Kids are not being taught to think for themselves in PA

Categories: News, Politics
Comments: 21 Comments
Published on: December 20, 2005

Well it is a victory of narrow mindedness. A US court has ruled it is unconstitutional to mention that some one may not believe what is taught in schools. In this case it is evolution. All it was, was a two minute statement to the student that there are those out there that do not believe in evolution, that is only 2 minutes out of 1 day that is 7 hours long and there are 180 of those days. (that is 75600 minutes, or 2.6455026455026455026455026455026e-5% of the school year and for those of you that don’t know scientific notation that is .000026455026455026455026455026455026%)
I have seen some liberals say that people that don’t believe in evolution can never do well in any of the science fields. I will say that, that statement is wrong. I don’t believe in evolution. And I have a job that I like as a programmer at CMU. Correct me if I am wrong but is not computer programming considered to be in the science field?
Also going back to when I was in high school, I remember that in my 10 grade bio class when the subject came up, I just asked some questions about it, I did not even bring up ID. The teacher could not answer them. Ok no big deal but her “answer” was bad, and it was, “because I said so”. And the other students got on my case after class saying “she is right because she is the teacher”. To that I say, oh ya, just because some one is a paid teacher does not make them right, back in the Middle Ages I am sure there paid teachers that taught that the world was flat but they were not right just because they were the teacher.
Well these students will be not be prepaid to enter the world, were every one does not believe in the same thing, they are being taught now that every one has to believe the same thing (or so says the state) and those that don’t believe the same thing the state believes are to be discriminated against. What ever happened to the liberals “tolerance” for people that are differentiate.

21 Comments
  1. KGB says:

    Intelligent design is a religious belief. It is not science. It should not be presented as science.

    That Pat Robertson told the citizens of Dover that they shouldn’t depend on God’s help because they turned their backs to Him proves this is, indeed, a religious issue.

    As for computer science… well, as Richard Feynman said, “If you’ve got to add ‘science’ to the end of a field, then it ain’t one.”

  2. It was not being presented at all, all that was said in the statement is not every one belives in evolution, so how is that presenting it as science, heck tell me how they are even teaching it.

  3. KGB says:

    Evolution is a scientific theory.

    Intelligent design is a religious belief. As such, it shouldn’t be presented at all.

    Apples and oranges.

  4. So it should be accepted on faith and not questioned??? is that what you are saying? sounds like evolution is a religion also, what is wrong with a short statement saying that not every one belives this, is that not what sceince was about?

  5. KGB says:

    Listen to yourself.

    Intelligent design is what must be “accepted on faith”. That’s why it can’t be taught as science. It isn’t a acientific theory at all. It’s the based belief in a supernatural being. How can that possibly be evaluated on a scientific basis? It can’t, because it exists solely as a matter of faith.

    Should schools also teach that the earth is flat and the center of the universe because that’s what some religions believe?

    I respect your faith and religious beliefs. Just don’t try to call them science and teach them to my children.

  6. And what is wrong with what I am saying. And ID was not being taught in school, science or other, just they were saying not every one accepts evolution, what is wrong with that?

  7. Oh ya could you anser my question — “must evolution be accepted on faith and not questioned”
    I say this becuase the rulling was that you could not say anything that calls into question evolution. And see my original post about what happend when I was in High School.

  8. KGB says:

    What is wrong with teaching a religion belief as a scientific fact?

    Sigh. Never mind.

    I’m off to offer a sacrifice to Seagate, the God of magnetic media…

  9. Show me where they were teaching ID, they just said some people reject evolution and belive in ID

  10. Again in that statement they are sueing over, it does not teach ID, it only says that not every one belives in evolution and some people belive in ID. As I said show me where they are teaching ID, that lawsuit is only over them saying that some people belive in ID, it not teaching ID.

  11. KGB says:

    I suggest you actually read the court ruling.

  12. You mean where it says that you may not call into question evolution?

  13. KGB says:

    Where in the world are you getting that from?

    Again, read the court’s ruling.

  14. The Judge makes a quick jump and attacks Christians in that ruling, no where in the statement do they talk about the Bible, but the judge says that that statement is telling students to meditate on the Bible. The only book they talk about is that they have in the library a book called “Of People and Pandas” I will admit I don’t know what that book says, but how many HS students are going to study something that is not required for class? The judge says that the statement says that it is a religious statement, how, what religion does it indorse. Heck even some atheists believe in some form of ID, and there are some odd balls out there that think that life on this planet was put here by aliens, how are those disallowed by the statement. And what is wrong with the opt-out part that parents can do. Sex ed has opt-outs, should we stop sex ed, based on the opt-out since “students whose parents do not care to have them exposed to it” (or should I talk about the 9 circuit court ruling on the sex ed to first graders where the parents were not notified about the sex questions)
    Also why would the School district need to put in the FAQ about how it is not religion, because every time some one says ID, the left (and the ACLU) screams bloody murder about how Christians are trying to make Christian a state religion, again ID in of itself does not say Christians, heck if you want you can think of FSM for ID. And using letters to the editor that came from outside people, that is just stupid, do does that mean if there is a murder trial and I write a letter to the editor on how I think the person is guilty that is evidence against that person?
    Section 4 of the ruling is moot, since it was not taught the question of is ID science or not is not relevant at all, again they were not teaching it.
    Also the ruling seam to be also a personal attack on Baksa, Baksa was not the only one on the board. But the ruling Baksa this Baksa that.
    The statement now talks about ID, but they have passed their statement as to not limit it to only ID, how is that forcing religion, come up with another explanation, and if it gets a reasonable acceptance then it might be included in the statement.
    I will admit the board might have rushed the decision.
    I will say it again they were not teaching ID, and any one that thinks they were, is jumping to a conclusion.
    And finally where did I get the, ?you can not question evolution? from the ruling see F:1:r

  15. KGB says:

    I don’t even know where to begin, so I won’t.

    Have a Merry Christmas, Michael.

  16. Max says:

    Wow, I stop going to the site and all hell breaks lose! Mike, the issue of ID is very simple. Evolution is a science. That means that it’s created and modified by observations and using the scientific method. It’s by no means complete or even completely correct. ID’s flaw is that it begins with an invalid assumption – some intelligent being started the ball rolling. I think of ID as a hypothesis to evolution, however it cannot be proven (unless you can prove …or disprove… that there’s an intelligent being). So since it’s a hypothesis that cannot be proved in a scientific way, ID is not science. That is the reason why ID should not be replacing evolution as a study of science. That said, I do believe that ID should be taught in school as a means to open peoples minds to other possibilities – I’m all open for that (unlike some ID people that don’t want evolution taught, bit of an expected hypocritical double standard there). In either case, I think this is a massive embarassment. This is yet another example of the world laughing at us while we’re arguing about religion and ‘Merry Christmas’ while they’re funding research and development. Unfortunately, it seems that those people that are pushing these types of ideas would rather be morally right while this country goes down the drain. After all, don’t we all get rewarded in heaven? I’d rather focus on the here and now. It’s great that there’s debate about other views, but back it up with science. I don’t see how they can prove that there was an intelligent being that created all this without discussing existance of god… Unless they found a really cool huge skeleton of a bearded white guy (because like the bible pictures show, most of the planet’s humans are bearded white men), there’s really no discussion =]

  17. Max, I am not saying teach ID in the science class, I am saying make the students aware of the the people(or “fat face fundies” as Mirecki would call us) that don’t belive in evolution. I don’t see what is wrong with that, just let the students be made aware that they will some day in the real world will have to deal with the few that reject evolution.

  18. Max says:

    Seems like we’re in agreement. Unfortunately thats not what they want. They want to teach ID *instead* of evolution. In the grand view of things, this country has to teach things that are going to be judged by the whole world. That’s the core of the problem – people want to replace teaching evolution in the classroom with ID and that is wrong. Also I think transferring credits from ID to science should not be allowed, since ID is not science.

  19. Well the case in Dover was over this
    The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
    Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
    Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
    As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

    you are thinking of Kansas where they want to teach ID, Dover (and that is where I was talking about) it was over that statement that they wanted to be read before covering evolution.

  20. Max says:

    Either way ID has no scientific basis, unlike Darwin’s theory. Agreed that it’s not complete, however globally, it’s a set standard. Math, physics, and quantum mechanics aren’t “completed” yet, it’s all a growing field. I agree that students should be exposed to alternative ideas, but ones that are based on scientific principles, not religious overtones.

Welcome , today is Friday, June 23, 2017