.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
jakee 1,648
Recommended Posts
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote
What the bill's text states, as you and I are interpreting it, sounds to me like what science teachers already do. Therefore prompting me to wonder: why is an additional law needed?
Maybe because of the real life example I gave.
I guess I missed it would you explain what real-life example you are referring? Thanks!
/Marg
the science teacher and the student and the Climate change issue/debate.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
jakee 1,648
QuoteQuoteQuote
What the bill's text states, as you and I are interpreting it, sounds to me like what science teachers already do. Therefore prompting me to wonder: why is an additional law needed?
Maybe because of the real life example I gave.
I guess I missed it would you explain what real-life example you are referring? Thanks!
/Marg
the science teacher and the student and the Climate change issue/debate.
Care to link to the story?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
nerdgirl 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
What the bill's text states, as you and I are interpreting it, sounds to me like what science teachers already do. Therefore prompting me to wonder: why is an additional law needed?
Maybe because of the real life example I gave.
I guess I missed it would you explain what real-life example you are referring? Thanks!
the science teacher and the student and the Climate change issue/debate.
One can teach climate change and include all of the things you've mentioned (I think). It's a great example to illustrate science in practice. There would be no Al Gore or his critics but lots on isotope variations from ice cores, solar radiation, atmospheric chemistry, ocean chemistry, the role of models in science, and error bars.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
What the bill's text states, as you and I are interpreting it, sounds to me like what science teachers already do. Therefore prompting me to wonder: why is an additional law needed?
Maybe because of the real life example I gave.
I guess I missed it would you explain what real-life example you are referring? Thanks!
/Marg
the science teacher and the student and the Climate change issue/debate.
Care to link to the story?
It is not a story, it is an experience.......
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
nerdgirl 0
QuoteQuoteIf it asks to describe the creation of life on earth, well, now, we've got ourselves a problem. Miller-Urey was as close as they got.
Science toward understanding the abiotic origins of life has come a bit further than Urey-Miller not unlike skydiving has progressed a lot further than what was being used and done in 1953.
And if you are looking for a large sign or single experiment - the closest is Stanley Miller-Harold Urey's now-classic 1952 experiment showing that amino acids, the building blocks of organic life, can be formed inorganically.
There's even more from the Urey-Miller experiment that was discovered this past October: "Lost' Miller-Urey Experiment Created More Of Life's Building Blocks."
These days there's *a lot* beyond that.
The internet notwithstanding, the contentious debate is over direct abiotic synthesis of RNA or DNA versus biotic derivation of RNA/DNA from TNA or GNA (the latter are forms of RNA/DNA with other sugars).
Just one example with which I am familiar: pre-biotic synthesis of RNA from Jack Sutherland's lab (Univ Manchester). Other people who've worked in the area subsequent to Miller & Urey include the late Leslie Orgel from Scripps.
Some other thoughts on prebiotic synthesis of amino acids. (And this is *way* beyond Stanley Miller-Harold Urey’s classic experiment.)
It gets even more fascinating, im-ever-ho, when you start examining the intersection of organic synthesis and photocatalysis with early Earth geochemistry of reducing atmosphere.
And that’s all terrestrial synthesis, other folks (mostly astrophysicists, like Lew Snyder, UIUC) are pursuing the search for amino acids in the interstellar medium, of which the component molecules have already found.
---
QuoteThank you for describing a lot of the ewxperiments about the synthesis of amibo acids.
You didn't describe how life waa created. The assigment told you to describe how life was created.
You get "D." You demonstrated a fine understanding of the subject (one thing that prevented an "F") but you did not answer the question.
.....
Nope - no room to mention that some believe in a Creator in the history of science. That will put you from an "A" to an "F" instantly, right there.
You are perhaps illustrating why the Texas law is needed. Science in science classroom. For your own knowledge you might also want to look about theistic evolution - which extends beyond the realm of physical science. Rhetoric is English classroom.
If you want to play that game: Fail - on your part; try again. Recommend remedial biology (pay particular attention to relationships among amino acids, DNA, and proteins), chemistry, geology, earth sciences, and history of science.
But I'm happy to give you extra credit options to help make up to a passing grade. (I'm more interested in you learning the material and how to approach problem solving.)
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
Andy9o8 3
I just now read this thread.
After reviewing the language of the proposed statute, I think Lawrocket's analysis of the statute's legal meaning and effect is the correct one.
After reviewing the language of the proposed statute, I think Lawrocket's analysis of the statute's legal meaning and effect is the correct one.
What do you mean, "so fucking what?". I asked a question and the lovely marg provided an answer that recited the history of some theories and science behind it.
"So fucking what?". Ask your own fucking question and get your own answers.
"Where are the real science tests..."
Bingo!!! I take it that you are the sole arbiter of what is and is not "real" science. So, take your authority and issue and edict that inquiries on the origins of life and theories regarding same are not the province of "real" science. Then we can remove the topic the science texts and leave the subject to theological discussions. And I will thank you for ending the discussion once and for all.
>>> How would it be mentioned?
I see it being mentioned the same way as my AP biology teacher mentioned it: "there is another theory strongluy held by the religious that the universe what created by God. This theory is not being taught but is mentioned as a footnote and test answers based upon this theory will be marked wrong. More information and instruction on it will not be provided."
Ouch. My teacher must have been been a real zealot and I just was too young and impressionable to realize that his 30 second spiel was, in fact, a crypto-fascists attempt at religiouis indoctrination.
I just thought he mentioned another theory that was not part of the class. And to think - this Texas bill would allow other teachers to engage in such subterfuge without being subject to being broken on the wheel.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
"So fucking what?". Ask your own fucking question and get your own answers.
"Where are the real science tests..."
Bingo!!! I take it that you are the sole arbiter of what is and is not "real" science. So, take your authority and issue and edict that inquiries on the origins of life and theories regarding same are not the province of "real" science. Then we can remove the topic the science texts and leave the subject to theological discussions. And I will thank you for ending the discussion once and for all.
>>> How would it be mentioned?
I see it being mentioned the same way as my AP biology teacher mentioned it: "there is another theory strongluy held by the religious that the universe what created by God. This theory is not being taught but is mentioned as a footnote and test answers based upon this theory will be marked wrong. More information and instruction on it will not be provided."
Ouch. My teacher must have been been a real zealot and I just was too young and impressionable to realize that his 30 second spiel was, in fact, a crypto-fascists attempt at religiouis indoctrination.
I just thought he mentioned another theory that was not part of the class. And to think - this Texas bill would allow other teachers to engage in such subterfuge without being subject to being broken on the wheel.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Thank you, Andy. I'm not ALWAYS wrong...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
jakee 1,648
QuoteWhere are the real science tests..."
Bingo!!! I take it that you are the sole arbiter of what is and is not "real" science.
For a lawyer, your reading skills are atrocious.
Real science tests, as in tests that are really given to students in schools.
QuoteSo, take your authority and issue and edict that inquiries on the origins of life and theories regarding same are not the province of "real" science. Then we can remove the topic the science texts and leave the subject to theological discussions. And I will thank you for ending the discussion once and for all.
Stop talking bollocks.
Quote>>> How would it be mentioned?
I see it being mentioned the same way as my AP biology teacher mentioned it: "there is another theory strongluy held by the religious that the universe what created by God. This theory is not being taught but is mentioned as a footnote and test answers based upon this theory will be marked wrong. More information and instruction on it will not be provided."
Non-sequitur - your memory is obviously also atrocious.
You were talking about answers that a student would give on a test which would see him fail the entire test. You were not talking about what a teacher might say in a class. An blatant attempt at evasion. My question stands unanswered.
QuoteOuch. My teacher must have been been a real zealot and I just was too young and impressionable to realize that his 30 second spiel was, in fact, a crypto-fascists attempt at religiouis indoctrination.
Stop talking bollocks.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Andy9o8 3
QuoteI'm not ALWAYS wrong...
I thought you were married.
Yes. I wrote of answers thayt students would give on a test. I wrote that the answers on the test must be consistent with the instruction given. Thus, if a question is to describe Krebs cycle, a failure would result if the student wrote that God makes things cyclical.
The student may not, however, be penalized if the student challenges Krebs cycle to the teacher outside of the examination.
Even Andy (whose job it is to read and comprehend statutes) apparently agrees with me.
My fear, as I am explaining, is that this is being represented as a bill that allows the teaching of that which is factually untrue. On its face the bill does not do this. It simply allows a student to challenge the instruction - and even to be wrong - without being penalized.
But if the student argues on the test, the student's score will suffer.
Is this objectionable?
Is it only objectionable if the student raises a religious argument? If so, that is a restriction on parrticular content of speech.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
The student may not, however, be penalized if the student challenges Krebs cycle to the teacher outside of the examination.
Even Andy (whose job it is to read and comprehend statutes) apparently agrees with me.
My fear, as I am explaining, is that this is being represented as a bill that allows the teaching of that which is factually untrue. On its face the bill does not do this. It simply allows a student to challenge the instruction - and even to be wrong - without being penalized.
But if the student argues on the test, the student's score will suffer.
Is this objectionable?
Is it only objectionable if the student raises a religious argument? If so, that is a restriction on parrticular content of speech.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
JohnRich 4
QuoteWhat the bill's text states, as you and I are interpreting it, sounds to me like what science teachers already do. Therefore prompting me to wonder: why is an additional law needed?
Apparently there must have been an incident somewhere whereby a student was penalized in a science class for his personal religious beliefs.
Even those who hate religion should be in agreement that true believers shouldn't be discriminated against in school, as long as they're passing the tests appropriately.
wmw999 2,644
Does an incident require a law? Or does it just require disciplinary action for that teacher?
Wendy W.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
JohnnyD 0
Quote
Apparently there must have been an incident somewhere whereby a student was penalized in a science class for his personal religious beliefs.
Under what circumstances would a students personal religious beliefs have any bearing on the curriculum of a science class? How would that even be an issue?
rushmc 23
the case I am familar with it did not take a law. the student, the parents and the school board resolved the issue.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Do you really need like law on the statute books?
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
wmw999 2,644
Sounds like the perfect solution. We'll never eliminate all teachers with problems. In fact, sometimes a teacher can be perfect for one kid, and rotten for another. Or even great one semester, and rotten the next. The more we can treat situations like this as individuals rather than legislation opportunities, the better
Wendy W.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
rushmc 23
QuoteSounds like the perfect solution. We'll never eliminate all teachers with problems. In fact, sometimes a teacher can be perfect for one kid, and rotten for another. Or even great one semester, and rotten the next. The more we can treat situations like this as individuals rather than legislation opportunities, the better
Wendy W.
+1
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
pirana 0
And that is how we know the Earth to be shaped like a banana.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
Quote
Yes, I agree climate change does belong in the class room. I never said it should not be. But, it is unproven and still highly debated. For anybody to say that is not the case is not arguing from a science perspective.
The climate change itself is a proven fact. The fact that human activity could lead to climate change is also a proven fact. The thing the scientist do not agree on is whether human activity is influential enough to cause this climate change, or it's the natural cause with little impact from human activity.
This is similar to modern theory of evolution - scientists do not disagree whether species evolve. They disagree how the species evolve. This, of course, is twisted by creationism supporters as "not all scientist agree with evolution".
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
A student debates a science teacher on the topic of man made global climate change. This student puts out information such as some research showing Temps levels changing BEFORE CO2 level changes. Deep ice research that brings some scientists to believe that man is not having a large effect if any, on the planets climate. Tree ring data research that supports his views. He also brings up the manipulation of the computer models and errors in some of the temp data and the interoperations of that date.
All the while during the class he studies the material, finishes his assignments and does well on the tests.
The teacher flunks him in the class because he will not say that man is a cause of climate change.
How do you know that's why the teacher flunked him?
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
QuoteQuote:
"Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because he or she subscribes to a particular position on scientific theories or hypotheses."
Emphasis added to what I thought the funniest part was.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote
Yes, I agree climate change does belong in the class room. I never said it should not be. But, it is unproven and still highly debated. For anybody to say that is not the case is not arguing from a science perspective.
The climate change itself is a proven fact. The fact that human activity could lead to climate change is also a proven fact. The thing the scientist do not agree on is whether human activity is influential enough to cause this climate change, or it's the natural cause with little impact from human activity.
This is similar to modern theory of evolution - scientists do not disagree whether species evolve. They disagree how the species evolve. This, of course, is twisted by creationism supporters as "not all scientist agree with evolution".
Got any extra? I wanna try some of that smoke you bin smokin
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
OK. Um, so fucking what?
Where are the real science tests that ask students to describe exactly how abiogenesis occured? What exactly do you think you have achieved by pulling out of your arse a question that would never be asked anyway?
Would it? How would it be mentioned? Why would it be mentioned.
In what possible context would "Some people believe in a creator" be at all relevant as an answer on a science test? And if a creation story itself is used as an answer on a science test then why should it receive marks? It's not science.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites