School board approves measure allowing teachers to challenge

Post Reply New Topic

School board approves measure allowing teachers to challenge evolution.

The state’s top school board Wednesday approved procedures for residents who object to materials that challenge the teaching of evolution in public school science classes.

The rules, which were praised by evolution critics, stem from a law approved last year by the Legislature.

Backers say the law is needed to give science teachers more freedom to challenge traditional theories, including Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Critics contend the measure, called the Louisiana Science Education Act, is aimed at injecting religious themes into public schools.

The statute allows science teachers to use supplemental materials, in addition to state-issued textbooks, to teach evolution and other topics.

“What’s left hanging are the procedures when a complaint is raised,” said Scott Norton, assistant state superintendent for student and school performance.

The department recommended that any complaints undergo an initial review by a three-member panel named by the agency, then go to the state board for a final decision.

But Dale Bayard, of Sulphur, chairman of the committee that tackled the issue, changed that and the committee went along.

Under Bayard’s change, two reviewers will be named by the department to review the science materials in question as well as one reviewer each named by the challenger, the school and the publisher.

The five-member panel will determine whether the materials:

* Promote any religious doctrine, which is banned by the state law.
* Are scientifically sound.
* Are appropriate for the grade.

Bayard’s committee approved the complaint process without arguments.

Since other board members were there too, committee approval on Wednesday is tantamount to endorsement by the full state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, which is expected today.

Gene Mills, president of the Louisiana Family Forum Action, praised the rules and said Bayard’s plan was better than the department’s recommendation.

“Arguably this is the closest thing that would mimic due process,” Mills said in a telephone interview after the meeting. “That seems equitable to me.”

The Louisiana Family Forum, a key backer of the law, says it promotes traditional values.

No one criticized the proposed process for handling complaints.

Barbara Forrest of Holden, a professor and co-founder of the LA Coalition for Science, said in a telephone interview after the meeting that she was not aware that a committee of the state board was discussing the issue on Wednesday.

Forrest, who has criticized the law, called Bayard a point man for the Louisiana Family Forum.

Earlier this year, the state board approved policies that govern the law.

One says that materials used in science classrooms “shall not promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.”

Under the rules approved Wednesday, people bothered by materials in a science classroom could file a complaint with the state Department of Education.

A hearing would then be set where each side could tell its story. Reviewers, who are supposed to be experts, can ask questions.

The five reviewers would file reports on whether the materials violate the rules. The department can also make a recommendation.

The state board would then make a final decision.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/595729 ... wAll=y&c=y
_______________________________________________________________

This is beyond absurd and should be taken to the Supreme Court...where an ACLU lawyer when you need one?

I don't really understand why evolution is such a big deal being taught in schools. I went to public school all my life and I don't even remember what we even discussed about it. Maybe that's more of a statement to how well public schools teach kids though. It's not something you learn about more than a few days honestly.

Personally I don't find creationism and evolution mutually exclusive anyways.

I just feel sorry for the kids whose parents are so hopelessly out of touch with reality.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

On the bright side, at least we are finally coming to the understanding that science and religion are indeed contradictory. It can be confusing for a student who has been taught creationism their whole life to come into school and learn (perhaps for the first time) about evolution. People are trying desparately to hold onto both science and religion in spite of logic. A choice needs to be made. School is an academic institution and should remain that way. I wouldn't expect to disect a frog at church. I find the idea of abandoning the scientific method at school rather frightening.

Somewhat relevant sidenote: I used to hate Biology in Jr High, so I claimed to have conflicting and deeply religious beliefs in order to get out of several classes. I was quite a piece of work back in the day. Anyway, I tend to be a little skeptical of students suddenly saying "God doesn't want me to learn science." We should not underestimate the manipulative capabilities of out youth.

I don't think it is the kids saying it, though, it seems to be the parents who want to indoctrinate their kids with their own crackpot beliefs.

The issue is that there is no valid scientific theory that challenges evolution currently. And given that ID is not considered science but pseudoscience, shouldn't that be enough reason to reject said notion, or is that actually being debated there?
I believe a more proper question is that if teachers should have the freedom to teach alternative science along with mainstream science in science classes. And wether that could be troublesome for future carriers for biologists, astrobiologists, etc.


well, creationism is a religious belief, and it seems that the issue is about promoting that belief as an alternative scientific theory, because many conservative christians feel uncomfortable with evolution.


Anything can be scientifically sound, the issue is wether that is actually valid. It should be rather * Are scientifically valid.

There's also the matter of allowing people who mostly just hold a bachelor's degree in a general science field to comment on a field that is very specialized and is beyond their education background and their own studies.

Remember, this is in regard to high school and grammar school teachers.

Just as long as they hold both views to the same objective proof...

There's nothing wrong with teachers saying "These are the two top theories," and before anyone says diffrently they are the top two theories. If someone calls for tolerance and understanding, they should be open to tolerance of others too.

I was surprised at the comment by number 5 when he said Science and Religion are contradictory. I've always held the view that Science can sometimes explain the things religion tells about. Is it that far of a stretch to say that evolution was the method used to create the world? Disease used to be see as the devils work untill the discovery of bacteria and viruses, which could have been described as the vehicle of the devil at the time. It seems people here hold the view that Science is the end all be all of knowledge. That there is no room for other views. I think that is a dangerous way of seeing science. Yes, those other views may not be supported by science, but that doesn't mean they should be automatically shunned. Perhaps a few here put a little to much faith into science. Interesting as they are usually the ones condemning those who but to much faith in religion.

All this being said I put more stock in Evolution then ID.

I wonder how many teachers teaching science related classes even care about this. Many schools are so under funded, the bulk of their income goes toward salaries and maintenance, leaving very little for classroom supplies. In some schools, students do not even have their own text books to bring home. Classrooms have one set of class books, which stay in the room for everyone to use. Some classes send home disc copies of books, but many do not. Science classes are greatly effected by this, as they need larger budgets than other classes. Last school year, I overheard a chemestry teacher saying the new school where he was working had stuck him in a mobile classroom with no running water or supplies. He was wondering how he was going to teach a chemestry lab with no water or materials. I am thinking he might not give a crap about the philosophy involved, but rather where in world he is going to round up a portable eye wash.

I say let the kids evaluate the theories and let them decide what to believe fit themselves. They might even come to a third conclusion that is a synthesis of the 2 theories and believe that God had a hand in th the natural processes.

There is something wrong because one isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis. It's merely a postulation with no kind of evidence provided to even start to support it beyond mythical epic literature from the bronze age.

Challenging evolution can mean several things:

1. Presenting empirical evidence that the hypothesis of natural selection is either incorrect or incomplete. That is a kosher challenge. The way a scientific theory is falsified is to show it makes predictions that are empirically incorrect. Or a theory can be shown to be incomplete or insufficient if there are factual conditions that the theory cannot explain.

2. Presenting an alternative theory that is either creationist or crypto-creationist to wit Intelligent Design. Judge Jones shot down Intelligent Design in the famouse Dover PA Trial.

#1 is cool. #2 is illegal.

ruveyn

Just to refresh some of you kiddies:


http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm


"A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur. It is a basis for predicting future events or discoveries. Theories may be modified as new information is gained. This definition of a theory is in sharp contrast to colloquial usage, where people say something is “just a theory,” thereby intending to imply a great deal of uncertainty."


Where has the testing been for I.D.?

Oh yeah...

THERE'S BEEN NONE.

It's not a theory.

Agreed...but this is in Louisiana. The complaints are all from undereducated religious morons who are afraid that a science class will undermine their kids' belief in a great big invisible boogie man in the sky.

The second "theory" is not a scientific theory at all, as was establish in the Dover PA Trial. It is Intelligent Design, which is crypto-creationist bulls*t. It is a religionist viewpoint which is illegal in a tax funded public school. It violates the first amendment.

Judge Jones, a conservative republican and a Christian Gentleman excoriated the Discovery Institute for trying to sneak Creationist garbage into a public school.

ruveyn