Education Intelligent Design News

Five alarm fire!!: If US parents don’t like feds’ Common Core, ID could be taught in school!!

Spread the love

You have to know that the U.S. government’s “Common Core” curriculum [excuse me, but why is a federal government involved with classroom education anyway?] is in trouble when you read this kind of stuff in an Ohio paper:

Intelligent design could be taught with Common Core’s repeal

What does “taught” mean? Advocated? Discussed? Informed about? I always say, if something  is news (now and then that occurs even in a total geek controversy like ID), a teacher should not be required to say “I am not legally allowed to discuss that with you.”

Why not? Is he the investigating officer at a crime scene?

Let alone be expected to recite any kind of stupid script whatever. A teacher should be someone who can think of something intelligent to say in the situation at hand.  Meanwhile,

In what could reignite a controversy that raged about eight years ago, a bill to repeal Common Core education standards in Ohio would allow intelligent design and creationism to be taught alongside evolution in science classes.

House Bill 597 says new state science standards must “prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another.”

In some places, that’s called “avoid partisan politics and sectarian religion.” Especially if all taxpayers are funding the system.

Surprising numbers of jurisdictions have lived at peace for centuries by following that rule. But I digress.

“I think all Ohioans want high standards, but they want those standards to be met by local school boards deciding what it is they can teach to get the students to meet those standards. And that’s exactly what we have in Ohio,” Kasich said.

“These standards or curriculum, it’s not written by Washington, it’s not written by Columbus, it’s written by local school boards.”

Local communities should never have given that authority up. But if they did, they had best take it back.

Years ago, I worked in education writing. Parents are required by law to send their children to schools between certain ages (compulsory education). That should not mean that they are required to present them for indoctrination in stuff no one believes or even takes seriously.

It’s all messy and—believe me—it requires a lot of tradeoffs. I’ve been in those meetings.

But, except in cases of serious injustice such as racial segregation or the promotion of hate, curricula should be kept as local as possible. Higher levels of authority should test in broad skills and competence (and address serious shortfalls).

There is a principle I could point to and will expand on later, (subsidiarity), that covers this.

Just one anecdote by way of illustration: Urban schoolchildren, here where I live, are often recruited for sympathy and activism on behalf of conservation of wolves. An important concern to be sure. But I won’t soon forget a rural schoolteacher explaining that she really couldn’t present the problem the same way as the curriculum materials did. Local wolves preyed on farm calves and did not bother to kill their victims first. Local students, of course, knew this. The “noble wolf” theme just did not work as well out there.

That doesn’t mean wolves shouldn’t be conserved. But heck, when talking to rural students, the teacher needs some flexibility to  cut out the cutesy urban sentimentality about wolves, and focus on their ecological role. Flexibility – within broad guidelines of course. And the same with a lot of other issues.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

19 Replies to “Five alarm fire!!: If US parents don’t like feds’ Common Core, ID could be taught in school!!

  1. 1
    Joe says:

    And atheistic materialism is taught, common core or not.

    It is very telling when people go all mental over Intelligent Design and yet those same people allow atheistic materialism.

  2. 2
    Joe says:

    They just don’t call it atheistic materialism in the hope that no one notices or cares enough to do something about it.

  3. 3
    dgosse says:

    Hi Denise

    Love your writing. I’ve been an avid follower for years.

    Joe makes a good point and if you check the dictionary dot com definition for ‘religion’ you will find, “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,…” Hence, any cosmology is a religion (Discourse to the Greeks, Justin Martyr; Moral Darwinism, Benjamin Wiker)

    But further to your post; Who decides what constitutes “serious injustice such as racial segregation or the promotion of hate”. Not to put too fine a point on it but that is generally the excuse for some of the most egregious examples of indoctrination and the path through which ‘the state’ entered the curriculum in the first place. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

    Re: enviro-nuts subverting education; Perhaps the urban students shouldn’t be taught the “noble wolf” theme either. School, in theory if not practice, entails imparting knowledge. If the teacher is imparting falsehoods he/she is, by definition, not imparting knowledge.

  4. 4
    velikovskys says:

    To be more precise

    a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

  5. 5
    velikovskys says:

    Myth: The standards will be implemented through No Child Left Behind (NCLB), signifying that the federal government will be leading them.

    Fact: The Common Core is a state?led effort that is not part of No Child Left Behind or any other federal initiative. The federal government played no role in the development of the Common Core. State adoption of the standards is in no way mandatory. States began the work to create clear, consistent standards before the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provided funding for the Race to the Top grant program. It also began before the Elementary and Secondary Education Act blueprint was released, because this work is being driven by the needs of the states, not the federal government. Learn more about the development process here.

    Myth: The Common Core State Standards were adopted by states as part of the Race to the Top grant program.

    Fact: Recognizing the strength of having high standards for all students, the federal government gave competitive advantage to Race to the Top applicants that demonstrated that they had or planned to adopt college- and career-ready standards for all students. The program did not specify the Common Core or prevent states from creating their own, separate college- and career-ready standards. States and territories voluntarily chose to adopt the Common Core to prepare their students for college, career, and life. Many states that were not chosen for Race to the Top grants continue to implement the Common Core.

    Myth: These standards amount to a national curriculum for our schools.

    Fact: The Common Core is not a curriculum. It is a clear set of shared goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed. Local teachers, principals, superintendents, and others will decide how the standards are to be met. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms.

    Myth: The federal government will take over ownership of the Common Core State Standards initiative.

    Fact: The federal government will not govern the Common Core State Standards. The Common Core was and will remain a state-led effort. The NGA Center and CCSSO are committed to developing a long-term governance structure with leadership from governors, chief state school officers, and other state policymakers to ensure the quality of the Common Core and that teachers and principals have a strong voice in the future of the standards. States and local school districts will drive implementation of the Common Core.

  6. 6
    Joe says:

    “The grass is slippery, especially after it rains.” Does it mean that the grass is slippery only when it rains? No.

    “Usually the grass is slippery.” Does it mean the grass is always slippery? No.

    Obviously velikovskys has issues with the English language.

  7. 7
    Joe says:

    Seven tenants of religion Part 1:

    1. Narrative

    Every religion has its stories. Almost all religions have stories explaining where the universe came from and what humanity’s part in it is. Smart calls this Narrative.

    Narrative is a particularly important aspect of western Atheism. As the prominent Atheist Richard Dawkins said, referring to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution:

    “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”7
    Evolution is an explanation of where everything came from: the cosmos (came out of nothing at the big bang—nothing exploded and became everything); humans evolved from non-human creatures, hence humanity’s place in the cosmos is being just another species of animal. Some have gone so far as to say that humanity is a PARASITE on earth, and advocate killing up to 90% of humanity.8 There are some who attempt to combine belief in God with belief in evolution, not realizing the foundational nature of evolution’s connection to Atheism.9 The testimony of those who after learning about evolution in ‘science’ reject Christianity should alert church leaders to the incompatibility between evolution and the Gospel.

    2. Experiential

    There are two aspects to the experiential dimension. The first is the events experienced before someone founded a religion (for example the Disciples physically saw and touched the bodily resurrected Jesus). It is often asserted that Charles Darwin, after observing evidence from around the world during his voyage on HMS Beagle, developed the theory of evolution. (In reality, he had already learned a version of evolution from his grandfather Erasmus’s book Zoonomia and similar ideas were around at the time).

    According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it.
    The second aspect of the experiential dimension concerns the experiences of latter adherents. Many PEOPLE feel certain emotions when they participate in certain religious ceremonies. Atheists often believe that Atheism is freedom from religion, and some Atheists have reported feeling liberated after converting.10 Karl Marx said that the removal of the illusion of happiness by the removal of religion was a step towards true happiness. Atheistic denial of the divine entails denial of an afterlife. If there is no afterlife,11 then ultimately there is no higher purpose in life for Atheists than to be happy. According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it. In the Humanist Manifesto III, this was changed to finding meaning in relationships. Belief in evolution also causes people to aim for self preservation and to spread their own genes.12

    Smart also seems to include ‘faith’ as part of the experiential dimension. The meaning of the word ‘faith’ is often twisted to make it mean things it does not. In Christianity, faith is logical, being defined in Hebrews 11:1 as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” This is not BLINDLY believing the impossible (which is how many Atheists define faith), but rather trusting the promises of God, whose past promises have all been fulfilled. I would classify Christian faith as part of the doctrinal dimension rather than experiential. On the other hand, Atheism requires ‘faith’ (using their own definition) that the laws of chemistry, physics and biology were once violated and life arose from non-life via chemical evolution.

    3. Social

    The social dimension of religion looks at the hierarchies and power structures present within the religion, such the Hindu caste system. In missionary religions, it also includes how PEOPLE get converted and how missionaries go about their work.

    Contemporary Atheism has been fueled largely by authors promoting their Atheistic beliefs. In the preface to The God Delusion, Dawkins says,

    “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”
    Dawkins is saying he hopes that his book converts ‘religious’ people to his worldview—exactly what a missionary of any religion hopes to do.

    Communist countries often made the state religion Atheism, often to the point of persecuting (other) religions.13 This followed from Karl Marx’s statement:

    “It [religion] is the opiate of the masses. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.”14
    Marxists saw the removal of religion as a step toward true happiness for the common people, although in practice this did not occur, and contemporary critics see Marxism itself as a religion15. (I would contend that Marxism is a sect of a larger religion: Atheism).

    Many scientists are high up on the social hierarchy of Atheism because their research enhances their understanding of the world. Particularly honoured are those scientists who write extensively about evolution. Because of this, many scientists include a little about evolution in their research papers, even when there is little or no relevance (one recent example concerns research into the chameleon’s catapult tongue and suction cap; see Created, not evolved)

    Atheism is also taught to children in many schools in science classes as evolution. As atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse admits, “evolution is a religion”, and it could be considered the narrative dimension of Atheism. Thus teaching evolution is teaching Atheism. Several Atheists even support teaching lies, as long as the end result is more children believing evolution.16

  8. 8
    Joe says:

    Part 2-

    4. Doctrinal

    Doctrines are the beliefs and philosophies that develop out of a religion (not necessarily being specifically stated in the religious narratives, etc). For example, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, while not directly stated in the Bible, is logically derived from it.

    Contemporary Atheism gained popularity in the 18th and 19th centuries, after the ‘enlightenment’. In 1933, some prominent Atheist philosophers realised the effects the lack of a belief in a god would have on the morals of society and wrote what they believed would be a suitable set of beliefs and goals for a secular society in the 20th century. In doing so, they formed the branch of Atheism known as Secular Humanism. By and large, Atheists believe and adhere to the things written in the Humanist Manifesto, even if they don’t know the specifics of the document. After all, many Atheists do want to do what is good.

    The doctrines, ethics and goals outlined in the Humanist Manifesto, while being atheistic and accepting evolution as true, are opposite of what would be expected if they were solely derived from the evolutionary narrative. This is because Humanism also makes the assumption that humans are basically good.

    In 1973 however, the Humanist Manifesto was updated because of the atrocities that humans inflicted upon other humans during the intervening years (specifically mentioned are Nazism and communist police states).

    5. Ethical

    Atheism is a morally relativist religion. Most Atheists adhere to one ethical system or another, but in Atheism there is ultimately no foundation for morality, as atheists Dawkins and Provine admit. Many systems of ethics have been proposed; utilitarianism is probably the most popular one.

    Some PEOPLE have taken a further step by creating ethical systems based on the evolutionary narrative and the principle of “survival of the fittest”. People who have lived by such principles include the perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre, the Jokela School Shooting in Finland, and on a much larger scale, the Nazis.

    Most people (Atheist or not) inherently know that systems that lead to such atrocities must be wrong, but Atheists cannot give a logical reason for why it is wrong. This contradiction was highlighted by Dawkins when he said “I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.” It was also graphically shown when two evolutionists wrote a book claiming that rape is an evolutionary mechanism to spread male genes—and see how one of them squirmed to justify why he agreed that rape is objectively wrong under his philosophy.

    A world governed purely by Atheistic, evolutionary ethics has been shown by history to be a horrible place to live. Most Atheists recognise this and choose to live by the ethical systems of other religions instead, or at the very least, live by the laws enforced by the government.

    6. Ritual

    Ritual is the only dimension which on the surface might appear to be absent from the religion of Atheism. In some religions, rituals have meanings attached to them, such as Passover commemorating the Israelites’ escape from Egypt. Because Atheism is a relatively recent movement, it doesn’t have much of a history to commemorate. In other religions, rituals such as sacrifices and DANCES are done to appease the gods or the spirits. Because Atheism denies the existence of gods and spirits, it doesn’t have the second type of ritual either. Many Atheists do practice ‘secular rituals’ such as their birthday celebrations, or the ‘ritual holidays’ of other religions such as the Christmas and Easter public holidays of Christianity, but this is usually to simply maintain the tradition of a public holiday, and the original meaning of the celebrations are rejected. It’s noteworthy that in recent years, the atheists’ public commemoration of the anniversary of Darwin’s birth each February (and even of the publication of his Origin of Species in November), along with calls for the general public to do the same, is rapidly BECOMING something of an annual ritual, even in some ‘churches’. One might even say that this modern Atheistic commemoration is being ‘celebrated’ with greater fervour and passion than many longstanding religious rituals.

    7. Material

    While Atheism by its nature of denying the divine can’t have objects that represent the divine (such as icons or idols), nature is treated as sacred by some Atheists in and of itself.
    The material dimension of religion, says Smart, includes all the physical things created by a religion such as art and buildings, and also natural features and places treated as sacred by adherents. While Atheism by its nature of denying the divine can’t have objects that represent the divine (such as icons or idols), nature is treated as sacred by some Atheists in and of itself.

    There are two extremes in the range of ideas held by Atheists on the ‘material’:

    natural resources are here to be exploited because of ‘survival of the fittest’ and humans are obviously the fittest species; or
    we should respect all of nature, particularly living things because to kill them is tantamount to murdering a cousin. This second view essentially holds that all life is ‘sacred’.
    Both ideas can be derived from the evolutionary narrative, but views tending towards the second idea are more prevalent than the views tending towards the first. But as G.K. Chesterton said a century ago:

    “Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. … The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate.”
    An Atheist’s view of the material dimension is strongly influenced by their view of the ethical dimension.

    From Is Atheism a Religion

  9. 9
    velikovskys says:

    joe,

    Obviously velikovskys has issues with the English language.

    “Perhaps the lady doth protest too much ,methinks”. I merely replaced the ellipses with the rest of the definition on religion from dictionary.com. If anything the key word would be “especially”( def. to a great extent,very much)

  10. 10
    Joe says:

    Yes, velikovskys, you doth protest too much. What you added didn’t change anything as neither “especially” nor “usually” are all inclusive. So why did you bother?

  11. 11
    velikovskys says:


    Joe,
    Yes, velikovskys, you doth protest too much. What you added didn’t change anything as neither “especially” nor “usually” are all inclusive. So why did you bother?

    Just as I said Joe, to be more precise. If one goes to dictionary.com one the definition does not include ellipses.

    But if you want to discuss your theory that everything that looks for natural causation is atheistic ,ok.

  12. 12
    Joe says:

    As I said your precision did nothing. And I don’t have a theory that everything that looks for natural causes is atheistic. I do have a claim that atheism is considered a religion.

  13. 13
  14. 14
    dgosse says:

    Hi velikovskys (interesting choice of pseudonym)

    “The big bang ultimately reflects some cosmologists’ search for creation and for a beginning. That search properly lies in the realm of metaphysics, not science.”

  15. 15
    DavidD says:

    dgosse
    “The big bang ultimately reflects some cosmologists’ search for creation and for a beginning. That search properly lies in the realm of metaphysics, not science.”

    Almost like the scientific field called Astrobiology the science of “Could”. I’ve always been fascinated by what means they derive their fanciful story telling. They make claim to have great understand of what it would take for life to exist somewhere out in outerspace, and yet they fail miserably at understanding life here on Earth and finding solutions for turning around many of the disastrous ecological breakdowns for which a bastardized version and application of science has caused in the first place. Off hand I’d saying climate change is a biggie or them.

    Ultimate we’re talking about their own version of faith in the unknown and unseen, something they ultimately deny, but pursue anyway, then deny again when pointed out. It just doesn’t get anymore dogmatic and religious than that.

  16. 16
    velikovskys says:

    joe,

    I do have a claim that atheism is considered a religion

    Actually you claimed that ID is a religion just like materialism.

  17. 17
    velikovskys says:

    dgosse:

    “The big bang ultimately reflects some cosmologists’ search for creation and for a beginning. That search properly lies in the realm of metaphysics, not science.”

    It would depend on the methodology of that search.

  18. 18
    Axel says:

    Surely, since there could be no methodology, accepted as falling within the canons of scientific investigation, for investigating the Singularity, that point is of sovereign irrelevance. Only pure metaphysics would be apt. And that would be a tall order.

  19. 19
    CandiceC says:

    I agree that many parents don’t like Common Core. As a matter of fact, I haven’t met a single parent who would be happy about it at all. Even teachers stand against it. I wish we could join our forces to stop it. But I guess it is too late as classes have already started. I only hope that its destroying power won’t be too big. I can’t wait to see the first results of the thing. I know that Indiana State actually managed to avoid implementing Common Core to their schools. It would be interesting to compare results for reading, sciences, math, and writing (check cheap essays online) test score results later on.

Leave a Reply