Well i don't know why I bother since your activism appears to be limtited solely to your masturbatory link dumping rather than doing something about the problems that concern us all. Like many others you assume my questioning of others acceptance of Evolution as a field of proven science is equivalent to a six thousand year old earth and that is wrong. Go back and check and you will see I never said that. I asked . If you are going to provide education as to one theory why would you rule out other competing theories to the exclusion of all others? Second how that relates to AGW I have no idea, but I did post an OT explanation of some things (AP) I am doing to try and look for answers. One of the reasons I chose to become a Math teacher is becuase of the problems our grandkids will face and the important role mathematics will play in coming to those solutions. As a mathematician i know a little something about what constitutes valid incontrovertible proof. The fundamental theorem of Calculus does have a proof and that proof is without argument. At sea level water boils at 212 F, is observable and repeatable without any filling in of blanks that we have to make asusmptions about. I even said there was nothing in the curriculum that contradicts anything I believe, but in your zealotry to squash any dissent you failed to read that part of my post's. I find it sad and at the same time amusing and Ironic that you accuse me of being Anti-intellectual when you suffer from such reading comprehension challenges. i will leave you to your masturbation link dumping.
Question for you: Do you think that all the expert scientist that support the theory of evolution believe in said theory just because they need to place their faith on something or because all their observations fit a model that not only explains past phenomena but is able to predict outcomes in a way that can be repeated and tested over and over? Depending on your answer, you either will be someone that gives the same validity to years and years of observation and experimentation as something concocted in the mind of one or a few people, or somebody who believes in the scientific method. If you are the second, as you claim to be, I hope that your comments in this thread are just a misinformed but well meant intend to conciliate science and religion. But if you are the first, you are not so different from Reep King and all the likes, people that dismisses all expertise in numerous fields at their convenience to make proven truths equal to unfounded notions. This same people have no trouble erasing swaths of knowledge with a few sentences while conveniently keeping some fields of knowledge isolated, either because they are more comfortable discussing lets say religion or law (or math), or because they have an agenda to advance that requires first going against the actual truth. And if you want to know my position on Evolution, I think it is very similar to Newtonian Physics, in the sense that the laws and evidence support the theory until something new explains further phenomena, like Relativity theory or Quantum Theory. I really don't see room for "Intelligent design", especially because there is no effort to create a consistent body of knowledge, only a vociferous attempt to discredit the scientific view of the world.
Evolution is science, everything else you have suggested is not. Mind you, read post 2238 about how theories change. Valid, but math should also build logic and help determine what is a rational argument or idea and what is not a rational argument or idea. So this is always true. In every single occurrence, water will boil at 212F? Without knowing your state, that is very time consuming to check. It means we will have to look though 50 state standards to see what is there. Huh? He was commenting on that article, which clearly contradicts current science (read the Global Warming thread for how it is contradictory).
If you want to use mathematics to determine logic, the odds against a species such as homo-sapiens evolving from some primordial soup are pretty staggering, so in this case it might be better for your side if you do not invoke mathematical logic. just saying. I am not taking a position on whether we did or not, but pointing out that in the very case we are discussing, mathematical probabilites are not something your side wants to bring into the discussion. The number of combinations and permutations that we are talking about would render numbers of an incomprehensible magnitude. As to the water question, I said sea level and was implying pressure of one atmosphere. The boiling temperature changes relative to psiA or psiG. Density would affect it as well, but it would not be water then it would be water and something in solution. You could look through the common core all you want, but since I have not said what i believe, I am not sure it would benefit you much. As for your definition of what is science and what is not, math is a science buddy. They call Astronomy a science too, but there margin of error is so large it seems a slight to science to call it science. when einseitns theory of general relativity was first used to predict a location of a stellar body the evidence showed it was verry close, but Einstein was unwilling to accept close. A few years passed and another experimement was performed. The error in the first exp was discovered and the body was exactly where the theory predicted. Not a factor of 10 to some power error or anything else Astronomy uses, but exactly on the spot.
oh my goodness. The chance of that specific outcome may be low. But if you could rerun the history of the earth millions of times, you would see many different complex life forms emerge in those iterations. One outcome is as good as another. This is a complete fallacy. Please educate yourself.
Here's someone knows more than a lot of us commenting on this general issue: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities#
I said rational thought. I'm sure you can get into the probability of something occurring, but that would be using false logic as to what is observable. Rational thought will help one deduce reasoning for what occurred and why it occurred. And that is the problem...and the solution. How does one test the probabily that Genesis is correct? One can test the probability of evolution, because it is scientific. Genesis is not, and therefor not testable. I was picking nits a bit, but there are many conditions to consider. Moon position, weather, salinity and/or purity of the water, etc. Mind you, there is also sea water, fresh water, and de-ionized water not to mention other impurities such as dirt or mineral particles. I didn't say common core, I said state. Common core for science has not been universally accepted, though has been published. Thus, to be sure, we'd need to check all 50 states, to verify if teaching non-evolution science in science class is okay (or if skipping evolution is okay). Where did anybody say otherwise? Your point being what?
All BS aside, I am a man of honor, when it gets to the point I can't teach what I am told to teach for conscience sake then I will find another way to make a living. I asked a question, I never said anything about not teaching this or teaching that or "making up my own curiculum." I never said any of those things. This is what I am talking about you guys being almost religious in your requirement that everybody else believe exactly as you do. In the beginning...(irony eh) I asked a question and because of that question (and known questions, as yet unaswered with certainty) with evolutionary theory people have assumed that I believe in a six thousand year creation theory and that i am willing to be dishonest and attempt to teach children whatever comes to my mind. I have been accused of being anti-intellectual when a intellectual generally questions assumptions and those questions lead to seek answers. In this case it was merely to show that your side is every bit as fanatical and unreasonable as the other side. I already know your sides burden of proof is abominably low, since most of your side believes Zimmerman was guilty, despite scientific forensic evidence to support his story.
First you said this: This you said this: As a teacher, I know that there are things in the standards that can be skipped or partially taught due to the way the standards are laid out. What you have said above suggests that this might be possible in your state regarding how evolution is taught. Further, those two statement seem to suggest that you can teach the POV of both creation and evolution and stay within the current standards. btw - I never suggested making up your own curriculum. Any good teacher knows how to be creative when making LPs, that on paper don't necessarily seem to be spot on the standards. Your base question has two premises: A) Evolution is so incomplete that it raises foundation question; and B) Creationism should be taught in science as an opposing position. As for "A", that is a good place to teach a science class: "What are the hold in the theory of Evolution?" But as for "B", as has been explained time and again, it is not testable and there for not science and should not be taught in science class.
I wouldn't put money on most high school seniors to get most of those questions right, even setting aside some of the archaic ones. Of course we don't know the average score in Bullitt County either. Our kids could tell you a whole lot more about computers and the Kardashians, though.
Just 26 percent of ACT test-takers are prepared for college http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...9fba0e-0a81-11e3-8974-f97ab3b3c677_story.html
Nation’s Math Teachers Introduce 27 New Trig Functions All Graduating Students Must Master Gamsin, Negtan, Cosvnx, 24 Others Coolidge Senior High School trig teacher Robert Beckman said on behalf of the nation’s math educators, emphasizing that students will be required to have full understanding of tofsin, pomen, cocosine, phyxyx, fotsin, and fostin as they apply to the various properties of equilateral, isosceles, and scalene triangles. “Students will also need to know the corresponding graphs for the functions. For example, drin forms a sort of stepladder going up the X and Y axes, while codrin forms a stepladder going down. I can assure you that all of these are absolutely crucial to understanding basic trigonometry, not to mention a requisite for anyone seeking to graduate and move on to college.” Beckman added that factoring will be cut from the math curriculum entirely because it’s “annoying and too f*cking hard sometimes.
http://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...ind-in-math-vocabulary-and-technology/280413/ This should not surprise even the casual observer of our body politic.
"is"? "are"! Some may disagree: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/Mongoloid-JockoHomoCover.jpg