Savage Pacer - Education - Comments

Thanks for your reflections

Savage Guy — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:35:58 -0500

Thanks for your reflections Keighla. The concern I have is with the public schools because their teaching is slanted in the far opposite direction of what you experienced at your Lutheran school. They teach evolution as fact even though it is a theory. They don't teach intelligent design (ID) even though it contains truly plausible scientific theory for the origin of the first cell, the species, etc., whereas evolution offers origin of species theories like aliens planting seeds on earth.

ID supporters want secondary and college classroom time to present ID alongside evolution. They both are theories and not facts and both use empirical scientific evidence to make their points. Why not give both theories a chance to prove their point in the classroom?

A bad science teacher? There

Keighla Schmidt — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:44:11 -0500

A bad science teacher? There were many across my 14 years of private education. I don't think you can blame a single teacher, as there were many - which makes me beilieve it's the system they choose to teach.

Choose another school? I was 4 years old to 18 years old, that was all I ever knew, I didn't know that I was missing out on some vital parts of science classes until I was in college. So, having learned that, as mentioned, I am making changes by saying I've learned from my parents and will not be sending my children to private schools, so I am going to "find another school." Furthermore, it was more than just the rocks, that was the one example I used. Again, I can't dispute evolution comments because I know very little about it- that is the point I was trying to make.

Being exposed to both is what really matters. It doesn't take a science teacher to explain creation. "And God said," they get it, it's a parental responsibility. Whereas, a complex science-based theory takes more training to have the capacity to explain it.

In the same way children are exposed to a variety of things such as reading and other languages when they are young to ensure their minds can grow and develop early, I wish the same could have been done in my "science" classes.

It's not

Robert Thibodeaux — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:39:05 -0500

It's not “selective-Lutheran science” you just had a bad teacher.
There is nothing Lutheran or actually part of evolution that is required to understand forces changing one rock form to another.
A look at the Mount St. Helens shows that most of the changes in form that "require" billions of years can also take place in a few days or hours under extreme conditions.
(other things like the formation of canyons, valley rivers etc... also can be done in days and years, not eaons)

Most of what folks recall as evolution from their science classes is not, it's natural selection or genetics. The part about hard billed birds surviving over soft billed, longer fur on dogs up north. Light colored vs. dark color moths etc... Even the rock moving from one for to another are not evolution.

When you get to College and start taking your first science classes, you will begin to ponder why no one can explain how inorganic stellar matter is able to morph into organic matter. Evolution is not about the belief in small genetic changes in a species, but massive changes from one life form to another.

As one of honors professor at the University said,
remember evolution is not about believing that you are related to Monkeys - that should be easy to prove. But it is about believing you are related to dogs, cats, horses, bumblebees and trees, flowers, rocks.
It is the transformation between species and the transformation of matter to another (stellar, inorganic, organic, single to multi cell) that has always been the problem with evolutionary theory.

So if you went to a school where they didn't teach you that rocks change form under extreme to form other types of rocks, then find a new school. Unfortunately, most of us are paying for schools where they teach us that we all came from rocks.

I apologize for not being

shawn hogendorf — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:36:50 -0500

I apologize for not being clear, I was drawing the same conclusion about Stein on the other side of the political spectrum.

I think I have an

Keighla Schmidt — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:56:28 -0500

I think I have an interesting perspective to contribute.
I went to a private Lutheran school from preschool all the way through my senior year. I was active in church, taught Sunday school and coached sports. I graduated with a 3.3 cumulative GPA, I only mention that to validate my point.
Science classes were taught through religion. Creationism was taught exclusively. I was told the earth is about 2,000 to 3,000 years old. All things began when God said “Let there be light.” From there everything developed.
As a result I went off to college thinking the world is about 2,500 years old and unable to mentally grasp any number any larger than that. I had heard of Darwin and knew, in a very vague, general sense, what he was about. His theories were mentioned in passing and if I recall correctly, we were equipped with bible verses to dispute his theories.
So, when I went to my first semester geology class, I was very ill prepared. Despite being educated in what I’ve since dubbed “selective-Lutheran science” I did not do well in that geology class. I didn’t know how to try to understand billions of years, or how a rock could morph into something another rock form. I got very upset and discouraged and refuse to send my future children to private schools, as a result of what I feel is not a rounded education.
I don’t think either origin should be exclusively taught, but I want my kids to be exposed to the evolution theory, so, perhaps when I’m at home teaching them about the creation theory, they can teach me about the evolution theory. I wish my teachers would have at least taught it to me so that I would be able to understand it. That way, I could feel equipped enough to talk about it and at least know what I was using bible verses to dispel. Now I just shy away from the conversations as I am not confident enough to get into a discussion about it. I have tried to do some research on my own and have found I literally can not get my brain to understand the fundamentals.
I think it will be my duty as a parent to have my children exposed to creation or “Intelligent Design” and let the schools teach about evolution, as I can not.

I can't believe you would

Savage Guy — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:08:30 -0500

I can't believe you would compare a reaction to "Expelled" to a reaction to "Farenheit 911". You can't get more left wing and sensational to the point of claiming that blatant falsehoods are truths than Michael Moore. You perhaps would say the same thing about Mr. Stein on the other end of the political spectrum.

Whatever the case, intellectual freedom and debate about evolution AND intelligent design is (and has long been) in serious jeopardy in our nations' college science classes because the evolutionists are entrenched and not really interested in giving ground. They know they support a flawed, failed theory, they can't explain how we got the first cell, and their theories about the creation of the first cell include things like aliens planting seeds on earth (!).

Stein is an accomplished actor and raises a serious issue to the forefront of our consciousness. Moore is a left wing hack and a few cards short of a deck. Moore's movies are not taken seriously by anyone except people who lean far to the left because everyone knows about his distortions and lies and that his agenda is overtly political. Stein's movie (hopefully) will get a hearing by all political stripes because it shines a thoughtful light on a serious subject and is not overtly partisan.

OK, I'll take a deep breathe

shawn hogendorf — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:33:23 -0500

OK, I'll take a deep breathe for you, Savage Guy.
This reminds me of the time my old roommate came home after watching Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the first time.
You're leaning so far you're about to tip over.
I think it's time for a V8.
I thought the discussion was about freedom of speech in the classroom and I simply pointed out that a teacher can't say whatever they want if it goes against the curriculum.
It's different than freedom of speech, we all enjoy as a result of the First Amendment.
If the University of Chicago hired Ayers to teach about social justice, urban educational reform, narrative and interpretive research, children in trouble with the law, and related issues that's what the college hired him to teach.
It's part of the curriculum.
If that same university hired someone to teach about Intelligent Design, that would be part of the curriculum, and they should teach that theory.
Teachers represent the district, or the college they teach at, not their personal views.
I never said Intelligent Design was religious, although I would argue that most scientists accept the theory as more religious than scientific. That is not to say there aren't scientists who believe the opposite.
If you want to believe a being created life on Earth, that's your business.
If people believe in Creationism, that's fine by me.
If people want to believe in evolution, again, that's fine.
It's open for interpretation, opinion and belief.
To each their own.

Here is one of the bodies of

Savage Guy — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:02:11 -0500

Here is one of the bodies of work on intelligent design mentioned in the movie.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

Here is another article

Savage Guy — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:46:25 -0500

Here is another article about Ayers and his relationship with Obama.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections...

According to an article from

Savage Guy — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:41:29 -0500

According to an article from the Washington Post (excerpt below), a former member of a terrorist organization in the USA is now a tenured professor in Chicago at the University of Illinois. So his kind of free speech is acceptable, but speech about intelligent design is not?

Intelligent design is not a religious belief. It is a theory about how the universe and life came in to existence. Evolution is a theory. Why can't intelligent design be discussed alongside evolution when they both are theories? It was illegal to teach evolution until the Scopes trial. Now it is taught as fact even though it is anything but fact, particularly when it comes to its explanation (if any) of the origin of the first cell.

The public school argument doesn't hold water, particularly on college campuses that are both public and private where suppression of discussion about intelligent design is taking place because intelligent design is not creationism. In other words, it is not quoting from the Bible, it is a scientific theory, just like evolution.

"Former '60s Radical Is Now Considered Mainstream in Chicago

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 18, 2008; Page A04

CHICAGO, April 17 -- In the 1960s, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn saw themselves as urban guerrillas who just might be able to overthrow the U.S. government and force an end to the Vietnam War. They were members of the Weather Underground, a radical offshoot of the antiwar movement, who went into hiding for a decade after a bomb accidentally exploded, killing three members of the group."

Freedom of speech is

shawn hogendorf — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:55:30 -0500

Freedom of speech is different for teachers in a public classroom, Savage Guy.

The First Ammendment contains the idea that the government has no authority to restrict expression because of its message, idea, subject matter or content.

That said, the Supreme Court has recognized the right to freedom of speech to teachers and has acknowledged that public schools have significant educational interests that must be balanced against those rights.

Therefore, a teacher's right to freedom of speech is governed by the broad authority that the legislature and courts have granted school boards to determine the curriculum and control teachers' freedom of speech iin the classroom.

I think that's your answer, Savage Guy.

There was a federal court case, Williams vs. Vidmar (Cupertino Union School District) where the federal court dismissed three of four claims brought on by a teacher who alledged the district censored his speech because he was a Christian.

The Court dismissed the violation of the First Ammendment charges, finding that "teachers do not have a constitutional right to determine what curriculum will be taught in the classroom."

The Court found that the teacher had no right to express religion in the classroom, because there is a "well-defined difference" existing between a teacher who is free to be a Christian and expressing faith in the classroom.

Now I understand that this is slightly different scenario, but I think it would still apply.

I think the question of firing would be whether or not the teachers continued after being warned or told it was inappropriate.

Students are often sent home for wearing shirts deemed innapropriate by dress code. Remember the kid in Alaska?

Even some students in Shakopee were sent home for wearing shirts the principal found innapropriate. Here's the story www.shakopeenews.com/news/general_news/students_sent_home_over_shirts-74....

I'll have to check this movie out, it sounds interesting.

What would truly be KILLER

bsorenson — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:41:59 -0500

What would truly be KILLER is for Cheney to be honest.

Cheney putting his foot in

Tom Schardin — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:47:16 -0500

Cheney putting his foot in his mouth. That's killer!

The Daily Show had some

jennyjean4 — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:29:10 -0500

The Daily Show had some KILLER footage of Cheney from back in 1994 saying that invading Iraq would result in a quagmire.

Check it out here on You Tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

I noticed some skaters

bsorenson — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:44:37 -0500

I noticed some skaters flossing their skills in the parking lot yesterday