Evolutionists Now Formulating Teaching Standards That States Should Adopt “In Whole, Without Alteration”

7 Replies to “Evolutionists Now Formulating Teaching Standards That States Should Adopt “In Whole, Without Alteration””

1. 1
   Joe says:

   May 12, 2012 at 6:28 pm

   Who is John Galt?-> “Atlas Shrugged”- it’s a book about people that have no business making public policy, making public policy, and here we are.
2. 2
   johnnyb says:

   May 12, 2012 at 6:52 pm

   I find it odd that they think that the science standards in silicon valley should be the same as the science standards in Pittsburgh, which should be the same as the science standards in Oklahoma. Just off the cuff, Oklahoma, a drilling state, should have more focus on earth sciences, Silicon Valley should have more focus on math and computer sciences, and Pittsburgh should have more focus on chemistry (for use in metal processing).

   It is McDonald’s that has the “tastes the same everywhere burget”, and that taste isn’t good. Different regions are different and have different needs. Why is this so hard for everyone to see?
3. 3
   Gage says:

   May 12, 2012 at 8:48 pm

   I think the science establishment needs to take responsibility for the state of science education NOW. If American science literacy is low, that is not the fault of a few creationists who have no control over the public school curricula. I don’t accept the endless “More evolutionary dogma will fix the problem” approach.
4. 4
   kairosfocus says:

   May 13, 2012 at 3:32 am

   Folks:

   Let us remember, first, the USA is embarking on an unprecedented level of tertiary education.

   100 or even 50 years ago, you were not trying to push nigh on half your age cohorts through to Colleges. So, I suspect, part of the issue is the attempt to do mass tertiary education instead of the older skim the cream approach.

   My own solution/suggestion [cf here also for a part time version, and here for the Dip. Ed/ M. Ed to retool people to teach and administer] as a curriculum architect has been: do second chance secondary studies and then move up to tertiary level by a bridge programme. (Other people — IMO — should be doing a modern apprenticeship in a skilled trade, with a qualification ladder that gives the equivalent of an Associate at some definite point.)

   That way, you set up a viable bridge that solves problems before you hit the fast-paced, demanding college level. And, given the difference in economics [notice, your education debt crisis], I am inclined towards reaching up, through community colleges then transition to degree completion and onward to the Masters level which has now become the real threshold for professional praxis.

   In addition, I note, there is a coming wave of Android Tablets that can work with wireless networks, digital libraries, ebooks etc to be a viable education platform that transforms cost and accessibility of learning resources. This wave is kicking in over the next year or two.

   So, while there are genuine problems, I think part of this is the usual pressure group spin tactic: to get your change on the agenda, create a [perceived] crisis. Similarly, “never let a good crisis go to waste.”

   Of course, a crisis is the best time to carry out a coup; especially if there is a panic and there is a cluster of factions that can be mobilised to push through the agenda. (A current example is how the Arab Spring is rapidly becoming an un-headlined IslamIST winter, in Egypt and elsewhere.)

   So, let us observe: there is an education debt-crisis, and there is a broader economic malaise (in significant part triggered by foolish ideologically motivated interventions in the market place leading to bubbles and collapses).

   I do not doubt that there are rafts of ideologues out there who perceive an opportunity to push through their agendas.

   CH has headlined one of them, a push to swallow whole an alleged national high school curriculum reform, one that is chock full of evolutionary materialist dogma pushed in the name of sound science. As we can clip from his onward linked personal blog post:

   Anatomical similarities and differences between various organisms living today, and between them and organisms in the fossil record, enable the reconstruction of evolutionary history and the inference of lines of evolutionary descent . . . . Genetic information, like the fossil record, also provides evidence of evolution. DNA sequences vary among species, but there are many overlaps; in fact, the ongoing branching that produces multiple lines of descent can be inferred by comparing the DNA sequences of different organisms. Such information is also derivable from the similarities and differences in amino acid sequences and from anatomical and embryological evidence . . . . The section begins with a discussion of the converging evidence for common ancestry that has emerged from a variety of sources (e.g., comparative anatomy and embryology, molecular biology and genetics) . . . . Finally, the core ideas in the life sciences culminate with the principle that evolution can explain how the diversity that is observed within species has led to the diversity of life across species through a process of descent with adaptive modification. Evolution also accounts for the remarkable similarity of the fundamental characteristics of all species . . .

   Of course, the gaps, contradictory evidence, inherent limitations and a priori materialist ideology dressed up in the holy lab coat are not identified as topics for discussion. No, that is “creationism,” a loaded code word.

   Materialist indoctrination, not education.

   And that is expected to prepare our civilisation’s youth for higher education and the challenging global jobs market?

   All, duly rubber-stamped by a bi-partisan group of state governors [say the magic word: “consensus”] and a sprinkling of some captains of industry.

   Any properly trained Alinsky Rules for Radicals method “Community Organizer” would be drooling at the prospect.

   But, then, that should be no surprise, in 2000 the US National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] Board went on record on their agenda:

   The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [–> redefines science as applied materialist ideology] . . . .

   [[S]cience [–> so redefined] , along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes [–> ideological lock-in] to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [–> loaded language] methods, explanations, generalizations and products [–> neatly left off: the warrant for the scientific method, so-called, is a matter of epistemology and the logic of induction, which are PHILOSOPHICAL concerns, and require a different method, comparative difficulties across competing alternatives that have a right to sit tot the table, not by sufferance of]. . . .

   Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. [–> further ideological lock-in of materialism] Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work . . . .

   Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations [–> Even more materialistic ideology lock-in] and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge. [[NSTA, Board of Directors, July 2000. Emphases added.]

   So, when we see a demand for “standards” for science education that are to be taken:

   “in whole, without alteration”

   . . . we have a right to be highly suspicious.

   What can we do?

   We are dealing with ideologues in full agenda-push mode in the face of crises that are the now traditional vehicle for radical change.

   Such can be exposed and stopped, if there is a balance of forces adequate for the task; but, we should know that if professional ideologues sense that the time and trends are right for their push, they think they have good prospects for success.

   If their momentum cannot be broken, then it is time to secede.

   There is absolutely no reason why in the USA an alternative system of education from K to MS, cannot be created, built on what is already in place. Especially where there is now a broadband digital infrastructure to back it up.

   But for that to work, people in a critical mass have to see that we are dealing with ideological empire building and coups that are driven by ruthless agendas, not by sound considerations.

   So, the first thing is that there needs to be a broad, community based programme of education in origins science from a design theory perspective, independent of the materialist ideologue-dominated systems. (Try this for a first, rough draft.)

   Such a programme should target two main groups: (i) educators for the new approach, (ii) students needing a balance in their scienc3e education that will counterweight the indoctrination they are going to get anyway. In addition, it should target the sort of community leadership that will be the core of the critical mass to get an alternative going.

   So, if the ideologues insist on being unreasonable and have the power to capture the schools as temples of materialism, let them discover that the temples are increasingly empty.

   And if they try to impose their agenda on that which is independent of their control, based on slander campaigns, that shows them up as ruthless nihilistic tyrants, to be stoutly exposed and resisted.

   Enough is enough.

   And, we have long since passed that point already.

   GEM of TKI
5. 5
   kairosfocus says:

   May 13, 2012 at 5:12 am

   F/N: My suggestion for an alternative (with illustrations).
6. 6
   Robert Byers says:

   May 13, 2012 at 2:10 pm

   It is funny to me that the way to persuade kids evolution is true is so fixed on the fossil record.
   The fossil record only makes a evolutionary case if the geology is accepted.
   If its not the evolution doesn’t exist. ID folks need to know this too.
   If the evolution doesn’t exist because of the geology being wrong then LOGICALLY the evidence from fossils is not biological evidence.
   Comparing fossils and conclusions thereof is not from biological investigation but from geological presumption.
   Fossils are just snapshots of a moment.
   They tell no more then the picture.
   They don’t tell a movie.
   A movie is being presumed but the fossils don’t tell there has been a movie.
   They just show variety like in the Amazon.

   You can’t do biology on rocks.
7. 7
   kairosfocus says:

   May 13, 2012 at 4:56 pm

   F/R: I have responded to several select objecting comments from CH’s personal blog thread here. KF