Here We Go Again, New Mexico Edition

NCSE has picked up the story!

Read up on the last time this came around to NM, here.

Dave

The major difference between the new bill and previous legislation is its addition of climate change and human cloning to “controversial scientific topics” like biological evolution.

Dave,

While I like your tone and approach (very concise, non-emotional, and straight to the point), I can't help but get a kick out of the way the Serious Curmudgeon takes the gloves off. :)

I am a resident of New Mexico and taught high school biology here for about 10 years before leaving the field. I don't think the bill will make it out of committee, and I suspect that there will be little debate about it. New Mexico is facing some serious economic issues that will take most of the attention of the voters and legislators alike.

I taught in a conservative school district for a number of years, and I had no trouble teaching evolution according to the state standards then in place. I told the kids that it was my responsibility to teach them the organizing theory for biology and they would be graded on their understanding of the theory, and not on their personal beliefs about it. I had NO complaints from either students or parents. Similar standards now apply in New Mexico, and still require that the theory of evolution be taught in biology. The bill is indeed unnecessary and is unenforcible to boot. It is fluff in a legislative session that is chock full of real issues.

As for the issues of climate change, I presume the controversy comes in regarding the claim that human activity is causing the current climate change. This is a fairly new claim that has not been substantiated, and is not the organizing theory of any scientific field. It is not at all in the same category as evolution by natural selection and for the people who put the bill together to put the two side-by-side makes them appear even more clueless. I suppose some discussion of the idea might be appropriate in a historical geology class, but since such courses are not taught at the K-12 level, and since science gets short shrift K-6 due to increasing teaching to the tests brought on by NCLB, I don't think it is even an issue in most teacher's minds. Just finding time for elementary teachers to teach science is a much bigger issue.

As for human cloning, this is the height of fluff. It might have been mentioned in passing by some biology teacher somewhere, but it is not really a subject necessary to the teaching of the biological sciences.

Robin said: Dave, While I like your tone and approach (very concise, non-emotional, and straight to the point), I can't help but get a kick out of the way the Serious Curmudgeon takes the gloves off. :)

I often come here read and don't comment, but this issue struck me and forces this comment. I teach undergraduate courses in epidemiology and health promotion where I stress the scientific method. What bothers me about the proposed bill is scientific "controversy" is linked to what society considers controversial. It struck me because I think the standard should be what researchers in that particular field considers controversial. Epidemiology and health promotion take place in a societal context, but must follow scientific methods to be effective. It takes great effort (for me anyway) to follow the arguments in my field. Following the arguments would be impossible if yardstick was the judgment of society in general. Many of the arguments we encounter here (Arizona) are passion stuffed in strawmen.

Don't items B and D(2) specifically negate the intent of the whole bill? The opponents are religion based and they have no scientific evidence whatsoever.

It would be interesting to know how often such bills are introduced countrywide and how often they make it to the floor of the legislature. One time in five? One time in ten? NCSE tracks this sort of tomfoolery and probably would know.

Let's not conflate massive AGW as a theory with evolution. It is entirely consistent to be skeptical about AGW based on scientific evidence (while granting the great majority view does not agree). This is quite different than the long history of evolutionary theory based on data AND the ability to PREDICT based on the data.
I don't care to get into a climate change debate here...but I do object to the cavalier dismissal of AGW as "non-controversial" by Mr. Thomas.

I'm still retaining a modest skepticism over AGW ...

... however, this viewpoint becomes ever more difficult to maintain over time, since the mindset and tactics of most of the climate denialist community are so uncomfortably similar to those of the creationist community.

I was just over on PHYSORG pointing out to a denialist that he was citing a study out of context; he ignored the feedback except to shift the goalposts. "Why am I not surprised?"

Certainly, while it isn't a good bet that a climate denialist is necessarily a creationist, it's a pretty fair bet that a creationist is a climate denialist. "Then scientists don't know nuttin'!"

mrg said: It would be interesting to know how often such bills are introduced countrywide and how often they make it to the floor of the legislature. One time in five? One time in ten? NCSE tracks this sort of tomfoolery and probably would know.

Upon seeing this story pop up in my news feeds and here on Panda's Thumb, I had a thought: Unlike milk, stupid has no expiration date.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. ~ Frank Zappa

Elisheva Levin said: As for the issues of climate change, I presume the controversy comes in regarding the claim that human activity is causing the current climate change. This is a fairly new claim that has not been substantiated, and is not the organizing theory of any scientific field. It is not at all in the same category as evolution by natural selection and for the people who put the bill together to put the two side-by-side makes them appear even more clueless. I suppose some discussion of the idea might be appropriate in a historical geology class, but since such courses are not taught at the K-12 level, and since science gets short shrift K-6 due to increasing teaching to the tests brought on by NCLB, I don't think it is even an issue in most teacher's minds. Just finding time for elementary teachers to teach science is a much bigger issue.

It is fluff in a legislative session that is chock full of real issues.

In my opinion, a good teacher shouldn't have a problem with this bill. It appears to be worded such that, intentionally or not, an instructor can still fail a student for failing to understand evolutionary theory, independent of their expressed belief in its falsehood.

That's kinda lame, and it opens up teachers to lawsuits - but if I were a teacher, that would be my defense: The student lacked a demonstrable understanding of evolutionary theory. "I didn't care what his beliefs were, as they were not pertinent to the class."

...an instructor can still fail a student for failing to understand evolutionary theory, independent of their expressed belief in its falsehood.

...the problem, of course, is that a teacher can "legitimately" pass a student who fails to understand evolutionary theory.

Should be pretty easy to shoot this whole thing down in flames. IDcreationism (YEC or OEC) has no scientific basis (just ask Judge Jones), therefore cannot be taught or accepted in class or tests according to the above Bill.

There is no scientific controversy surrounding the TOE by natural selection. None of the proposed alternatives have any scientific basis, so can't be taught. There's no scientific controversy surrounding human cloning either. There may be ethical controversies, but those are for another class.

As others have pointed out, the Bill is full of internal inconsistencies, which strongly suggests it was put forward by an ideologist, not a scientist.

Defining a "controversial scientific topic" as those "that are often viewed by society as controversial" is a dangerous precedent. This is probably the scariest part of the Bill.

As for the issues of climate change, I presume the controversy comes in regarding the claim that human activity is causing the current climate change.

This is a fairly new claim

that has not been substantiated,

and is not the organizing theory of any scientific field.

It is not at all in the same category as evolution by natural selection and for the people who put the bill together to put the two side-by-side makes them appear even more clueless.

The major difference between the new bill and previous legislation is its addition of climate change and human cloning to “controversial scientific topics” like biological evolution.

Bryan Elliott said: In my opinion, a good teacher shouldn't have a problem with this bill.

It appears to be worded such that, intentionally or not, an instructor can still fail a student for failing to understand evolutionary theory, independent of their expressed belief in its falsehood.

As for AGW skeptics

You know, a savvy law firm could just about make a career out of prosecuting suits against state BOEs and school districts that pass such regulation. Were I an evil lawyer, I could be tempted to be the serpent whispering in the fundamentalists ears, 'Here's a surefire way to get children taught the way you want.' And then trounce them once the regulations passed. BWA-HA-HA!

harold said: What fraction of US "conservatives" will simply accept that the scientific evidence supports all three of these things - biological evolution, human activity may contribute to climate change, HIV infection as the cause of AIDS?

To continue to pile on Elisheva Levin and truther:

Here are some links that I developed for my classes and for a public speech I gave a couple of years ago on climate change, as well as a letter to the editor that appeared last year. Hopefully these will help you understand that the facts behind AGW and global climate change are in fact very well known and accepted by the scientific community. This doesn't mean that we know everything about these topics, but we do know enough to act on them.

(Note: I've removed the "http://" from each link.)

people.sfcollege.edu/greg.mead/globalclimate/GlobalClimateTeachin.htm

people.sfcollege.edu/greg.mead/globalclimate/OrganizationsGlobalWarmingStatements.htm

www.gainesville.com/article/20100217/NEWS/100219498?p=all&tc=pgall

harold said: A skeptic asks for objective evidence and evaluates it fairly. A denialist can never be convinced by any amount of evidence.

You know, a savvy law firm could just about make a career out of prosecuting suits against state BOEs and school districts that pass such regulation.

FL said: But at least it's worded correctly, and is a good sign for the future.

IIRC, there is substantial evidence that historical climate change has resulted in mass extinctions. So it is not out of the realm of possibilities and off the table. If you choose to just fiddle through our current climate dynamics without any thoughts of solutions, you just must be resigned to that same fate. Many others have a highly tuned self preservation instinct that will generate a bursts of creativity.

The Curmudgeon said: Yeah, that Curmudgeon is a great guy.

Furthermore, the bill is unconstitutional as written, and its passage and enactment will almost certainly result in expensive litigation.

when a controversial scientific topic is being taught

It appears to be worded such that, intentionally or not, an instructor can still fail a student for failing to understand evolutionary theory, independent of their expressed belief in its falsehood.

As was mentioned above, doesn't Kitzmiller et al... mean the so-called ideas of the ID (bowel) movement are specifically prohibited by this bill?

FL said:

It appears to be worded such that, intentionally or not, an instructor can still fail a student for failing to understand evolutionary theory, independent of their expressed belief in its falsehood.

Which is precisely why the bill IS constitutional. It's the same reason why evolutionists haven't dared to mess with Texas and Louisiana in court.

As written, the bill is toothless and pointless. Honestly administered, it would change nothing. But it is nevertheless objectionable as a wink-wink, nudge-nudge to people who will use it as a signal of permission to screw around.

Terenzio the Troll said:

when a controversial scientific topic is being taught

Given that I have no experience whatsoever in teaching kids and that I live on the right side of the Atlantic Ocean (pun intended, of course), that sentence quite puzzles me. Why in the world a controversial scientific topic should find its way into ELEMENTARY EDUCATION? I mean: they teach the very basis of classic physics, not string theory (for instance). AGW?!?! To 8th graders? Are we kidding? Won't be the water cycle, what is the wind, Moon and tides and the such somewhat more apt? Human cloning? I would consider myself satisfied (as a father of two) with basic sexual education.

eric said: ... its a sign of desperation for anything to celebrate.

I would think it a stretch to call the HIV denialist community inherently conservative.

AGW?!?! To 8th graders? Are we kidding? Won’t be the water cycle, what is the wind, Moon and tides and the such somewhat more apt?

human cloning to “controversial scientific topics” like biological evolution.

FL said:

It appears to be worded such that, intentionally or not, an instructor can still fail a student for failing to understand evolutionary theory, independent of their expressed belief in its falsehood.

Which is precisely why the bill IS constitutional. It's the same reason why evolutionists haven't dared to mess with Texas and Louisiana in court. FL

OgreMkV said: FL, did you ever decide to man up and present the evidence for ID being scientific so that it could be taught in a classroom? I didn't think so.

“controversial scientific topic” includes biological origins, biological evolution, causes of climate change, human cloning and other scientific topics that are often viewed by society as controversial; and..

raven said: Just how big a problem is human cloning and why is it controversial?

mrg said: Heh! "We've managed to push through laws by being sufficiently vague to pass legal muster, though anybody who actually tries to follow them up is going to step on a booby trap."

Eric: It's (human cloning) sheer fantasy; they are making up an opponent position that doesn’t actually exist for the purposes of demagoguery.

mrg said:

eric said: ... its a sign of desperation for anything to celebrate.

Heh! "We've managed to push through laws by being sufficiently vague to pass legal muster, though anybody who actually tries to follow them up is going to step on a booby trap."

"If New Mexico wants to teach controversial hypothetical topics to kids in science classes, why not add the presence of vampires, reanimation of dead bodies, cyborgs, and human-UFO alien matings."

Kids might actuallyt find this interesting!

"It’s almost like whoever drafted the bill has no idea what actually has been happening in science for the last 50 years and watches too much Fox News."

I doubt the representative wrote the bill. I suspect it was handed to him by someone who just loves the DI.

"scientific topics that are often viewed by the lunatic, fringe elements of society as controversial;"

harold said: Anyway, I've said before, I'm not saying that all science deniers are right wing Americans

nmgirl said: ... I doubt the representative wrote the bill. I suspect it was handed to him by someone who just loves the DI.

Dave Thomas said:

nmgirl said: ... I doubt the representative wrote the bill. I suspect it was handed to him by someone who just loves the DI.

Absolutely!

harold said: Anyway, I’ve said before, I’m not saying that all science deniers are right wing Americans

Sure, there are right-winger HIV denialists, but I would think it unfair to characterize it as a particularly right-wing doctrine.

AIDS denialism has received some support from political conservatives in the United States. Duesberg's work has been published in Policy Review, a journal once published by The Heritage Foundation but now owned by the Hoover Institution, [47][48][49] and by Regnery Press,[50] as has Tom Bethell's book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, which endorses AIDS denialism. Phillip E. Johnson has accused the Centers for Disease Control of "fraud" in relation to HIV/AIDS.[51] Describing the political aspects of the AIDS denialism movement, Steven Epstein wrote in Impure Science that "... the appeal of Duesberg's views to conservatives—certainly including those with little sympathy for the gay movement—cannot be denied."[52]p. 158 The blog LewRockwell.com has also published articles supportive of AIDS denialism.[53]

Certainly, while it isn’t a good bet that a climate denialist is necessarily a creationist, it’s a pretty fair bet that a creationist is a climate denialist. “Then scientists don’t know nuttin’!”

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Thomas said:

nmgirl said: ... I doubt the representative wrote the bill. I suspect it was handed to him by someone who just loves the DI.

Absolutely!

Is this Joe Renick character the primary driver behind this bill?

harold said: I stand by my point that ONE group of HIV denialists are those who are attracted to it because they insist that AIDs is god's vengeance, not a preventable and treatable viral infection.

midwifetoad said: It was a mistake, in my opinion, to forecast increased hurricane frequency and severity based on AGW. Such predictions undermine public confidence in the underlying science.

FL, did you ever decide to man up and present the evidence for ID being scientific so that it could be taught in a classroom? I didn’t think so.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Thomas said:

nmgirl said: ... I doubt the representative wrote the bill. I suspect it was handed to him by someone who just loves the DI.

Absolutely!

Is this Joe Renick character the primary driver behind this bill?

raven said: Or, the fundies are ignorant. They live in a paranoid fantasy land where UFO's exist and are piloted by demons from hell, the earth is 6,000 years old, it will be destroyed any day when the deity shows up 2,000 years late, satanists exist and kidnap children for their blood to use in their rites, and invisible angels and demons fight titantic battles all around us that we are only dimly aware of.

FL said:

FL, did you ever decide to man up and present the evidence for ID being scientific so that it could be taught in a classroom? I didn’t think so.

In fact, that item was presented at the original ATBC debate. Memory problems...?

raven said: Free country, they can live in whatever La La fantasyland they want. But we don't need to teach that in our kid's science classes.

FL said:

FL, did you ever decide to man up and present the evidence for ID being scientific so that it could be taught in a classroom? I didn’t think so.

In fact, that item was presented at the original ATBC debate. Memory problems...?

One can accept the physics of CO2 without accepting specific projections of weather. It was a mistake, in my opinion, to forecast increased hurricane frequency and severity based on AGW. Such predictions undermine public confidence in the underlying science.

OgreMkV is correct.

FL has made claims that ID is scientific.

When pressed to explain, he has rapidly disappeared.

This is not off topic, since the bill mentions climate change.

Most climate change denialists will go through the following series of mutually contradictory statements, often in the same thread, or even in the same post.

1) There is no such thing as climate change and all the stated concern is a conspiracy.

2) There is climate change but humans have nothing to do with it.

3) There is climate change, humans may contribute, but it will be beneficial.

4) There is climate change, humans may contribute, it may not be so beneficial to future suckers generations, but it is too expensive and/or too late to do anything about it now.

harold said: FL has made claims that ID is scientific. When pressed to explain, he has rapidly disappeared.

NASA Kepler finds family of habitable zone, Earth-size planets

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/nasa-kepler-finds-family-habitable-earth-size

So much for Guillermo Gonzalez and the rest of the anthropomorphic universe people... Well, if they were honest... But like deniers and zealots anywhere, mere facts are not likely to change their minds...

Is 'FL' Larry Farfarman? I've often wondered...

MosesZD said: Is 'FL' Larry Farfarman? I've often wondered...

FL said:

It appears to be worded such that, intentionally or not, an instructor can still fail a student for failing to understand evolutionary theory, independent of their expressed belief in its falsehood.

Which is precisely why the bill IS constitutional. It's the same reason why evolutionists haven't dared to mess with Texas and Louisiana in court. FL

It's all still there, Ogre. That's the nice nice thing about ATBC: The back-page stuff stays in the fridge for a good long time.

But no need to go warm it up now. The states are open primarily for critical-thinking science standards like those of Tx and La, instead of other proposals. And that's good enough for any domino player, honestly.

(Gotta play a few double-ones now, in order to collect all them double-sixes later!!!)

FL

MosesZD said:

FL said:

It appears to be worded such that, intentionally or not, an instructor can still fail a student for failing to understand evolutionary theory, independent of their expressed belief in its falsehood.

Which is precisely why the bill IS constitutional. It's the same reason why evolutionists haven't dared to mess with Texas and Louisiana in court. FL

Um, they actually have to have a plaintiff who has been impacted by the ill-wind of the law to have a case. Which means some school board has to drink the 'stupid kool-aid' and has to start injecting the creationist materials into the classroom. Once that happens, then you'll get your cases. But until then... The law is as meaningful as Atlanta's ordinance that it is still illegal to tie a giraffe to a street light or telephone pole...

raven said:

Eric: It's (human cloning) sheer fantasy; they are making up an opponent position that doesn’t actually exist for the purposes of demagoguery.

You could put it that way. Or, the fundies are ignorant. They live in a paranoid fantasy land where UFO's exist and are piloted by demons from hell, the earth is 6,000 years old, it will be destroyed any day when the deity shows up 2,000 years late, satanists exist and kidnap children for their blood to use in their rites, and invisible angels and demons fight titantic battles all around us that we are only dimly aware of. Free country, they can live in whatever La La fantasyland they want. But we don't need to teach that in our kid's science classes.

FL said: It's all still there, Ogre. That's the nice nice thing about ATBC: The back-page stuff stays in the fridge for a good long time. But no need to go warm it up now. The states are open primarily for critical-thinking science standards like those of Tx and La, instead of other proposals. And that's good enough for any domino player, honestly. (Gotta play a few double-ones now, in order to collect all them double-sixes later!!!) FL

harold said: OgreMkV is correct. FL has made claims that ID is scientific. When pressed to explain, he has rapidly disappeared.

Stanton said:

FL said: It's all still there, Ogre. That's the nice nice thing about ATBC: The back-page stuff stays in the fridge for a good long time. But no need to go warm it up now. The states are open primarily for critical-thinking science standards like those of Tx and La, instead of other proposals. And that's good enough for any domino player, honestly. (Gotta play a few double-ones now, in order to collect all them double-sixes later!!!) FL

If it's all there, then how come you can not link to it? It's because you're lying, and you're too cowardly to confess this. Furthermore, you still refuse to explain why Texas and Louisiana are supposed to have the best educational systems, even though they are ranked among the very worst due specifically to Creationist political interference. Are you hoping that if you lied to us enough, we'll magically believe you because of Jesus?

Oh yeah, I'll add that I read your entire debate thread in December FL. I can assure you that there is no mention of what you claim is there.

The claim is also in that thread, but there is no evidence or even information presented.

You did talk a little bit about Privileged Planet which was easily and quickly dispensed with. So, your entire evidence is one opinion that doesn't even make sense when applied to the rest of the known universe.

(sorry for the derail. If FL is man enough to return to ATBC, then we can continue there.)

explain why Texas and Louisiana are supposed to have the best educational systems, even though they are ranked among the very worst due specifically to Creationist political interference.

MosesZD said: Is 'FL' Larry Farfarman? I've often wondered...

Dale Husband said:

MosesZD said: Is 'FL' Larry Farfarman? I've often wondered...

No, FL has not been known for being a Holocaust denier.

ben said:

explain why Texas and Louisiana are supposed to have the best educational systems, even though they are ranked among the very worst due specifically to Creationist political interference.

The explanation is simple. FL wins every argument (in his own mind) because he reserves the right to define each term as he sees fit. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity, because he is the sole arbiter of what a true christian is. Texas and Louisiana have the best educational systems, because the best educational system is the one that ends every sentence, "...therefore Jesus." Facts don't matter to Floyd, he just gets off on strutting around and delusionally believing he wins every argument, when in fact everyone just laughs at him.

I’ll add that I read your entire debate thread in December FL

FL is still putting on airs and pretending to know all about science.

FL said:

I’ll add that I read your entire debate thread in December FL

So did I. In fact, I've revisited it several times because there's a lot of information contained therein, and it comes in handy for me often. But you know something? At any time YOU could re-open the debate with your ATBC pals. Start a new thread, do some serious homework, cite the more recent works, write some catchy essays worthy of a PT Guest Contributor. You don't really need me, the Archenemy, to generate a new and vigorous debate over there. (Or, if you don't really want to discuss ID over there, you could always discuss the New Mexico science education bill.) ****** But goodness, now you've caused me to atart thinking about ATBC vis-a-vis PT. Stray thoughts come to mind. You ATBC guys are, quite often, just too much of a lazy-bones "Social Club." You got no fire in your primate bellies anymore. You cooled off, you lost your oomph. It's at the point now that every time I stop by silently to check your threads, I wind up wanting to ask which nursing home you're all posting from. In contrast, the Panda Boys always keep the fire going. THEY force me to show up. THEY keep up with the latest headlines and controversies. THEY initiate risky discussion/debates on religion-related topics. Non-Darwinists lurk and monitor PT threads. These Panda Boys are serious and up-to-date. But YOU guys...aren't. So can I be honest? You ATBC guys will always be commendable for allowing me to be your guest for that riotous freewheeling ATBC debate--quite an experience, aye?--but other than that, you're collectively become a disgrace to the smelly jungle-hopping Common Ancestor that birthed you by accident. Why? Because PT keeps pushing hard. You do not. You collectively got no passion anymore. ATBC is just a social club, one where non-Darwinist visitors must bring most of the homework instead of confronting homework already done. ****** Rightly or wrongly, that's how things are coming across for me at this time, Ogre. Time is limited, so while I'll be around ATBC sometimes, no use trying to bait me into re-opening that ATBC debate again. Someday I am sure you and I will find time for a 100-page Round Two. Just not now. Meanwhile, WRT topicality, you might as well tell me what you think about the New Mexico science education bill. Science education trumps Darwin indoctrination, you know. See anything you like in that bill? FL

New Mexico is keeping up with the New and growing public activism to demand their schools teach the truth on all subjects and so in origin subjects teach both sides as they are the common opinions in the nation.
More attention, more publicity, more reaction (an old word) from a pressed establishment.
God and Genesis can not be illegal in school subjects, biology/geology etc, unless the state is givcing a official opinion they are WRONG ideas. if the state does that then its breaking the separation concept it invokes to censor creationism in science classes .
How is my logic wrong here?
Are you guys SURE the Very Protestant/Puritan Yankees and southerners of yore really banned God and Genesis from 1700's education.?!
Really!!!

Robert Byers said: New Mexico is keeping up with the New and growing public activism to demand their schools teach the truth on all subjects and so in origin subjects teach both sides as they are the common opinions in the nation. More attention, more publicity, more reaction (an old word) from a pressed establishment. God and Genesis can not be illegal in school subjects, biology/geology etc, unless the state is givcing a official opinion they are WRONG ideas. if the state does that then its breaking the separation concept it invokes to censor creationism in science classes . How is my logic wrong here? Are you guys SURE the Very Protestant/Puritan Yankees and southerners of yore really banned God and Genesis from 1700's education.?! Really!!!

Robert Byers said: New Mexico is keeping up with the New and growing public activism to demand their schools teach the truth on all subjects and so in origin subjects teach both sides as they are the common opinions in the nation. More attention, more publicity, more reaction (an old word) from a pressed establishment. God and Genesis can not be illegal in school subjects, biology/geology etc, unless the state is givcing (sic)a official opinion they are WRONG ideas. if the state does that then its breaking the separation concept it invokes to censor creationism in science classes . How is my logic wrong here? Are you guys SURE the Very Protestant/Puritan Yankees and southerners of yore really banned God and Genesis from 1700's education.?! Really!!!

"In no way do the science standards support the teaching of notions of intelligent design or creation science or any of its variations."

Robert Byers said: God and Genesis can not be illegal in school subjects, biology/geology etc, unless the state is givcing a official opinion they are WRONG ideas... How is my logic wrong here?

It seems to be based on the misguided notion that science teaching is primarily about learning facts, rather than theories - about transmitting a body of knowledge rather than a methodology.

It isn't (or shouldn't be, IMO). In principle, you could teach an excellent science program based on a fictional physics. It might be a good idea.

Robert Byers said: God and Genesis can not be illegal in school subjects, biology/geology etc, unless the state is givcing a official opinion they are WRONG ideas.

Elizabeth Liddle said: It seems to be based on the misguided notion that science teaching is primarily about learning facts, rather than theories - about transmitting a body of knowledge rather than a methodology. It isn't (or shouldn't be, IMO). In principle, you could teach an excellent science program based on a fictional physics. It might be a good idea.

Terenzio the Troll said: Well Robert, to put it in a different perspective, may I describe you what happens here in Italy?

Terenzio the Troll said that in Italy: ...they teach how Gen.1 is an edited collection of different creation myths, or they have the children read excerpts of the poem of Gilgamesh along with the story of the flood and make comparisons.

FL said:

I’ll add that I read your entire debate thread in December FL

So did I. In fact, I've revisited it several times because there's a lot of information contained therein, and it comes in handy for me often.

Meanwhile, WRT topicality, you might as well tell me what you think about the New Mexico science education bill. Science education trumps Darwin indoctrination, you know. See anything you like in that bill? FL

It seems to be based on the misguided notion that science teaching is primarily about learning facts, rather than theories - about transmitting a body of knowledge rather than a methodology. It isn’t (or shouldn’t be, IMO).

In principle, you could teach an excellent science program based on a fictional physics. It might be a good idea.

Paul Burnett said: I really want to hear from FL or Byers how they would feel about this being done in all public schools in the US. Teach the controversy!

Texas actually has a law requiring schools to offer bible courses. No school (to my knowledge) has ever done so.

Because of the requirements for TAKS and the fact that most students can't be bothered to take any electives (most would rather go home early), it's kind of a moot point.

Robert Byers said: New Mexico is keeping up with the New and growing public activism to demand their schools teach the truth on all subjects and so in origin subjects teach both sides as they are the common opinions in the nation. More attention, more publicity, more reaction (an old word) from a pressed establishment. God and Genesis can not be illegal in school subjects, biology/geology etc, unless the state is givcing a official opinion they are WRONG ideas. if the state does that then its breaking the separation concept it invokes to censor creationism in science classes . How is my logic wrong here? Are you guys SURE the Very Protestant/Puritan Yankees and southerners of yore really banned God and Genesis from 1700's education.?! Really!!!

The lack of biblical education in American schools is a visible and obvious statement about what parents and students would choose to study when they are given the choice. They choose not to study the bible. This is why folks like Robert and FL desire that religion be added to the curriculum of biology.

harold said: Religious authoritarians only snipe at biology class from the margins, but if you introduced actual scholarship about the Bible, I'd bet you'd see some schools being blown up.

Terenzio the Troll said:

Elizabeth Liddle said: It seems to be based on the misguided notion that science teaching is primarily about learning facts, rather than theories - about transmitting a body of knowledge rather than a methodology. It isn't (or shouldn't be, IMO). In principle, you could teach an excellent science program based on a fictional physics. It might be a good idea.

Oh, come on Eileen, uhm, Elizabet. That is about as bad an idea as it gets. As for physics, the method you are supposed to teach requires making predictions, devising experiments and then carrying on those experiments to check the predictions. What would you do: teach a fictional physics and then bring the children to the lab to perform fictional experiments with fictional apparatus? How would you show them that the water freezes at 100 Centigrade under STP? Besides, if they only learn a method, as you suggest, are they supposed to work out the real facts all from themselves? 6000 years of knowledge to rebuild every time from the scratch? I guess a lifetime is not enough.

I've a page for News Updates on HB 302 on the NMSR website.

Elizabeth Liddle said: I don't think science should be taught as a set of facts you have to agree are facts. It should be taught as a set of provisional conclusions supported by evidence and argument and subject to revision if new evidence is found.

I suspect the average student is much more comfortable with a package of certainties than with conditional and provisional claims founded on a method which is often difficult to relate directly to the "certainties" it produced. At least the students I went to school with wanted to know whether a claim was right or wrong. In desperation, they tended to decide that "maybe" was the same as "wrong".

And this preference tied in nicely with the convenient way factual claims are simple to test and those tests are simple to grade. Saying "you got a C because you answered too many questions wrong" is much easier to understand than "you got a C because your understanding of the underlying process is incorrect or incomplete." That approach would just cause students to demand to know what IS the Right Answer. "Maybe" is simply not a selectable alternative on an exam.

The tactic of presenting bogus science and demanding that uninformed students judge what amounts to a swearing contest, is explicitly and carefully designed to elimiate scientific reasoning, in favor of choosing the more trusted authority. And how can you trust any authority whose claims are admittedly provisional and tentative?

Flint said: And this preference tied in nicely with the convenient way factual claims are simple to test and those tests are simple to grade. Saying "you got a C because you answered too many questions wrong" is much easier to understand than "you got a C because your understanding of the underlying process is incorrect or incomplete." That approach would just cause students to demand to know what IS the Right Answer. "Maybe" is simply not a selectable alternative on an exam.

Elizabeth Liddle -

I think everyone agrees with you.

The method without the facts is worth more than the facts (some of which may not stay facts) without the method. The method is where we got the facts, most of which are well-established, from.

But they do go best together.

Multiple guess, machine-gradable tests are often the only choice a teacher has to be able to get through the necessary “evaluations” of student “learning.” There is simply no time for anything more comprehensive or accurate.

Dave Thomas aid: I've a page for News Updates on HB 302 on the NMSR website.

harold said: Mike Elzinga - Still, in my experience, high scores usually indicate some level of mastery of academically valuable material. The real reason they're used so much, though, is that they're highly predictive of future academic behavior.

Mike's got it. This is what I do. When I talk about standardized tests, the smallest group that my division works for is a county (and that's only 1). We normally work only at the state level or groups of states (in the Race to the Top consoritia). We have huge teams of psycometricians to statistically verify these things.

Both the high and the low end of the tests run into trouble. If a kid gets every item correct, then we really can't tell where he is knowledge wise.

With the consortia system in Race to the Top, there will be near universal validity for the high stakes exams and many of the diagnostic exams. Hopefully, this will provide teachers with the ability to know exactly where each student needs help.

BTW: There is considerable effort to emply flash and other programming to generate what we call "innovative" items that incorporate everything from assembling a chemistry apparatus to graphing data obtained from the experiment. These are very complicated and expensive items, but they can almost get to 'lab practical' depths of knowledge.

harold said: Mike Elzinga -

Multiple guess, machine-gradable tests are often the only choice a teacher has to be able to get through the necessary “evaluations” of student “learning.” There is simply no time for anything more comprehensive or accurate.

I'm going to say a word in defense of the much maligned standardized multiple choice test. I'll grant you that low scores tell you very little. There are many potential reasons why someone would get a low score. Scores in historically underprivileged groups (of any ethnicity) could almost certainly be raised dramatically if resources were improved and good academic habits were positively reinforced in a consistent way. And if frogs had wings they wouldn't have to bump their asses on the ground; we've got corporate charter school "education reform" Democrats and outright anti-education Republicans; but I digress. Still, in my experience, high scores usually indicate some level of mastery of academically valuable material. The real reason they're used so much, though, is that they're highly predictive of future academic behavior. Medical educators are constantly complaining about the deficiencies of the MCAT, for example, and they are obvious. But the thing does do a highly decent job of predicting who will pass their courses in medical school. It is, IIRC, more effective at this than GPA, undergraduate college identity, undergraduate major, etc. Perhaps not surprising - the thing is one dimensional and limited, and highly dependent on preparation, but it is standardized, and that has some value. That doesn't mean as much in an era when medical school admissions are insanely competitive, but at times in the past, high failure and drop out rates had been problems for medical schools. (Again, the low scores mean less. There was a white guy with family connections in my medical school class. He had by far the worst MCAT score in the class - would never have been accepted without the connections. He received far more "affirmative action" than any "minority" student, in congruence with the UC Davis Medical School studies that found connected white males to be the major recipients of affirmative action, correctly defined. He turned out to be brilliant and did some valuable research, though. The low score doesn't tell you why it was low. But the high score does tell you, if it was earned honestly, that at least this person had the reading comprehension, intermediate term memory, problem solving ability, and test taking ability to do well on the thing.)

Sylvilagus said: Interestingly, the section of the MCAT that correlates best with Med school performance is the Verbal Reasoning (Reading Comp) section, not any of the science sections. I used to teach MCAT test prep for that section and used to emphasize its utility because most of my students seemed to think science knowledge was what they needed. In fact, one can get a decent score on the science sections knowing very little science if you are good at the verbal reasoning. I once scored a 10 on the Organic/Bio section (high enough for many med schools) having never taken courses on those topics in college. Good analytic reading skills and a layman's knowledge from high school were enough.

harold said: The real reason they're used so much, though, is that they're highly predictive of future academic behavior.

OgreMkV said:

Sylvilagus said: Interestingly, the section of the MCAT that correlates best with Med school performance is the Verbal Reasoning (Reading Comp) section, not any of the science sections. I used to teach MCAT test prep for that section and used to emphasize its utility because most of my students seemed to think science knowledge was what they needed. In fact, one can get a decent score on the science sections knowing very little science if you are good at the verbal reasoning. I once scored a 10 on the Organic/Bio section (high enough for many med schools) having never taken courses on those topics in college. Good analytic reading skills and a layman's knowledge from high school were enough.

This is true of ANY test. Reading is the only thing that truly matters.

Sylvilagus said:

OgreMkV said:

Sylvilagus said: Interestingly, the section of the MCAT that correlates best with Med school performance is the Verbal Reasoning (Reading Comp) section, not any of the science sections. I used to teach MCAT test prep for that section and used to emphasize its utility because most of my students seemed to think science knowledge was what they needed. In fact, one can get a decent score on the science sections knowing very little science if you are good at the verbal reasoning. I once scored a 10 on the Organic/Bio section (high enough for many med schools) having never taken courses on those topics in college. Good analytic reading skills and a layman's knowledge from high school were enough.

This is true of ANY test. Reading is the only thing that truly matters.

ANY test? Really? Take SAT math... though reading skill is important, and poor reading skills will seriously weaken performance on that section, critical reading skills will not replace knowledge of basic math rules and principles on that section of the test. The science portions of the MCAT though are designed to test science analytic reading, and de-emphasize science factual knowledge. But that certainly isn't true of all tests.

I will defer about details about multiple choice tests (and like Mr. Elzinga, I've called them "multiple guess" for decades), but I can share some direct experience...

Most multiple choice tests I've encountered are poorly constructed because, out of the usual 4 possible answers, at least one is so far out that a reasonably intelligent rock would avoid it. Not infrequently, two out of four choices fall in this category, and sometimes it's three.

As a not-real-test example, many years ago _Science Digest_ had little quizzes. In one devoted to photography, a question was about acronyms. One of the possible answers was, "ASA and DIN are a Teutonic god and his thunderbolt."

My experience is that I could score reasonably well--around 80% of max score--even in subjects that I had no particular subject knowledge of, just by picking the most reasonable answer.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

OgreMkV said: The only thing that doesn't apply to would be something like x^2 + 4 = 52 what is x?

Most multiple choice tests I’ve encountered are poorly constructed because, out of the usual 4 possible answers, at least one is so far out that a reasonably intelligent rock would avoid it. Not infrequently, two out of four choices fall in this category, and sometimes it’s three.

However, many misconceptions come out of left field without any warning. Misconceptions are often culturally dependent. They can also correlate with fads and cultural trends from class to class and from generation to generation.

OgreMkV said:

Sylvilagus said: Interestingly, the section of the MCAT that correlates best with Med school performance is the Verbal Reasoning (Reading Comp) section, not any of the science sections. I used to teach MCAT test prep for that section and used to emphasize its utility because most of my students seemed to think science knowledge was what they needed. In fact, one can get a decent score on the science sections knowing very little science if you are good at the verbal reasoning. I once scored a 10 on the Organic/Bio section (high enough for many med schools) having never taken courses on those topics in college. Good analytic reading skills and a layman's knowledge from high school were enough.

This is true of ANY test. Reading is the only thing that truly matters.

OgreMkV said: I don't know if you guys even care about all of this stuff, but it's one area that I am intimately familiar with and very few people are (the area of high stakes standardized testing that is).

Mike Elzinga said:

OgreMkV said: I don't know if you guys even care about all of this stuff, but it's one area that I am intimately familiar with and very few people are (the area of high stakes standardized testing that is).

Actually it is extremely interesting and important stuff to know. Too many education policy makers have no clue about what goes into evaluation and how easily it can become screwed up and unfair. Making people accountable for things over which they have no control nor any input is not only cruel, it burdens the educational system with more crap that detracts from the business of educating students. Most politicians we see running for office would not be capable of the levels of accountability they attempt to foist onto others.

harold said: The real reason they're used so much, though, is that they're highly predictive of future academic behavior.

Well, yes, but then students are repeatedly tested with multi-choice questions throughout their academic careers. What really matters is correlation with future work performance, which is much harder to measure and has a very long lag time.

Bias is certainly an issue, along with what does it predict. I'd like to raise the serious concern I've developed in the last year or so, that many of these tests don't even pass a simple validity test. I have been able to compare two consecutive years of students in my physics class. Based on observations of my own tests, and direct observations one of the two classes was vastly superior in mathematics capability. This is buttressed by the students placements in math classes. The one group as a whole is fairly close to being an entire year farther along on the math sequence.
The punch line is that on two different standardized tests (one state administered the other the ERB exam) the lower ability students scored had a higher fraction of students rate as "proficient or better" and by most easily extractable measures they did better on the test, than the higher ability group.
The magnitude with which the test results fail to match reality is stunning. I'm somewhat fortunate in that our test scores in general are high enough to generally make this a non-issue.

JGB said: Bias is certainly an issue, along with what does it predict. I'd like to raise the serious concern I've developed in the last year or so, that many of these tests don't even pass a simple validity test. I have been able to compare two consecutive years of students in my physics class. Based on observations of my own tests, and direct observations one of the two classes was vastly superior in mathematics capability. This is buttressed by the students placements in math classes. The one group as a whole is fairly close to being an entire year farther along on the math sequence. The punch line is that on two different standardized tests (one state administered the other the ERB exam) the lower ability students scored had a higher fraction of students rate as "proficient or better" and by most easily extractable measures they did better on the test, than the higher ability group. The magnitude with which the test results fail to match reality is stunning. I'm somewhat fortunate in that our test scores in general are high enough to generally make this a non-issue.

Terenzio the Troll said: may I describe you what happens here in Italy? (snip) As a result, religion ... is a formal subject for 13 years of education .... the teaching includes things like history of religion, exegesis (well, simplified) and so on. For instance: they teach how Gen.1 is an edited collection of different creation myths, or they have the children read excerpts of the poem of Gilgamesh along with the story of the flood and make comparisons. ... they teach subjects like fathers of the Church or history of the various councils or the origins of the major schisms, the Reform and the counter-Reform and so on.

Dale Husband said:

Robert Byers said: New Mexico is keeping up with the New and growing public activism to demand their schools teach the truth on all subjects and so in origin subjects teach both sides as they are the common opinions in the nation. More attention, more publicity, more reaction (an old word) from a pressed establishment. God and Genesis can not be illegal in school subjects, biology/geology etc, unless the state is givcing a official opinion they are WRONG ideas. if the state does that then its breaking the separation concept it invokes to censor creationism in science classes . How is my logic wrong here? Are you guys SURE the Very Protestant/Puritan Yankees and southerners of yore really banned God and Genesis from 1700's education.?! Really!!!

You logic is wrong for this simple reason: Science is based on an empirical analysis of the universe and all the physical objects within it. It is not based on religious dogma of any kind. It's not just illegal to pervert science in publicly funded classrooms, it's UNETHICAL! Fraud has always been unethical, no matter how popular it may appear to be.

The Founding Mothers said:

Robert Byers said: God and Genesis can not be illegal in school subjects, biology/geology etc, unless the state is givcing a official opinion they are WRONG ideas... How is my logic wrong here?

What Dale said. Your logic is wrong because not only are god and the Christian interpretation of Genesis* wrong (which the State should not have a position on), they are not scientific (which the State must have a position on in reference to Science teaching standards). If they were to grant god and Genesis (pre-Peter Gabriel leaving, hopefully) classroom time, they would also have to grant equal time to all other religion based, non-scientific creation myths to avoid violating the Establishment clause. This would leave enough time for, at most, one word for each myth, considering the time that is usually devoted to the origin and diversity of species in school science classes. That is how your logic is wrong here. *Go and ask a Rabbi what Genesis means. Think he'll come to the same conclusions?

Terenzio the Troll said:

Robert Byers said: God and Genesis can not be illegal in school subjects, biology/geology etc, unless the state is givcing a official opinion they are WRONG ideas.

Well Robert, to put it in a different perspective, may I describe you what happens here in Italy? As you might know, we have an overwhelming Christian presence here (I myself am a Christian, although one that you would probably fail to reckon as such). The Italian Republic is a secular nation, which has negotiated a series of "bilateral treaties" (the term is not formally correct, but I don't know how to translate "concordato" from Italian legal jargon to English legal jargon) with the representatives of the major religions/churches present on its territory. Of course, the Catholic Church is by far the biggest of such entities, with the Assembly of Jewish Communities a distant second. As a result, religion is not illegal in our schools. On the contrary, it is a formal subject for 13 years of education (we group up the "grades" in a different way than you do, but that is OT), though one with only 1 or 2 hours per week of allotted time. If atheist parents don't like their children being fed old bronze age superstitions from infancy to puberty, they can sign a waiver and pick any from a list of alternative disciplines (stuff like civic education). Guess what? Only a few % of the parents actually do so. There are a few points in all this: 1) religion is taught in state-funded schools (which are the vast majority). Actually, children are tested for knowledge and comprehension on religion. 2) Religion is not, by any means, taught in science classes. Nobody would ever dream to do so: not because it is illegal, but simply because it would be stupid. 3) Religion is not catechism. Although the teachers have to be approved by the relevant "church" (typically, the Catholic one) and quite often are ministries of such "church", the teaching includes things like history of religion, exegesis (well, simplified) and so on. For instance: they teach how Gen.1 is an edited collection of different creation myths, or they have the children read excerpts of the poem of Gilgamesh along with the story of the flood and make comparisons. Not everything is centered around the Bible, anyhow: especially in the equivalent of your high school, they teach subjects like fathers of the Church or history of the various councils or the origins of the major schisms, the Reform and the counter-Reform and so on. Of course, with a couple of hours a week (at most), one can not expect miracles, but it is still better than nothing. While I apologize with everybody for the long OT (probably belonging to the BW), I wish to stress that I see no reason for religion AND science not to be taught in the same school. Of course not in the same class and, of course, I completely subscribe to your point of view that truth should be taught: that us why they teach that Genesis 1 is a collection of myths and that evolution is a scientific theory.

Paul Burnett said:

Terenzio the Troll said that in Italy: ...they teach how Gen.1 is an edited collection of different creation myths, or they have the children read excerpts of the poem of Gilgamesh along with the story of the flood and make comparisons.

I really want to hear from FL or Byers how they would feel about this being done in all public schools in the US. Teach the controversy!

Robert Byers said: Again however. This, or my logic, has nothing to do with science here. its all about banning ideas. The constitution and laws are not being claimed to have established only science for origin conclusions in schools. They are saying creationism is banned period. by constitution. Thats my point . First drop the illegal stuff and then make a case creationism isn't science etc. First things first.

Robert Byers said: Yes the truth must be taught. Censorship is saying something is not true in subjects where the true is the objective. Creationism is censored in America. In Canada Catholic schools are funded by the government. If they people in italy have voting rights and creationism is rejected well there you go. In North America creationism would be voted in and better. Of coarse its from the Protestant civilization that believing in the accuracy of the bible is a great and historic intellectual tradition. By the way i know there is active creationism in Italy. Surely the teaching of at least a God will make its way into the Italian schools in time. Just less legal hurdles.

Robert Byers said: Teach away. A fair hearing is what creationism wants and will gain from. Truth gains from full investigation. What is not true needs a wee bit of help from state control. The control in America has failed everywhere. Just the last walls remain. Bring down this wall of absurd censorship.

Robert Byers said: By the way i know there is active creationism in Italy.

Surely the teaching of at least a God will make its way into the Italian schools in time. Just less legal hurdles.

You are the worst sort of liar, Byers.

stevaroni said:

Terenzio the Troll said: may I describe you what happens here in Italy? (snip) As a result, religion ... is a formal subject for 13 years of education .... the teaching includes things like history of religion, exegesis (well, simplified) and so on. For instance: they teach how Gen.1 is an edited collection of different creation myths, or they have the children read excerpts of the poem of Gilgamesh along with the story of the flood and make comparisons. ... they teach subjects like fathers of the Church or history of the various councils or the origins of the major schisms, the Reform and the counter-Reform and so on.

I, for one, would really have enjoyed that class. It would have been useful. Instead, I spent my early grades in a Catholic school where they adamantly taught the literally accurate Bible, and I was eventually asked to leave because given what I was learning elsewhere in the world, I couldn't wrap my brain around how (for example) a Noachian flood could have literally happened, and the nuns refused to explain it, insisting any misunderstanding must bethe result of my faulty personality.

Dale Husband said: Sure, and let's teach astrology, holocaust denial, and homeopathy in schools too. Then education would have no meaning because there would be NO standards of right and wrong, truth or falsehood.

Dale Husband said: Sure, and let's teach astrology, holocaust denial, and homeopathy in schools too.

mrg said:

Dale Husband said: Sure, and let's teach astrology, holocaust denial, and homeopathy in schools too.

"Homeopathy"? You mean diluting science education until not a trace of it is left?

---"Creationism is censored in America"

That must be why they can't shut-up then.

---"Teach away. A fair hearing is what creationism wants and will gain from."

It has. It did. It lost. Numerous times in fact. Creationism has lost every court case and has contributed nothing in the scientific arena. Period. And with good reason. So while creationism remains just another baseless claim made by religious reality denying fruitcakes (and I would bet my space at the Holy Beer Volcano on it), it is not taught in public school science classes for the exact same reason Flat Earth isn't. Religion is illegal to teach in public schools.

SWT said:

mrg said: "Homeopathy"? You mean diluting science education until not a trace of it is left?

Of course, that's when it would be most potent!

mrg said:

SWT said:

mrg said: "Homeopathy"? You mean diluting science education until not a trace of it is left?

Of course, that's when it would be most potent!

That would be popular with the students: the less homework, the better it works.

Darth Robo said: Religion is illegal to teach in public schools.

Again however. This, or my logic, has nothing to do with grammar here. its all about banning grammar. The constitution and laws are not being claimed to have established only for grammar in schools. They are saying good grammar is banned period. by constitution. Thats my point . First drop the grammar stuff and then make a case grammar isn’t good etc. First things first.

Just for kicks, someone should add up the number of grammatical and self contradictory errors that bobby has made in this one short pseudo paragraph. You really have to work hard to get things this wrong. And this guy wants to control science education in a country he doesn't even live in!

keep diggin that hole deeper bobby boy we love it

Something similar to this is going on in Oklahoma with SB 554. It is sad to see what the 'Conservatives' do when they get a little power. In the end their agenda doesn't seem to have as much to do with helping the economy as it does in dictating their morality.

I was pleased to see how many Oklahomans reacted to the news in one of the reddest newspapers in the country. It seems that most of the people reacting to the story stand firmly behind sound science.

J. Biggs said: Something similar to this is going on in Oklahoma with SB 554.

Robert Byers said: Yes the truth must be taught. Censorship is saying something is not true in subjects where the true is the objective. Creationism is censored in America.

Stanton said:

Darth Robo said: Religion is illegal to teach in public schools.

Religion is only illegal to teach in a public school if the circumstances are inappropriate: It's perfectly fine to teach religion in a public school if it's in, say, a class about history or religion. But if the intent is to teach religion in place of a subject, i.e., teaching that science is worthless and evil if it contradicts the Bible, or that the Founding Fathers were really Christian bigots, or that using B.C.E. instead of B.C. is a crime against humanity because it's no longer Jesus-centric, or that Pi equals Three because of Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost, then yes, it's very much illegal.

Science Avenger said:

Robert Byers said: Yes the truth must be taught. Censorship is saying something is not true in subjects where the true is the objective. Creationism is censored in America.

That's because it is not true. It is not true that the universe is 6,000 years old. The stars say so. It is not true that modern life forms appeared suddenly 6,000 years ago minus a few days. The fossils say so. It is not true that there was a global flood ~3500 years ago. Ask the Chinese, Egyptians, or Babylonians. So they are using your truth standard Byers. That you are ignorant of that truth is irrelevant.

Terenzio the Troll said:

Robert Byers said: By the way i know there is active creationism in Italy.

Sadly, that is all too painfully true. We have a share of Geova Witnesses, for instance. Luckily, italian creationism strenght is nowere near the strenght of its US counterpart. We never ever had an organized political group lobbying for "equal times" or "teaching the controversy" in 66 years of republican history (nor in 150 years of united Italy, if I am not mistaken). Much to our shame, we recently had a vice-president of the National Council of Research which was a vocal creationist. At least, he was not a scientist of any kind and the position is not an elective office (he was appointed by the current administration). The real troubles, at least here in Italy, are on touchy subjects like abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia and assisted conception.

Surely the teaching of at least a God will make its way into the Italian schools in time. Just less legal hurdles.

Sorry, Robert: you must have missed some relevant parts of my previous comment.

While, in theory, I laud your tolerance of insane shites like Mr. Byers and nothing-but-shits like fl, I've reached some point where even scrolling past these pointless trolls' posts is excessively annoying.

It's your site, so your policy is law, but I cannot enjoy the many very interesting posts and exchanges here (like the informed discussion of standardized testing that is here) while shites are allowed to disrupt it with the same, same, same, same bullshit.

I'll check back in, weekly, but be leaving immediately on seeing either of these banned-everywhere-else trolls in the comments.

Thanks for your work, of course, but I hope you decide to simply ban these asshats.

tupelo said: While, in theory, I laud your tolerance of insane shites like Mr. Byers and nothing-but-shits like fl, I've reached some point where even scrolling past these pointless trolls' posts is excessively annoying. It's your site, so your policy is law, but I cannot enjoy the many very interesting posts and exchanges here (like the informed discussion of standardized testing that is here) while shites are allowed to disrupt it with the same, same, same, same bullshit. I'll check back in, weekly, but be leaving immediately on seeing either of these banned-everywhere-else trolls in the comments. Thanks for your work, of course, but I hope you decide to simply ban these asshats.

Come now. Byers provides amusement for those who enjoy mocking him, and he hardly generates an endless stream of postings. One gets the impression that what he does post represents the limit of his capability.

Public-school science teachers who want to teach 'intelligent design" alongside evolution and want to challenge the accepted scientific views about global warming would be protected under a bill introduced in the House. Rep. Tom Anderson, R-Albuquerque, said Tuesday that his House Bill 302 is not intended to promote intelligent design or creationism. When a reporter said he wanted to talk about Anderson's "evolution bill," the lawmaker replied, "I don't have an 'evolution bill.' " Anderson said, "I'm just trying to protect teachers. ... I'm trying to prevent another Galileo," a reference to the father of modern physics, who was tried during the Inquisition as a heretic. But the bill has been attacked by scientific organizations both state and national.

BILL SPONSOR SPEAKS I'm trying to prevent another Galileo,"

Also, as far as I know Galileo wasn't trying to teach his material to kids, nor was he trying to bypass the opinions those more qualified to evaluate what he was saying.

That would be popular with the students: the less homework, the better it works.

Henry J said: Also, as far as I know Galileo wasn't trying to teach his material to kids, nor was he trying to bypass the opinions those more qualified to evaluate what he was saying.

Sylvilagus said: But the high score does tell you, if it was earned honestly, that at least this person had the reading comprehension, intermediate term memory, problem solving ability, and test taking ability to do well on the thing.)

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Sylvilagus said: But the high score does tell you, if it was earned honestly, that at least this person had the reading comprehension, intermediate term memory, problem solving ability, and test taking ability to do well on the thing.)

I got a higher math SAT score than my wife. Eventually she became an actuary, and I write books and articles about religion, the Celts, and linguistics. Drives her friggin' nuts. I'm not better at math than her, of course, I'm better at taking standardized tests. With a little training it's possible too eliminate all but two of most math answers. Do the equation and take the closest answer. The worst you can do is a 50/50 chance which isn't, of course, how the tests are normalized. So the problem was that she thought the test was there to determine mathematical knowledge and ability. Silly girl.

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Sylvilagus said: But the high score does tell you, if it was earned honestly, that at least this person had the reading comprehension, intermediate term memory, problem solving ability, and test taking ability to do well on the thing.)

I got a higher math SAT score than my wife. Eventually she became an actuary, and I write books and articles about religion, the Celts, and linguistics. Drives her friggin' nuts. I'm not better at math than her, of course, I'm better at taking standardized tests. With a little training it's possible too eliminate all but two of most math answers. Do the equation and take the closest answer. The worst you can do is a 50/50 chance which isn't, of course, how the tests are normalized. So the problem was that she thought the test was there to determine mathematical knowledge and ability. Silly girl.