted in the article, Fair's request for changes probably won't
pass legal muster.
SC's current science standards, in place since 2000, are ranked 4th in
the country by the Fordham Foundation, just behind two blue states and
a red state:
<http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/about/press_release.cfm?id=20>
That's ahead of 17 blue states. It's clear that those 17 blue states
just don't care as much as South Carolina about teaching evolution, so
they must be populated by dummies, right?
--
OvC
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
14 Dec 2005 07:48:51 AM |
|
|
OvC wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:48:58 GMT, CreateThis posted in article
<uIEnf.28794$BZ5.7227@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> ...
OvC wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:49:26 GMT, CreateThis posted in article
<WbBnf.37035$tV6.6416@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> ...
Guess which half of the national education/intellengence scale this
state is in?
Which intelligence scale would that be?
Can't find the post that contains it right now, but somebody posted
recently a link to a chart that ranks US states by average IQ. It
showed (not surprisingly) that "red" states occupy the bottom of the list.
Ah. Would that chart be the one purporting to derive average state IQ
from ACT or SAT scores? I was looking for something having a bit more
rigor.
I've seen similar rankings by average educational level showing the same
results.
I've seen that one too. Did you also see the report correlating IQ
with average latitude among northern hemisphere countries?
Then there's the stats on people who live on volcanoes. Or in mud huts
in earthquake zones. Or in shanty towns. Or...
.
|
|
|
| User: "OvC" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
15 Dec 2005 09:20:48 PM |
|
|
On 14 Dec 2005 05:48:51 -0800, posted in
article <1134568131.418134.77860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> ...
OvC wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:48:58 GMT, CreateThis posted in article
<uIEnf.28794$BZ5.7227@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> ...
I've seen similar rankings by average educational level showing the same
results.
I've seen that one too. Did you also see the report correlating IQ
with average latitude among northern hemisphere countries?
Then there's the stats on people who live on volcanoes. Or in mud huts
in earthquake zones. Or in shanty towns. Or...
Aye, potential Darwin Award winners all...
--
OvC
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
13 Dec 2005 10:59:20 PM |
|
|
OvC wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:48:58 GMT, CreateThis posted in article
<uIEnf.28794$BZ5.7227@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> ...
OvC wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:49:26 GMT, CreateThis posted in article
<WbBnf.37035$tV6.6416@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> ...
Guess which half of the national education/intellengence scale this
state is in?
Which intelligence scale would that be?
Can't find the post that contains it right now, but somebody posted
recently a link to a chart that ranks US states by average IQ. It
showed (not surprisingly) that "red" states occupy the bottom of the list.
Ah. Would that chart be the one purporting to derive average state IQ
from ACT or SAT scores? I was looking for something having a bit more
rigor.
I don't know how the data was derived. If you find something rigorous
enough for you, please post the findings. I have a feeling they won't
differ much.
I've seen similar rankings by average educational level showing the same
results.
I've seen that one too. Did you also see the report correlating IQ
with average latitude among northern hemisphere countries?
No. Where is it?
Comparing either of these with rankings by religious adherence (however
measured) shows a *strong* inverse correlation between
intelligence/education and religiosity.
A source for that would be nice to see. Home schoolers, perhaps the
majority of which self-profess 'high' religious adherence, like to
tout results showing that their kids routinely do better on
standardized tests (and therefore have a higher IQ?) than public
school kids.
I'm willing to believe that, but that small group wouldn't put much of a
dent in the overall numbers.
Religion and Republicanism is for dummies. Having so much of both makes
the US look dumb. Rightfully so, I guess.
That well may be. But what does that have to do with Mike Fair's
assault on South Carolina's academic standards for science, which is
the topic of the article? Unlike Kansas, the SC BOE and Ed Department
have already adopted positive changes to the rigorous science
standards, which already treat evolution as the linchpin of biology.
And as noted in the article, Fair's request for changes probably won't
pass legal muster.
The fact that the State Oversight Committee wants to undermine science
(whether or not they ultimately can legally) indicates to me that SC is
at least an educationally embattled state. I'm glad to hear about its
standards' high ranking and hope they reflect the education actually
being received by most students. And I hope my impression about the
state's general educational/political climate is wrong - but I'm not
optimistic.
CT
.
|
|
|
| User: "OvC" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
14 Dec 2005 09:08:27 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:59:20 -0600, CreateThis posted in article
<kJOdnaLQ8I00OwLeRVn-rw@comcast.com> ...
OvC wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:48:58 GMT, CreateThis posted in article
<uIEnf.28794$BZ5.7227@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> ...
OvC wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:49:26 GMT, CreateThis posted in article
<WbBnf.37035$tV6.6416@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> ...
Guess which half of the national education/intellengence scale this
state is in?
Which intelligence scale would that be?
Can't find the post that contains it right now, but somebody posted
recently a link to a chart that ranks US states by average IQ. It
showed (not surprisingly) that "red" states occupy the bottom of the list.
Ah. Would that chart be the one purporting to derive average state IQ
from ACT or SAT scores? I was looking for something having a bit more
rigor.
I don't know how the data was derived. If you find something rigorous
enough for you, please post the findings. I have a feeling they won't
differ much.
The tables were derived by obtaining the average ACT scores for each
state, converting the average ACT scores to SAT scores, assigning an
IQ to the SAT scores, deducting 10 points, and rank ordering the
states by the result. This despite a wide range in ACT participants
among the states; ACT and SAT warnings against state-by-state
comparisons, conversions from one scale to another, and misuse as
intelligence measures; and poorly documented SAT-->IQ conversion
algorithm.
All such lists I've found have been debunked to various degrees, so
yes, they don't differ much.
I've seen similar rankings by average educational level showing the same
results.
I've seen that one too. Did you also see the report correlating IQ
with average latitude among northern hemisphere countries?
No. Where is it?
It falls out of the data for PISA (Programme for International Student
Assessment) 2003, available in Annex B2 linked at the bottom of
<http://www.oecd.org/document/5/0,2340,en_2825_495609_33917573_1_1_1_1
,00.html>. For the countries listed, simply ignore the results for
any not in North America, rank order them by raw score, and claim the
scores represent IQ, just like the charts you referred to. In order
from highest IQ to lowest, they are
Canada
USA
Mexico
Same methodology as the blue-red state IQ tables. Works the same with
the Benelux countries, and with average longitude for the 4
Scandinavian countries. Amazing, innit?
Comparing either of these with rankings by religious adherence (however
measured) shows a *strong* inverse correlation between
intelligence/education and religiosity.
A source for that would be nice to see. Home schoolers, perhaps the
majority of which self-profess 'high' religious adherence, like to
tout results showing that their kids routinely do better on
standardized tests (and therefore have a higher IQ?) than public
school kids.
I'm willing to believe that, but that small group wouldn't put much of a
dent in the overall numbers.
Which is why both ACT and SAT warn against making state comparisons of
their scores, where participation ranges from less than 10% to over
75%.
Religion and Republicanism is for dummies. Having so much of both makes
the US look dumb. Rightfully so, I guess.
That well may be. But what does that have to do with Mike Fair's
assault on South Carolina's academic standards for science, which is
the topic of the article? Unlike Kansas, the SC BOE and Ed Department
have already adopted positive changes to the rigorous science
standards, which already treat evolution as the linchpin of biology.
And as noted in the article, Fair's request for changes probably won't
pass legal muster.
The fact that the State Oversight Committee wants to undermine science
(whether or not they ultimately can legally) indicates to me that SC is
at least an educationally embattled state. I'm glad to hear about its
standards' high ranking and hope they reflect the education actually
being received by most students. And I hope my impression about the
state's general educational/political climate is wrong - but I'm not
optimistic.
Actually, it's 8 of 15 members of the EOC, those 8 including several
creationists from the Upstate and Coast and the governor's appointee,
the last who votes against anything having a post-19th-century odor.
The remaining 7 are staunchly pro-science, so a single defection from
the anti camp removes the threat from the EOC. The SBOE and Ed
Department, through the legislature, have the final word.
Unfortunately, Fair has pre-filed a bill seeking the same ***** in
the legislature.
You're not wrong about the SC political climate, just unaware that
it's similar elsewhere -- *every* state is educationally embattled to
a greater or lesser degree. See, for example, events in blue states
California, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania.
--
OvC
.
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
14 Dec 2005 10:23:41 AM |
|
|
OvC wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:59:20 -0600, CreateThis posted in article
<kJOdnaLQ8I00OwLeRVn-rw@comcast.com> ...
OvC wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:48:58 GMT, CreateThis posted in article
<uIEnf.28794$BZ5.7227@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> ...
OvC wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:49:26 GMT, CreateThis posted in article
<WbBnf.37035$tV6.6416@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> ...
Guess which half of the national education/intellengence scale this
state is in?
Which intelligence scale would that be?
Can't find the post that contains it right now, but somebody posted
recently a link to a chart that ranks US states by average IQ. It
showed (not surprisingly) that "red" states occupy the bottom of the list.
Ah. Would that chart be the one purporting to derive average state IQ
from ACT or SAT scores? I was looking for something having a bit more
rigor.
I don't know how the data was derived. If you find something rigorous
enough for you, please post the findings. I have a feeling they won't
differ much.
The tables were derived by obtaining the average ACT scores for each
state, converting the average ACT scores to SAT scores, assigning an
IQ to the SAT scores, deducting 10 points, and rank ordering the
states by the result. This despite a wide range in ACT participants
among the states; ACT and SAT warnings against state-by-state
comparisons, conversions from one scale to another, and misuse as
intelligence measures; and poorly documented SAT-->IQ conversion
algorithm.
All such lists I've found have been debunked to various degrees, so
yes, they don't differ much.
I've seen similar rankings by average educational level showing the same
results.
I've seen that one too. Did you also see the report correlating IQ
with average latitude among northern hemisphere countries?
No. Where is it?
It falls out of the data for PISA (Programme for International Student
Assessment) 2003, available in Annex B2 linked at the bottom of
<http://www.oecd.org/document/5/0,2340,en_2825_495609_33917573_1_1_1_1
,00.html>. For the countries listed, simply ignore the results for
any not in North America, rank order them by raw score, and claim the
scores represent IQ, just like the charts you referred to. In order
from highest IQ to lowest, they are
Canada
USA
Mexico
That sounds reasonable to me, using criteria that I would accept for IQ
(basically reasoning ability).
Same methodology as the blue-red state IQ tables. Works the same with
the Benelux countries, and with average longitude for the 4
Scandinavian countries. Amazing, innit?
Comparing either of these with rankings by religious adherence (however
measured) shows a *strong* inverse correlation between
intelligence/education and religiosity.
A source for that would be nice to see. Home schoolers, perhaps the
majority of which self-profess 'high' religious adherence, like to
tout results showing that their kids routinely do better on
standardized tests (and therefore have a higher IQ?) than public
school kids.
I'm willing to believe that, but that small group wouldn't put much of a
dent in the overall numbers.
Which is why both ACT and SAT warn against making state comparisons of
their scores, where participation ranges from less than 10% to over
75%.
I suspect even the low end of that range (10%) is considerably higher
than the percentage of homeschoolers, and (although I'm no statistician)
probably a meaningful sample.
Religion and Republicanism is for dummies. Having so much of both makes
the US look dumb. Rightfully so, I guess.
That well may be. But what does that have to do with Mike Fair's
assault on South Carolina's academic standards for science, which is
the topic of the article? Unlike Kansas, the SC BOE and Ed Department
have already adopted positive changes to the rigorous science
standards, which already treat evolution as the linchpin of biology.
And as noted in the article, Fair's request for changes probably won't
pass legal muster.
The fact that the State Oversight Committee wants to undermine science
(whether or not they ultimately can legally) indicates to me that SC is
at least an educationally embattled state. I'm glad to hear about its
standards' high ranking and hope they reflect the education actually
being received by most students. And I hope my impression about the
state's general educational/political climate is wrong - but I'm not
optimistic.
Actually, it's 8 of 15 members of the EOC, those 8 including several
creationists from the Upstate and Coast and the governor's appointee,
the last who votes against anything having a post-19th-century odor.
The remaining 7 are staunchly pro-science, so a single defection from
the anti camp removes the threat from the EOC. The SBOE and Ed
Department, through the legislature, have the final word.
Unfortunately, Fair has pre-filed a bill seeking the same ***** in
the legislature.
You're not wrong about the SC political climate, just unaware that
it's similar elsewhere -- *every* state is educationally embattled to
a greater or lesser degree. See, for example, events in blue states
California, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania.
Well, I think the 'greater or lesser degree' factor is more meaningful
than you suggest here, and probably also tracks closely with the state
IQ rankings (just a guess).
CT
.
|
|
|
| User: "OvC" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
15 Dec 2005 10:40:59 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:23:41 GMT, CreateThis posted in article
<hGXnf.29216$BZ5.6804@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> ...
OvC wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:59:20 -0600, CreateThis posted in article
<kJOdnaLQ8I00OwLeRVn-rw@comcast.com> ...
OvC wrote:
[...]
I've seen that one too. Did you also see the report correlating IQ
with average latitude among northern hemisphere countries?
No. Where is it?
It falls out of the data for PISA (Programme for International Student
Assessment) 2003, available in Annex B2 linked at the bottom of
<http://www.oecd.org/document/5/0,2340,en_2825_495609_33917573_1_1_1_1
,00.html>. For the countries listed, simply ignore the results for
any not in North America, rank order them by raw score, and claim the
scores represent IQ, just like the charts you referred to. In order
from highest IQ to lowest, they are
Canada
USA
Mexico
That sounds reasonable to me, using criteria that I would accept for IQ
(basically reasoning ability).
Good grief. It's totally bogus. I cherry-picked the data and made a
meaningless correlation between IQ and test scores.
[...]
I'm willing to believe that, but that small group wouldn't put much of a
dent in the overall numbers.
Which is why both ACT and SAT warn against making state comparisons of
their scores, where participation ranges from less than 10% to over
75%.
I suspect even the low end of that range (10%) is considerably higher
than the percentage of homeschoolers, and (although I'm no statistician)
probably a meaningful sample.
No, it's not a meaningful sample, especially for state-by-state
comparison, and ACT and SAT make that clear. <10% participation in
ACT or SAT skims scores from the brightest who need the scores for
college applications, while >75% participation includes a lot of low
achievers from the general school population.
[...]
You're not wrong about the SC political climate, just unaware that
it's similar elsewhere -- *every* state is educationally embattled to
a greater or lesser degree. See, for example, events in blue states
California, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania.
Well, I think the 'greater or lesser degree' factor is more meaningful
than you suggest here, and probably also tracks closely with the state
IQ rankings (just a guess).
Um, those 'rankings' are bogus...
--
OvC
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "none" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
13 Dec 2005 07:34:29 AM |
|
|
In article <BsudnQgCGO7dIQPenZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@rogers.com>,
notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org says...
From the article:
--------------------------------------
Vote supports teaching human origin theories
Atheists and liberals on school boards should go on the counter offensive
with a set of proposals to teach classes actively debunking superstition,
pseudo-science and urban legends of the the variety so frequently
employed by theists and bible beaters. Also, outside the
science curriculum, a full semester class in logic and critical thinking
or a class in bible criticism would be great.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Chez Watt! (was Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo) |
13 Dec 2005 05:00:45 PM |
|
|
In the "You Never See Them In The Same Place" Category:
Atheists and liberals on school boards
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Chez Watt! (was Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo) |
13 Dec 2005 06:40:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:00:45 -0600, AC wrote
(in article <slrndpukkt.1cf.mightymartianca@nobody.here>):
In the "You Never See Them In The Same Place" Category:
Atheists and liberals on school boards
I love it.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
"But it could also be a new troll being born. (Do they form by accretion?)"
-Chuck Taylor
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steamboat" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
13 Dec 2005 08:27:34 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:34:29 -0700, none
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article
<BsudnQgCGO7dIQPenZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@rogers.com>,
notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org says...
From the article:
--------------------------------------
Vote supports teaching human origin theories
Atheists and liberals on school boards should go
on the counter offensive
with a set of proposals to teach classes actively
debunking superstition,
pseudo-science and urban legends of the variety so
frequently
employed by theists and bible beaters. Also,
outside the
science curriculum, a full semester class in logic
and critical thinking
or a class in bible criticism would be great.
That's a good idea. There's a lot of things kids
could be taught that would be good for them. The
kids, as a rule, wouldn't mind a word or two about
biology and logic any more than they would mind a
word or two about balancing a checkbook or
differentiating between wants and needs.
Trouble is, what's taught is controlled by adults
who often don't care if their kids enjoy the best
life can offer. A fundamentalist janitor is a
perfectly acceptable kid to the fundies -- much
more so than a person who gets a good paying job
because he's well-rounded and can actually think.
I emphasize the word fundamentalist because most
christians want the best for their kids and have
no fear that education will displace anything of
importance in their lives. It's only the radicals
who believe knowledge can destroy and live in fear
of anything that would promote knowledge. I guess
it's the adam and eve mentality -- better ignorant
than wise.
#
Anatole France: "The average man, who does
not know what to do with his life, wants
another one which will last forever."
#
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "OvC" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
13 Dec 2005 10:58:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 06:34:29 -0700, none posted in article
<MPG.1e087bcf54e670959896e7@news.readfreenews.net> ...
In article <BsudnQgCGO7dIQPenZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@rogers.com>,
notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org says...
From the article:
--------------------------------------
Vote supports teaching human origin theories
Atheists and liberals on school boards
[...]
You're not very informed about politics in South Carolina, are you?
--
OvC
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
13 Dec 2005 06:14:24 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1e08c8d66595cd5989715@netnews.att.net>,
otto.von.chriek@uberwald.gov says...
--------------------------------------
Vote supports teaching human origin theories
Atheists and liberals on school boards
[...]
You're not very informed about politics in South Carolina, are you?
I didn't say they should do it in South Carolina. I wouldn't even take a
***** there, much less live there. There are plenty of places that
liberals could start going on the counter offensive though, and this may
start a trend in other blue states.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OvC" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
13 Dec 2005 08:21:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:14:24 -0700, quibbler posted in article
<MPG.1e0911caf786323f9896e8@news.readfreenews.net> ...
In article <MPG.1e08c8d66595cd5989715@netnews.att.net>,
otto.von.chriek@uberwald.gov says...
--------------------------------------
Vote supports teaching human origin theories
Atheists and liberals on school boards
[...]
You're not very informed about politics in South Carolina, are you?
I didn't say they should do it in South Carolina.
Why not? Do you have the mistaken impression that other states, red
or blue, with threats to their science standards are radically
different from South Carolina with respect to school board personnel?
I wouldn't even take a ***** there, much less live there.
I understand. Too much of a challenge.
There are plenty of places that
liberals could start going on the counter offensive though, and this may
start a trend in other blue states.
Liberals? What happened to the atheists?
Of those plenty of places, name three red *or* blue states in which a
requirement for Bible Debunking 101 wouldn't antagonize even a
moderate electorate. It's fairly difficult to effect systemic change
for rationality when you're booted from office.
--
OvC
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
14 Dec 2005 07:55:14 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1e094cc34478c5b1989718@netnews.att.net>,
otto.von.chriek@uberwald.gov says...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:14:24 -0700, quibbler posted in article
<MPG.1e0911caf786323f9896e8@news.readfreenews.net> ...
In article <MPG.1e08c8d66595cd5989715@netnews.att.net>,
otto.von.chriek@uberwald.gov says...
--------------------------------------
Vote supports teaching human origin theories
Atheists and liberals on school boards
[...]
You're not very informed about politics in South Carolina, are you?
I didn't say they should do it in South Carolina.
Why not?
You're the one saying it can't be done, *****. I'm just saying it's at
the bottom of my priorities list.
Do you have the mistaken impression that other states, red
or blue, with threats to their science standards are radically
different from South Carolina with respect to school board personnel?
There are concerted efforts in states far less backward that South
Carolina. New York, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Montana are but a few
examples of non-bible belt states in which there have been legislative
efforts to smuggle aspects of creationism into the curriculum.
I wouldn't even take a ***** there, much less live there.
I understand. Too much of a challenge.
No, it's called strategy. You fight the battles that you can best win
first and save the windmill jousting for later.
There are plenty of places that
liberals could start going on the counter offensive though, and this may
start a trend in other blue states.
Liberals? What happened to the atheists?
Do you do anything but banter? It's very clear that the right wing of
american politics marches in lockstep with fundamentalist religion and
it's also abundantly evident that the overwhelming majority of atheists
in the US, perforce, reject right-wing politics.
Of those plenty of places, name three red *or* blue states in which a
requirement for Bible Debunking 101 wouldn't antagonize even a
moderate electorate.
It depends upon how it is done. Most commonly the bible is simply
presented as literature and then critical analysis is applied to it,
showing that literalism and other standard biblical misinterpretations
are implausible. Many states have taught the bible as literature and the
only requirement would be making sure that it was not used as a pretext
for preaching judeo-xianity, as it has been in the past.
It's fairly difficult to effect systemic change
for rationality when you're booted from office.
Again, you're the one whining about how hard it is. I've been actively
involved in promoting evolutionary science in the high school curriculum
for about 4 or 5 years now. I know what the challenges are.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "OvC" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
15 Dec 2005 11:01:33 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 06:55:14 -0700, quibbler posted in article
<MPG.1e09d23130820209896e9@news.readfreenews.net> ...
In article <MPG.1e094cc34478c5b1989718@netnews.att.net>,
otto.von.chriek@uberwald.gov says...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:14:24 -0700, quibbler posted in article
<MPG.1e0911caf786323f9896e8@news.readfreenews.net> ...
In article <MPG.1e08c8d66595cd5989715@netnews.att.net>,
otto.von.chriek@uberwald.gov says...
--------------------------------------
Vote supports teaching human origin theories
Atheists and liberals on school boards
[...]
You're not very informed about politics in South Carolina, are you?
I didn't say they should do it in South Carolina.
Why not?
You're the one saying it can't be done, *****. I'm just saying it's at
the bottom of my priorities list.
Who said it couldn't be done, nancy? True, it's more of a challenge
and time-consuming to implement and maintain using a rational approach
and acknowledging political realities, but it can be and has been done
in redneck South Carolina. Check out SC's excellent science
curriculum standards (yes, teachers are accountable for competently
covering evolution), adopted in spite of a right-wing legislature,
pro-voucher (i.e. Xtian Academy) governor, and overwhelming self-
professed Xtian electorate.
Do you have the mistaken impression that other states, red
or blue, with threats to their science standards are radically
different from South Carolina with respect to school board personnel?
There are concerted efforts in states far less backward that South
Carolina. New York, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Montana are but a few
examples of non-bible belt states in which there have been legislative
efforts to smuggle aspects of creationism into the curriculum.
Indeed, as well as California, Minnesota, and Washington. That's my
point -- what works in reactionary SC will have a good chance of
working anywhere. But a yankee librul strategy is a non-starter where
change is needed most.
I wouldn't even take a ***** there, much less live there.
I understand. Too much of a challenge.
No, it's called strategy. You fight the battles that you can best win
first and save the windmill jousting for later.
Or you recognize that backward states are little different than others
with respect to their school board personnel and electorate, that
winning is only temporary, and that marginalizing the undecideds with
your bashing rhetoric is a loser's strategy.
There are plenty of places that
liberals could start going on the counter offensive though, and this may
start a trend in other blue states.
Liberals? What happened to the atheists?
Do you do anything but banter?
Focus, nancy; just wondering why you dropped atheists' support.
It's very clear that the right wing of
american politics marches in lockstep with fundamentalist religion and
it's also abundantly evident that the overwhelming majority of atheists
in the US, perforce, reject right-wing politics.
The latter with respect to religious pandering, sure. It's also clear
that even a tenuous affiliation with mainstream religion gets a
candidate votes, which wins elections, which provides power to effect
change. Look at the reality of the Kansas BOE. How many office-
holders that can influence science education have run on an atheist
ticket or used an anti-fundamentalist plank to win?
Of those plenty of places, name three red *or* blue states in which a
requirement for Bible Debunking 101 wouldn't antagonize even a
moderate electorate.
It depends upon how it is done. Most commonly the bible is simply
presented as literature and then critical analysis is applied to it,
showing that literalism and other standard biblical misinterpretations
are implausible. Many states have taught the bible as literature and the
only requirement would be making sure that it was not used as a pretext
for preaching judeo-xianity, as it has been in the past.
Sounds great. Can you point to a district in which that is done, or
where the lit teacher is sufficiently competent in biology, geology,
and physics to recognize biblical deficiencies, or a curriculum
standard for such a course? Are there also classes that do the same
for the Qu'ran, Book of Mormon, Vedas? What happened when the
fundamentalist kid reported to her parents that her teacher said the
Bible wasn't true?
It's fairly difficult to effect systemic change
for rationality when you're booted from office.
Again, you're the one whining about how hard it is.
No, I'm whining about how hard you're making it by insisting on an
atheist/liberal manifesto to counteract 'theists and bible beaters.'
Despite their faiths, most mainstream theists in fact *do* support
science and don't object when their kids are taught evolution, the Big
Bang, and radiometric dating competently in school. What they object
to is having their faiths categorically rejected as collateral
damage in a classroom fight over fundamentalists' idiocy, in response
to which they vote according to their faiths and not their brains.
Framing the issue as pro-science in a science class instead of anti-
religion in a lit class lessens the perceived threat to faith, however
irrational you or I might consider that faith to be.
I've been actively
involved in promoting evolutionary science in the high school curriculum
for about 4 or 5 years now. I know what the challenges are.
Commendable -- seriously. But based on my 10 years actively
supporting geology and biology in grades 4-12 curricula, 2 years as
primary writer for a standards-based HS earth science course including
evidence for evolution, evaluator of K-12 science standards, and
faculty at a backwater university overflowing with fundamentalists, it
appears to me that your knowledge is apparently limited to the easy
challenges and ignores political realities.
--
OvC
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ferrous Patella" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
13 Dec 2005 02:50:01 PM |
|
|
[...]
R
[...]
Why am I not suprised? This mentality is why I left the GOP. If something
with all the self-admitted validity of astrology can get this much
politcal traction, something is wrong.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Å vite hva man ikke vet,
er også en slags allvitenhet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
14 Dec 2005 03:17:28 PM |
|
|
Ferrous Patella wrote:
[...]
R
[...]
Why am I not suprised? This mentality is why I left the GOP. If something
with all the self-admitted validity of astrology can get this much
politcal traction, something is wrong.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Å vite hva man ikke vet,
er også en slags allvitenhet.
You're ex-GOP also? So am I but "it don't just feel right" being a
Democrat. If GOP liberals and moderates can just get some traction,
maybe I'll go back. But with the current council of power-hungry,
anti-intellectual scumbags, nope.
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noelie S. Alito" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: S.C. biology standards in limbo |
15 Dec 2005 08:35:07 AM |
|
|
<eroot@swva.net> wrote:
Ferrous Patella wrote:
[...]
R
[...]
Why am I not suprised? This mentality is why I left the GOP. If something
with all the self-admitted validity of astrology can get this much
politcal traction, something is wrong.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Å vite hva man ikke vet,
er også en slags allvitenhet.
You're ex-GOP also? So am I but "it don't just feel right" being a
Democrat. If GOP liberals and moderates can just get some traction,
maybe I'll go back. But with the current council of power-hungry,
anti-intellectual scumbags, nope.
You don't *have* to belong to a political party, you know.
If you're an independent thinker, you can be an *independent* voter.
Noelie
--
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
