Here's a persuasive argument for keeping just REAL science in the classroom. Originally posted at talk.origins, the author concisely points out the hypocrisy of ignoring scientists when it comes to science curriculum:
Science protects dogs, but why should it protect kids' minds?
Your dog's foods and drugs have to be vetted by scientific methods, for your sake and for their protection.
But hey, why should science be used to vet the information taught to children in science classes? I mean, why should children's minds be protected from untested ideas using at least the same standards used for dog food? Sure, science is proper to keeping dogs' lives safe and whole, but children's minds aren't worthy of any such protections.
No, tested ideas, and ideas which have either failed the test, or carefully avoided tests altogether (as ID at least attempts to do), are all equal for teaching to children. Their minds can be filled with any kind of rot and abracadabra, but we'll sue if you put scientifically unproven ingredients in our dogs' food.
So yeah, it's all science for our dogs. Florida's kids? Get real, we'll tell them anything in science class. It's all the same to us whether those ideas have passed scientific tests or not.
A child's mind is not such a terrible thing to waste after all. What is put into it hardly merits the same scrutiny that the food put into a dog's belly does.
And you know, ID is all about the children - treating their minds as more expendable than our dogs.
Your dog's foods and drugs have to be vetted by scientific methods, for your sake and for their protection.
But hey, why should science be used to vet the information taught to children in science classes? I mean, why should children's minds be protected from untested ideas using at least the same standards used for dog food? Sure, science is proper to keeping dogs' lives safe and whole, but children's minds aren't worthy of any such protections.
No, tested ideas, and ideas which have either failed the test, or carefully avoided tests altogether (as ID at least attempts to do), are all equal for teaching to children. Their minds can be filled with any kind of rot and abracadabra, but we'll sue if you put scientifically unproven ingredients in our dogs' food.
So yeah, it's all science for our dogs. Florida's kids? Get real, we'll tell them anything in science class. It's all the same to us whether those ideas have passed scientific tests or not.
A child's mind is not such a terrible thing to waste after all. What is put into it hardly merits the same scrutiny that the food put into a dog's belly does.
And you know, ID is all about the children - treating their minds as more expendable than our dogs.
The author is referring to Florida's misnamed "Academic Freedom Act." Based on a model act written by the Discovery Institute (DI), the bills (HB 1483 & SB 2692) would protect teachers who teach creationism from legal prosecution.
Additionally, from the bills (courtesy of the DI boilerplate):
The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution.
Unfortunately for the DI, to "hold a position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution" is quite different from "showing mastery of the concepts of biological or chemical evolution."
The National Science Education Standards - written by scientists and experts in science curriculum - make clear distinctions between facts, theories, hypotheses, and beliefs. On the other hand, if an organization is trying to prevent true critical thinking, they'll purposely muddy those differences. In the DI's post-modernist world, all opinions have equal rights regardless of the evidence. Bills like these get passed when scientists' voices are shouted down by anti-science legislators and lobbyists.
Florida legislators need to sit up and pay attention to the experts in the field instead of rolling over for the anti-science lobby.
posted by Cheryl Shepherd-Adams
