What's Become Of US - Per Mother Jones - Oklahoma Law To Not Allow "F" For Students Claiming

[TheMastersNemesis]

that Adam and Eve had pet dinosaurs in science class. If they lived with them I am sure they were able to ride their T-Rex around.

[OKNancy]

1. for those who would like to read the article

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/oklahoma-hr1674-science-evolution-climate-change

My comment: it won't pass. None of these nutty bills have in the past.

[TheMastersNemesis]

2. These Days I Am Not Too Sure About Anything Anymore.

[OKNancy]

4. me either.

I have a love hate relationship with my state. The vast majority of the people here are wonderful, the cost of living is low and the climate is great 10 months out of the year... but the politicians here are just dreadful.

[G_j]

3. & The Flintstones will become learning material

the kids will love it!

[AZ Progressive]

5. "We create our own reality" - Karl Rove

[Lurker Deluxe]

6. I look this the other way

I would encourage a student to write such a paper.

Research it, prove it, make your case. Even if factually incorrect, if the paper is well written why should the grade be determined simply on that? If the only thing you can do is agree with the "right" side of the issue why write a paper at all.

[LondonReign2]

8. This isn't an English class

If it was, your point about a well written paper might be applicable.

It is science. You are trying to master facts, not write in grammatically correct sentences, though that might be a bonus.

If I'm to learning about gravity, you think I should get an A if I write a nice paper claiming gravity is really caused by hurricane winds pushing us down?

[Lurker Deluxe]

12. Well

Well, I dunno. If you were to attempt to write a paper supporting your theory and had to research it, do you think you would learn something? Is that what we are trying to do, teach young people to think?

I hear "critical thinking" around here all the time.

So, if some young person is being fed that creationism is the only way at home and they go to school and the teacher says you can't write about that because it is wrong does that change that young persons mind? Their parents will not just say they won't let you write about it because of -whatever lame ass excuse-.

Let them defend their opinion. I am certainly not saying they should get an A, but does it automatically deserve an F?

[WinkyDink]

22. This isn't strictly about "method of argument."

[ismnotwasm]

24. Well yes. It's utter bullshit

There's all kinds of pseudoscience on the web. A kid could find enough to justify it and learn exactly nothing. It has nothing to do with science or reality.

[theKed]

41. Yes, I believe it does

Writing an essay (in Science, not in, say, English) is an exercise to do a number a couple of things. First to show knowledge and ability to present facts. Second, to teach the student how to research scientific topics. Where to look, how to parse that information, how to differentiate between speculation and accepted fact. If that job is done well, it includes how to source and vet reliable sources on the topic. If a child goes to Science class and hands in a paper illustrating dinosaurs and humans co-existing, they clearly have failed in an essential facet of the researching portion, and deservedly fail.

[Arugula Latte]

9. Really? Facts don't matter in science classes anymore?

Ancient desert mythology is now a legit source?! Wow! Think of all those people wasting their time in "hard" classes like organic chemistry and electrical engineering! Who knew they could just quote some silly fiction and call it good?

[LondonReign2]

11. Well, you see

Lurker Deluxe loves guns, hates taxes, and likes to defend Republican ideas. It is no wonder facts don't really matter.

[Lurker Deluxe]

13. That's it?

That is your idea of a discussion?

You remind me of the drunk redneck at the end of the bar, "don't listen to him, he's a liberal."

[LondonReign2]

25. When those (pro-guns, anti-tax, pro-creationism) are your ideas

there isn't much point in discussion.

[NaturalHigh]

30. Yeah, I forgot...

We only like to discuss ideas and concepts that we REALLY like, the approved, hip, and cool ones.

[LondonReign2]

37. You know what else we don't discuss?

We don't discuss how the earth is flat. We don't discuss the spontaneous generation of mice in old piles of rags. We don't discuss how the sun revolves around the earth. We don't discuss the latest alchemical techniques for turning iron into gold.

So yeah, if you think kids should be allowed to substitute the non-sense of creationism for actual scientific facts and get an A for regurgitating religious fantasy, then you are probably in the wrong place.

[Lurker Deluxe]

15. Uhhh

Pretty sure we are not talking about college level classes here.

And you still have to learn the material to pass the tests to pass the class.

We are talking about a research paper, why not let someone research what they want and attempt to defend that position?

They may learn something.

[Arugula Latte]

16. A "research" paper where your source is the Bible?

Why not pass off a "research" paper using the Epic of Gilgamesh or Greek or Roman or Norse mythology as your source? For that matter why not just use "Twilight" or "Harry Potter"? It's all fiction -- not tested nor provable. But I guess that's beyond your understanding somehow.

[Lurker Deluxe]

17. I guess it changed alot

When I was in school I could not cite a single source to write a paper, so if I just cite one source it's all good?

Does a teacher no longer set out the objectives of this paper? Write a paper on the theory of evolution.

Evolution is true, my science book says so = A?

Man made climate change is true, my science book says so = A?

That teaches what? Would not a good teacher simply challenge what the student writes, "hey, you should read this."

Why the condescension? Beyond my understanding? Do you not understand that to learn you must challenge facts? Or is it all just indoctrination, kinda like religion?

[Arugula Latte]

18. You are trying to put religion on equal footing with science.

Religion is fiction and has nothing to do with what should be taught in a science class. Science stands outside of and above all ancient superstitions and supernatural beliefs based on nothing but "faith" (which, as Twain pointed out, is "believing what you know ain't so.&quot Science constantly tests itself. Religion is man-made idiocy based on fear and ignorance.

What credible sources would you site to "challenge" evolutionary fact? Some snake handler preacher who believes Jesus rode a dinosaur (if he even acknowledges that dinosaurs existed).

By the way, evolution has been observed in human life spans. Look up the classic case of the peppered moth in Industrial Revolution England, for example. No person with more than a couple of brain cells to rub together would "challenge" evolution. It's proven scientific fact, as intrinsic to the field as the discovery of gravity or the acceptance of the "theory" of the rotation of the Earth around the Sun and not vice versa as religion would have had us believe had science not come along to kick the primitive beliefs of primitive people into the dustbin of history.

Wow, I can't believe I'm even having this discussion on DU. I'm thinking you took a wrong turn somewhere in cyberspace. Enjoy your stay.

[Lurker Deluxe]

19. Isn't that the point?

I am not putting religion on any footing, I am attempting to have a rational conversation.

"Science constantly tests itself"

Exactly, it is a constant test, and it will survive some twit writing a paper that contradicts it. It is a learning tool, it is discovery.

I am not even beginning to disagree with the known facts, that is not even the point. The point is, exactly the opposite, let someone attempt to challenge the known facts ... exactly true, where would you find credible sources? How would you challenge evolution? You can't. But, go ahead and try.

The source also cites "man made climate change", can this also not be challenged? I am thinking you and I differ on simple matters of how a person learns. I would submit that by attempting to challenge something you learn alot more about it than to simply agree with it. It is very difficult to defend a position that simply can not be challenged, to be able to defend a fact you must know why it is a fact. When presented with that very question later in life will the student who attempted to refute a scientific fact be better able to defend it than the person who just agreed that is was true?

It seems that DU is not really a "discussion board" as it were, more like a purity test. Disagree with someone and attempt to have an intelligent conversation and get "enjoy your stay".

[Arugula Latte]

20. DU is intended to be closed-group liberal discussion board,

not a mixed political forum or a forum for rightwing bullshit. There are plenty of those out there.

[Lurker Deluxe]

21. ok

So, because I disagree with a topic, it is rightwing bullshit?

That is your grand finally?

Your wrong, you right wing troll. Is I not liberal enough for you? I never did get the final answer on all the positions one needs to hold to be "a true liberal". Perhaps there is a Scotsman around here who can write them down for me.

Nice. You wins.

LOL

[LondonReign2]

26. Lots of people here are happy to have rational discussions

and many people here violently disagree with one another. However, when you constantly spout RW bullshit you are going to get called on it.

Creationism is a joke. It has no factual or sceintific basis. Science classes are about facts. Yet here you are, making the statement that a student who refuses to learn the actual facts and instead "researches" a bunch of pseduoscientific non-sense should somehow get a pass.

If you think 2+2 = 5, you fail. If you think the boiling point of water is 167F degrees, you fail. If you try to say Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs, you fail.

Then you act all hurt and disbelieving because we don't want to debate RW stupidity.

[Lurker Deluxe]

42. I'm not hurt ... I can hold my own.

Pretty sure the only person here who is calling names and implying someone else's integrity is you.

It's all good, I'm a liberal in Texas, I can hold my own with people who do nothing but name call instead of debate issue, that is an old and true right wing tactic. Attack the person, not the idea, which is pretty much what you have done in this entire "debate".

If I think 2+2=5 I fail? Really, pretty sure in advanced mathematics people attempt to disprove "truths" all the time, then again it is "math theory" and if you would really like to go in that direction I would be happy to. Math is based on the assumption of definition, what is one? If you can not define one, how do you know what one and one are?

Again, I would be willing to apply the same thing to the boiling point of water? Where is it 212? On Earth, or the moon? Are there no changes that can be made to atmosphere (pressure) that can change that point? Does water boil in space or does it simply change forms? That is what papers in science are about. If the only way a science paper can pass is if agrees with the "known facts" what the hell is the point of writing the paper?

The OP points to a article that says because a paper is written on certain subjects it does not merit an automatic F, an automatic F. Does not say that it still can not fail, just that is does not fail because of the subject matter. Science class is not about facts, science in and of itself is the challenging of theory. It is not called the fact of evolution.

There are no facts. The latest experiment in the Higgs boson particle could very well lead to new discovery that could lead to some theories of physics being proven false. Again, there are no facts.

There is no right answer. The theory of evolution is not just natural selection, it can be challenged by alternate theories which include mutation or genetic drift ... and yes, intelligent design. If the class was studying Darwin and the paper's objective was to challenge his theory of natural selection why would the postulation of intelligent design fail automatically?

Don't be all hurt ... you're getting owned, but it's ok.

Rene Descartes walks into a bar and asks for a drink. The bartender replies, "you're already drunk". Rene replies, "I am not", and disappears.

[LondonReign2]

43. Holy crap, really?

"It is not called the fact of evolution."

Oh boy, this one again.

"The theory of evolution is not just natural selection, it can be challenged by alternate theories which include mutation or genetic drift ... and yes, intelligent design."

Nope, you are simply dead wrong. Creationism, by its very nature, is neither provable nor unprovable as it has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Sorry, can't help you. Good luck with your quest to promote Creationism.

[Lurker Deluxe]

44. What part of it do you not get?

I love your dismissal. You are the final word?

You are dead wrong. Evolution, by it's very nature, is neither provable nor unprovable ... don't you get that?

Nothing is. Nothing.

Sorry, I can not help you. Good luck with your quest to deny that theories are challenged every day.

Dismissed because you think I am attempting to promote creationism, which btw, why do you capitalize? God fearing person are you?

[LondonReign2]

45. Well no, not really

"Pretty sure the only person here who is calling names...Attack the person, not the idea, which is pretty much what you have done in this entire "debate"."

Nope. I've called the ideas you espouse RW bullshit. But called you names? Not so much.


"If I think 2+2=5 I fail? Really, pretty sure in advanced mathematics people attempt to disprove "truths" all the time, then again it is "math theory""

You should definitely go forth with this. Have your child answer the 2+2 question with "5". Do some calculations at work using 2+2 = 5. After the teacher gives your child an F, your boss sends your work back to you, or your customer fires you you can tell them they have the wrong assumption of definition.


"If the class was studying Darwin and the paper's objective was to challenge his theory of natural selection why would the postulation of intelligent design fail automatically?"

Because "The Invisible Sky Wizard Done It" isn't a testable hypothesis. I don't think you understand scientific method, I think the door you are looking for is the one down the hall labeled "Theology".

[Lurker Deluxe]

46. Easy enough

Easy enough, guy walks into the shop and needs a repair performed on a cylinder. Shop rate is $125 an hour. Cost will be time and material. There is no material costs and I performed the work in four hours, two of those hours were outside of normal working hours.

2 hours regular time + two hours overtime = 2 man hours + 2 man hours X 1.5 = five man hours.

Hours worked = 4
Hours billed = 5

Bill the customer $625. My boss has no trouble with my math.

Definition.

Nothing is a testable hypothesis to dispute a theory, it's f'n theoritical. I completely understand scientific method, I'm pretty sure I am in the right place.

[LondonReign2]

47. Fail

2+2 <> 2+2*1.5

Your grade is F

On a related note, Creationism <> science

[NaturalHigh]

32. Don't worry about it.

Most of the posters hate on you for posting anything other than the group-think, but occasionally a rational discussion can be had. It's true that any dissent is met with hostility, though.

[WinkyDink]

23. I'm still trying to figure out how dinosaurs evolved, and why they never did again.

[NaturalHigh]

29. Actually, the Bible is often cited as a source.

It's a valuable source for ancient beliefs, literature, and when combined with other sources, language. BTW - I was a teacher. This is hardly a new concept.

I'm not quite sure why you are so fired up about this particular issue.

[Arugula Latte]

31. Are you serious? For a freaking SCIENCE class?

You think ancient mythology from a primitive desert people is legitimate source for science? Really?

We're not talking humanities or social studies, this is about undermining science in favor of religious idiocy.

[NaturalHigh]

33. I didn't say anything about a science class. Neither did you.

You said "A "research" paper where your source is the Bible?" I replied that the Bible is often used as a source.

What's your problem exactly? Do you just not like anybody who sees a different side of the discussion?

[Arugula Latte]

35. Uh, FYI, the OP is about legislation affecting science classes.

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here tonight.

I am done with this thread.

Fuck it. Let's all just embrace anti-intellectualism in our schools and bow to the Fundy Agenda.

[NaturalHigh]

36. Yeah, I read it. I replied to it.

It seems to me that you were just here to belittle one particular poster or to pick a fight. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

BTW, I'm from Oklahoma. Even though I would hope it's clear that I'm against this bill (and know for a certainty that it will never get out of committee), feel free to make fun if it will make you feel better.

Free speech isn't just for ideas we agree with. The right AND the left have a problem with that.

[LondonReign2]

38. LOL

"Free speech isn't just for ideas we agree with."

I love this technique of claiming that people disagreeing with you are someone denying your right to free speech. I don't think you have a very good grasp on the concept.

[el_bryanto]

7. I was thinking this was kind of a non story but this quote . . .

HB 1674 goes further than a companion bill under consideration in the state Senate by explicitly protecting students, teachers, and schools from being penalized for subscribing to alternative theories. It does, however, say that children may still be tested on widely accepted theories such as anthropogenic climate change. "Students can't say because I don't believe in this, I don't want to learn it," Blackwell says. "They have to learn it in order to look at the weaknesses."

That's basically telling teachers to teach that evolution is false doctrine.

Bryant

[Solly Mack]

10. Because facts are dangerous and must be avoided.

Stated another way, students could make untestable, faith-based claims in science classes without fear of receiving a poor mark.

[elehhhhna]

14. also, too, one should mock math

as it is of the devil, as well

[NaturalHigh]

28. I warned you. Didn't I warn you?

That chalk was forged by Lucifer's own hand.

(Obscure Simpsons Reference)

[NaturalHigh]

27. Let's all remain calm.

Yes, this is crazy, but it will never get out of committee. I know my beloved state. As a life-long Baptist, I can assure you that even the Baptists don't want this, no matter how long this guy served with the Baptist Council.

[tarheelsunc]

34. All in the name of the Constitution, I am sure

The Republicans, the supreme defenders of the Constitution that they are, are conveniently forgetting the First Amendment. Now, when a Democrat even brings part of the Second into question, they cry foul. Bunch of hypocrites...

[RZM]

39. I too will not aid a starving T-Rex n/t

[NoPasaran]

40. It's been a while ssince I read the Bible

But I don't recall any mention of dinosaurs.