Who should set science curriculum ?
Moderator: Moderators
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #1Who should determine the science curriculum in publicly funded schools?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #2Such curriculum needs to be set by realistic needs and application to realistic life and by the ethical standards of the society.McCulloch wrote: Who should determine the science curriculum in publicly funded schools?
By the basic characterization of science is that it is speculative and theoretical even with the so called facts, and thereby uncertainty or controversy has no place in schools, and certainly not to minor children below College level.
Society wants to lower or to stop the drop out rate at least before High School graduation, and so below College level needs to be the basics of life in society, as in getting a job, setting goals, preparing for College, and staying away from crime.
The teaching of Evolution does none of this, and Evolution is not so complicated, so it can be easily taught in support of certain College courses, and if minor children are interested in Evolution or other extracurricular subjects then there are plenty of options available for the minor child to indulge in any such subjects outside of the school curriculum.
The only purpose of teaching evolution to minors is to brainwash and indoctrinate the children, and that is counter productive for a healthy society.
SIGNATURE:
An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:
An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2281
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 1952 times
- Been thanked: 734 times
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #3[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]
I voted "Other" because I think it should be subject matter experts in conjunction with some sort of national committee that includes experts in education.
My reasons:
- Each subject should teach the latest facts as best as we have discovered them to be. This requires subject matter experts.
- The curriculum needs to be designed so that it is age appropriate and makes sense as children move from one grade to the next. This requires experts in education.
- The curriculum should ideally be standard within the country to allow easier access to higher education after graduating from high school. This requires some sort of national oversight to set common standards.
I voted "Other" because I think it should be subject matter experts in conjunction with some sort of national committee that includes experts in education.
My reasons:
- Each subject should teach the latest facts as best as we have discovered them to be. This requires subject matter experts.
- The curriculum needs to be designed so that it is age appropriate and makes sense as children move from one grade to the next. This requires experts in education.
- The curriculum should ideally be standard within the country to allow easier access to higher education after graduating from high school. This requires some sort of national oversight to set common standards.
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #4The basic characteristic of science is that it makes testable predictions which can be evaluated based on observable evidence. I would agree that, at any given time, there are some scientific propositions that might be speculative or controversial in that they have not as yet been well-tested. I think such propositions are OK to include in a curriculum as long as their status is fairly presented.JP Cusick wrote:Such curriculum needs to be set by realistic needs and application to realistic life and by the ethical standards of the society.McCulloch wrote: Who should determine the science curriculum in publicly funded schools?
By the basic characterization of science is that it is speculative and theoretical even with the so called facts, and thereby uncertainty or controversy has no place in schools, and certainly not to minor children below College level.
I would generally agree. A good science education would be relevant to college prep and knowing the basics of life. It is also important for good citizenship in a democracy.Society wants to lower or to stop the drop out rate at least before High School graduation, and so below College level needs to be the basics of life in society, as in getting a job, setting goals, preparing for College, and staying away from crime.
Bollocks.The teaching of Evolution does none of this, and Evolution is not so complicated, so it can be easily taught in support of certain College courses, and if minor children are interested in Evolution or other extracurricular subjects then there are plenty of options available for the minor child to indulge in any such subjects outside of the school curriculum.
Evolution is an extremely well-supported area of science, not a bit speculative or controversial except in that some have religious reasons for not wanting to accept it ( and I am saying this as a Christian). Understanding evolution is hugely important for anyone wanting to pursue a career related to life science or health care, not to mention providing relevant information for civic decisions.
Your projecting. The actual reality is that the only reason to deny evolution is to brainwash and indoctrinate children, and evolution-denial is counter-productive for a healthy society. If you can convince people to deny evolution, you can then convince them to deny the efficacy of medicine or any number of other well-supported scientific areas of knowledge.The only purpose of teaching evolution to minors is to brainwash and indoctrinate the children, and that is counter productive for a healthy society.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #5[Replying to post 4 by micatala]
"Your projecting. The actual reality is that the only reason to deny evolution is to brainwash and indoctrinate children, and evolution-denial is counter-productive for a healthy society. If you can convince people to deny evolution, you can then convince them to deny the efficacy of medicine or any number of other well-supported scientific areas of knowledge."
There are millions of people who do not believe in (atheistic) evolution yet they are
doctors and scientists and contributing to a healthy society.
"Your projecting. The actual reality is that the only reason to deny evolution is to brainwash and indoctrinate children, and evolution-denial is counter-productive for a healthy society. If you can convince people to deny evolution, you can then convince them to deny the efficacy of medicine or any number of other well-supported scientific areas of knowledge."
There are millions of people who do not believe in (atheistic) evolution yet they are
doctors and scientists and contributing to a healthy society.
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #6Also, what constitutes a "healthy" society. Societies existed for millennia prior to modern medicine. Are you saying that every society prior to the 1800's was notMonta wrote: [Replying to post 4 by micatala]
"Your projecting. The actual reality is that the only reason to deny evolution is to brainwash and indoctrinate children, and evolution-denial is counter-productive for a healthy society. If you can convince people to deny evolution, you can then convince them to deny the efficacy of medicine or any number of other well-supported scientific areas of knowledge."
There are millions of people who do not believe in (atheistic) evolution yet they are
doctors and scientists and contributing to a healthy society.
"healthy"?
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #7[Replying to Monta]
It may be true that their are scientists or medical professionals who do not accept that evolution is true beyond any reasonable doubt, but it does not follow that their refusal to accept the fact of evolution is providing any beneficial effects to society. It is rather the case that they are contributing to society in spite of their refusal to accept (or perhaps ignorance of) evolution.
It may be true that their are scientists or medical professionals who do not accept that evolution is true beyond any reasonable doubt, but it does not follow that their refusal to accept the fact of evolution is providing any beneficial effects to society. It is rather the case that they are contributing to society in spite of their refusal to accept (or perhaps ignorance of) evolution.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #8By the way, evolution is not atheistic. Evolution takes no position on whether god exists or does not exist. You are throwing out a false and illogical accusation in a vain but all to common attempt at smearing a well-established scientific proposition. I am a Christian and, like millions of other Christians, accept the reality of evolution.Monta wrote: [Replying to post 4 by micatala]
"Your projecting. The actual reality is that the only reason to deny evolution is to brainwash and indoctrinate children, and evolution-denial is counter-productive for a healthy society. If you can convince people to deny evolution, you can then convince them to deny the efficacy of medicine or any number of other well-supported scientific areas of knowledge."
There are millions of people who do not believe in (atheistic) evolution yet they are
doctors and scientists and contributing to a healthy society.
In fact, by throwing out this accusation, you are supporting my claim which you have in quotes. Your accusation indicates you oppose evolution not for scientific reasons, but because of a particular religious dogma you adhere to. Your accusation seeks to reinforce that dogma among others who hold similar views by painting evolution as 'dangerous,' i.e. 'atheistic.' This tactic would never work without a massive amount of prior indoctrination on the part of anti-evolutionists. Those who have not been exposed to such indoctrination, or who have escaped it, would see this as the empty argument it is.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #9micatala wrote:"By the way, evolution is not atheistic. Evolution takes no position on whether god exists or does not exist. You are throwing out a false and illogical accusation in a vain but all to common attempt at smearing a well-established scientific proposition. I am a Christian and, like millions of other Christians, accept the reality of evolution."Monta wrote: [Replying to post 4 by micatala]
"Your projecting. The actual reality is that the only reason to deny evolution is to brainwash and indoctrinate children, and evolution-denial is counter-productive for a healthy society. If you can convince people to deny evolution, you can then convince them to deny the efficacy of medicine or any number of other well-supported scientific areas of knowledge."
There are millions of people who do not believe in (atheistic) evolution yet they are
doctors and scientists and contributing to a healthy society.
That was not accusation that was statement in direct response to what you said.
According to evolution around here on these boards,
there is no God and He is not needed, therefore atheistic.
As a believer in a Creator, you have to specify this difference.
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #10I do not get why people, and especially Atheist, try to deny that their version of evolution includes the rejection of God as the Creator.Monta wrote: According to evolution around here on these boards,
there is no God and He is not needed, therefore atheistic.
As a believer in a Creator, you have to specify this difference.
Why are not they proud of it? why do they run and hide from it?
And truly the denials are fooling nobody.
Evolution does not directly say that there is no God nor Gods, and yet that is their point and purpose in preaching that anti God version of evolution.
I myself accept the reality that God is evolving life on earth, and so I take pride in declaring my Theist version of evolution.
SIGNATURE:
An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:
An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian: