| Michigan Science Curriculum; We want your feedback...NOT | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 13 2006, 06:41 AM (3,019 Views) | |
| NFarquharson | Sep 13 2006, 06:41 AM Post #1 |
|
Principal
|
From the Detroit Free Press: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article.../609130370/1008 Published: September 13. 2006 3:00AM Michigan Lawmakers get more time to weigh in on science standards September 13, 2006 BY TIM MARTIN ASSOCIATED PRESS LANSING -- State lawmakers will get more time to weigh in on what the state's public schools science curriculum should be and how it should approach the teaching of evolution under an agreement reached Tuesday. The state Board of Education agreed to delay adopting new science guidelines -- part of Michigan's new high school graduation standards -- until its October meeting. That gives lawmakers a couple of extra weeks to present suggestions to the state board, which has the final say on what the curriculum should be. State Superintendent Mike Flanagan told the board that his recommendations for the science curriculum would not change. But he said it's an important part of the process to give lawmakers time to make their suggestions to the board. The law that called for legislative input on the curriculum standards did not specify how the comments from lawmakers is supposed to be gathered. The delay was granted after the state board received letters requesting more time from Republican leaders on legislative education committees, Rep. Brian Palmer of Romeo and Sen. Wayne Kuipers of Holland. "We have had a good relationship with them, and we want to continue having a good relationship," said board President Kathleen Straus, a Democrat. The motion to delay action on the science curriculum passed by a 6-2 vote. Elizabeth Bauer and Marianne Yared McGuire, both Democrats, voted against it. Critics of the delayed vote, including a representative from the American Civil Liberties Union, said some Republican lawmakers are trying to weaken state standards to allow some instruction about intelligent design in science classes. Intelligent design's proponents hold that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms. Some want science teachers to teach that Darwin's theory of evolution is not a fact and has gaps. Shelli Weisberg, ACLU of Michigan legislative director, urged the state board to adopt the science curriculum as recommended Tuesday, rather than grant the delay. Palmer did not cite evolution or biology specifically Tuesday, but said that language adopted in curriculum standards should be broader rather than narrower to allow for changes in theory. As an example, he noted the recent demotion of Pluto from planet status by the International Astronomical Union. "The bottom line is we want to make sure that the language is in there regarding critical thinking on all theories that are evident in science today, so that we are not blanking out any new theories that are coming along," Palmer said. The state board already has passed some of its new curriculum standards, including those for math. The board still must adopt standards for social studies and a few other subjects. Tuesday's agreement will set up a method to allow formal comments from the state Legislature on those standards. Starting with the class graduating in 2011, students will have to take four years of math and English, three of science and social studies and one each of physical education and arts. They will also have to complete some type of online experience. Two credits of foreign language also will be required, but that requirement will be phased in starting with the class of 2016. __________________________________________________ I have not looked at the science curriculum and don't know if there is really any need for change, but I love how the state superintendant says he will listen but will not change anything. At least he is saying it up front...is this a new trend in education?
|
![]() |
|
| Grant1 | Sep 13 2006, 06:46 AM Post #2 |
|
We have just begun to fight!
|
I will listen but I cannot hear?
|
![]() |
|
| ILIkeLI | Sep 13 2006, 07:10 AM Post #3 |
|
Principal
|
|
![]() |
|
| jodygirlh | Sep 13 2006, 09:55 AM Post #4 |
|
Principal
|
Sounds so familiar.... |
![]() |
|
| jodygirlh | Sep 13 2006, 09:59 AM Post #5 |
|
Principal
|
Although I may be opening a can of worms here... What's wrong with teaching evolution along with "intelligent design" theory? If this is a country founded on freedom of speech, AND Christian values, then why not represent the two main theory's? (Please don't go killing me all of you 'separation of church and state' people--intelligent design theory is not necessarily a religious/church theory) |
![]() |
|
| Administrator | Sep 13 2006, 10:08 AM Post #6 |
|
Administrator
|
Education Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate Enlarge Anti-evolution books for sale in Dayton, Tenn., during the 1925 trial of John T. Scopes for teaching evolution in public schools. Eighty years later, the debate continues. © Hulton-Deutsch Collection/Corbis NPR.org, December 20, 2005 · School boards and legislatures across the country are continuing to debate how to teach students about the origins of life on Earth. Policymakers in at least 16 states are currently examining the controversy. In some states, advocates of "intelligent design" -- the theory that an intelligent force had a role to play in the creation of the universe -- are pushing for the concept to be taught side-by-side with evolution. In other states, schools are incorporating the idea that evolution is "theory, not fact." Below, a look at how the debate is playing out in several states: Michigan: A bill introduced in the state House of Representatives in September 2005 would require the Board of Education to revise science standards. The bill aims to ensure that students will be able to "use the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories including, but not limited to, the theories of global warming and evolution." Legislation attempting to include intelligent design in state science standards failed in 2004. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630737 |
![]() |
|
| mikefromholland | Sep 13 2006, 11:49 AM Post #7 |
|
Principal
|
The point is not whether it is a religious or church based theory. The point is whether it meets the standards of science such as testability of hypotheses, ability to be falsified, etc. |
![]() |
|
| NFarquharson | Sep 13 2006, 12:40 PM Post #8 |
|
Principal
|
Thanks for touching that one. I wanted to but was afraid... |
![]() |
|
| jodygirlh | Sep 15 2006, 06:07 PM Post #9 |
|
Principal
|
Yeah Mike, I get that, but I'm not sure that is really the standard by which determinations are made.... |
![]() |
|
| SJC | Sep 16 2006, 07:30 AM Post #10 |
|
Principal
|
Some of the greatest scientific minds in history looked at the symmetries in math and science (periodic table, golden constant, etc) and opined that it proved the existence of God. That’s really the basis for Intelligent Design theory. If they want to delve into the necessary math and science to illustrate that theory I wouldn’t mind. Basically, because I think you’d have to cover a lot of math and science to do it properly. Conversely, I already send my kids to catechism so they’re getting one theory there. Why not get the other theory (evolution) in school? And isn’t teaching intelligent design in public school also a slap in the face to the little Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, and Rastafarian kids? This may be a diversity issue. Side note: I was a dinosaur nut when I was little, and I went to Catholic school. I wish I would have asked one of my teachers (nuns) if Adam and Eve had to hide from Tyrannosaurus Rexes in the Garden of Eden. How do the creationists explain those bones? |
![]() |
|
| Administrator | Sep 16 2006, 07:43 AM Post #11 |
|
Administrator
|
You would have gotten a nice whack on the knuckles with a ruler by the Penguin if you would have asked that! :lol: And that hurts! Been there! That ruler was a very effective disciplinary tool that I bet some LPS teachers wish they could use! I would have loved to ask that question also. |
![]() |
|
| Corwin | Sep 16 2006, 08:01 AM Post #12 |
|
Principal
|
This is a tricky one. The theory of evolution - yes, still a theory - requires the belief in spontaneous generation (we all came from the random combination of amino acids from some primordial ooze). Interesting theory that has never been proven. Intelligent design asks us to believe in a Creator. I would say that there is a certain amount of "faith" in both theories. There is some validity to Occam's Razor - i.e. the simpliest answer to two competing theories is to be preferred. How does this relate to education? I think it is silly to teach the theory of evolution as "fact" if there is no conclusion that it is a "fact." I think it is ok to say there are questions we don't have all the answers to yet. Scientists and theologians (and some scientist/theologians) have been trying to answer this question for generations. I would think students should be invited into the discussion rather than asked to pick a side or having a side chosen for them. |
![]() |
|
| SJC | Sep 16 2006, 08:31 AM Post #13 |
|
Principal
|
In scientific terms, a theory is something that has been proven and generally accepted as being true. That's a slight departure to how the word "theory" is used by non-scientists. That doesn't mean that the theories aren't changed or updated. Atomic theory has continued to evovle from the Niels Bohr version we learned in chemistry class. |
![]() |
|
| Administrator | Sep 16 2006, 09:02 AM Post #14 |
|
Administrator
|
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion. In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them. In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence. There is a large difference between faith and theory. Creationism is largely based on faith, while evolution is based on the scientific definition for theory. |
![]() |
|
| Administrator | Sep 16 2006, 09:25 AM Post #15 |
|
Administrator
|
Creationism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "Creationism" can also refer to origin beliefs in general, or to an alternative of traducianism. "The Creation of Light" by Gustave Doré.In many traditions, creationism is the theory that espouses active acceptance of an origin belief that humanity, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole was specially created by a supreme being or by supernatural intervention. The intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) or the (re)-emergence of order from pre-existing chaos (demiurge). As such, creationists hold to additional beliefs that go beyond scientific descriptions of nature and often specifically oppose scientific consensus on natural origins. Various forms of creationism are found principally in religions of the Abrahamic faiths and in Hinduism, although such beliefs can in theory be found in many other religious traditions. In modern usage, the term creationism has come to be specifically associated with the brand of conservative Christian fundamentalism which conflicts with various aspects of evolution, cosmology, and other natural sciences that address the origins of the natural world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic » |






9:09 AM Jul 11