B
buffalo
Guest
It uses the latest in science.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
K
kbachler
Guest
Because they needed some method to head off ID, creationism as science, etc.Please review page 32 of the California Content Standards. Basically CA teachers are expected to teach natural selection through “survival of the fittest” is the sole cause of evolution.
Now review my posts and the linked Harvard pages. Do the fittest species always survive? If not then why are the CA teachers telling their students otherwise?
BTW, you’re still making too much out of this, and I don’t know why. This is not new news. ANY competent mathematician will tell you that a system has multiple solutions and that some solutions predominantly represent noise. That doesn’t mean that the noise is NEVER important, but that it is TYPICALLY unimportant.
That chaos has some bearing on evolution is again not a surprise, but teaching this concept to the typical HS student is not easy or desirable, because the result is drowning the main main concepts with a muddy concept that they will barely understand, and will make it seem as though it is the primary concept.
How much quantum electrodynamics do we teach the typical HS physics or chemistry student? (Answer - none, or next to none.) Yet, physics doesn’t really operate on the Newtonian model that they are basically taught. Heck, I think it would be brilliant if most HS students just read “Two New Sciences”
We teach kids that you can’t take the square root of a negative number. (Oops, wrong.) Or the log of a negative number. (Oops, wrong.) Can’t effectively divide by zero (Oops, wrong.)
There IS a progression of knowledge and sometimes its more important to get the fundamentals PRIOR to the nuance.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to drive home by harping on something that is not important at this point?
K
kbachler
Guest
So do nuclear weapons. ID is not science.It uses the latest in science.
B
buffalo
Guest
Let’s start here.So do nuclear weapons. ID is not science.
Does design exist?
K
kbachler
Guest
Sorry, not into game playing. If you have an argument, present it.Let’s start here.
Does design exist?
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
So it’s okay to teach junk science if it keeps God out of the classroom…Because they needed some method to head off ID, creationism as science, etc.
Natural selection alone is not a main concept. Evolution is. Evolution has natural selection as one component among many. Teaching evolution by teaching natural selection alone is like teaching trigonometry without tangents. Can you not see this?That chaos has some bearing on evolution is again not a surprise, but teaching this concept to the typical HS student is not easy or desirable, because the result is drowning the main main concepts with a muddy concept that they will barely understand, and will make it seem as though it is the primary concept.
K
kbachler
Guest
Fundamentally correct science does not qualify as junk science.So it’s okay to teach junk science if it keeps God out of the classroom…
Including “chaos” does not pull God INTO the classroom.
Then you don’t understand the science.Natural selection alone is not a main concept.
This is true. But its still the main concept.Evolution is. Evolution has natural selection as one component among many.
No, because what you state is not true. (And btw, it is possible to teach trigonometry without tangents.)Teaching evolution by teaching natural selection alone is like teaching trigonometry without tangents. Can you not see this?
For some reason that none of us understand, you are taking a secondary/tertiary/etc. solution and elevating it to the primary place.
That doesn’t mean its unimportant in general. But, for the typical HS student who is taking bio as college prep and will likely get at least one more bio class, its not the biggest issue.
B
buffalo
Guest
It is a simple question.Sorry, not into game playing. If you have an argument, present it.
K
kbachler
Guest
You have my response.It is a simple question.
L
larkin31
Guest
[The bolding is mine]Please review page 32 of the California Content Standards. Basically CA teachers are expected to teach natural selection through “survival of the fittest” is the sole cause of evolution.
Page 32 does not say what you state here.
Are you misrepresenting it on purpose, or is this an accidental mistake on your part?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
IDvolution is not science.But they could teach IDvolution and be using the latest science too. Of course the empirical science support in science class and the philosophy part in philosophy class.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Uh, yes it does.[The bolding is mine]
Page 32 does not say what you state here.
CA Content Standards, Science, p. 32
Evolution
3. Biological evolution accounts for the diversity of species developed through gradual processes over many generations. As a basis for understanding this concept:
a. Students know both genetic variation and environmental factors are causes of evolution and diversity of organisms.
b. Students know the reasoning used by Charles Darwin in reaching his conclusion that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.
c. Students know how independent lines of evidence from geology, fossils, and comparative anatomy provide the bases for the theory of evolution.
d. Students know how to construct a simple branching diagram to classify living groups of organisms by shared derived characteristics and how to expand the diagram to include fossil organisms.
e. Students know that extinction of a species occurs when the environment changes and the adaptive characteristics of a species are insufficient for its survival.
Notice that it does not say “a” mechanism (cf. the equivalent Texas standard which states “evolutionary theory is a scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life.”). California says it is THE mechanism.
Strike two.Are you misrepresenting it on purpose, or is this an accidental mistake on your part?
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Since when do you decide what is fundamentally correct science? I think Harvard University has more authority to define that than you do.Fundamentally correct science does not qualify as junk science.
I never said it did. Nor did I ever ask for chaos to be specifically included in a high school curriculum. You keep straw-maning me into a chaos-theory zealot who wants nonlinear equations taught in high school biology. For the last time, I just don’t want natural selection alone being taught as the origin of human life because it isn’t.Including “chaos” does not pull God INTO the classroom.
Then neither does this guy or this guy.Then you don’t understand the science.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
The reason why I bring up chaos theory is because, as the above Harvard professors have noted, it is empirically observable and testable. It is valid science by any definition. And at least at Harvard, chaos is viewed as indispensable in understanding the evolution of populations [see course description of MCB 110].IDvolution is not science.
Of course, I would go farther and say that attractors and fractals are empirically observable evidence of design, and of course, this view of design is completely compatible with evolution and is completely empirical.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
That link was more about cells, and while one can extrapolate that the same is true of populations, here is something to the point on that. See also this post.The reason why I bring up chaos theory is because, as the above Harvard professors have noted, it is empirically observable and testable. It is valid science by any definition. And at least at Harvard, chaos is viewed as indispensable in understanding the evolution of populations [see course description of MCB 110].
K
kbachler
Guest
Since you don’t know me, why do you judge my qualifications? But in any case, why are you using a statement about Harvard to justify something YOU claimed that has nothing to do with anything Harvard claimed? Your comment was with respect to God in the classroom; Harvard made no comments about that.Since when do you decide what is fundamentally correct science? I think Harvard University has more authority to define that than you do.
I don’t straw man you. You’re the one making a secondary part of evolution into the primary part. You’re the one who keeps making chaos arguments as though they somehow justify God, and make comments about bad science that removes him from the classroom.I never said it did. Nor did I ever ask for chaos to be specifically included in a high school curriculum. You keep straw-maning me into a chaos-theory zealot who wants nonlinear equations taught in high school biology. For the last time, I just don’t want natural selection alone being taught as the origin of human life because it isn’t.
Take a stand. Just say what you want to say.
Education OFTEN requires teaching incomplete concepts in order to teach fundamentals. Why aren’t you complaining that we shouldn’t teach 1st graders that 3-5 is not possible, if the above is your only point?
Misquoting people doesn’t defend your bad science. Several times in this thread you’ve misquoted or twisted positions to make it sound like something was justifying your perspective. The misquotes don’t do that.
K
kbachler
Guest
No, you can’t extrapolate from cells to populations.That link was more about cells, and while one can extrapolate that the same is true of populations, here is something to the point on that. See also this post.
K
kbachler
Guest
What mathematics degree do you hold? What mathematics have you taught?The reason why I bring up chaos theory is because, as the above Harvard professors have noted, it is empirically observable and testable. It is valid science by any definition. And at least at Harvard, chaos is viewed as indispensable in understanding the evolution of populations [see course description of MCB 110].
Of course, I would go farther and say that attractors and fractals are empirically observable evidence of design, and of course, this view of design is completely compatible with evolution and is completely empirical.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
I am not qualified to decide what is valid science either. Harvard’s various authorities are.Since you don’t know me, why do you judge my qualifications?
Throughout this thread I have made three, and only three assertions:But in any case, why are you using a statement about Harvard to justify something YOU claimed that has nothing to do with anything Harvard claimed? Your comment was with respect to God in the classroom; Harvard made no comments about that.
- Teaching natural selection alone establishes atheism and violates the Constitution
- Harvard professors teach that evolution involved chaos as well as natural selection
- Properties of chaos, such as attractors and fractals, provide empirical proof of design
Regardless of whether (1) or (3) is a valid conclusion or not, (2) raises serious doubt about whether natural selection and evolution should be conflated in schools. As (2) is the conclusion of the Harvard professors, I don’t see how you can call (2) “bad science” and expect to be taken seriously.
You don’t know how to deal with (2) so instead of trying to oppose some authority against it, you conflate it with (3) to undermine my credibility. Specifically, you accuse me of putting (3) in the mouth of the Harvard professors asserting only (2) when I have never done that. Each time I have mentioned (3)—only twice so far!—I have emphasized that it is my conclusion.
I don’t feel like reporting you right now so I’ll let this slide.Misquoting people doesn’t defend your bad science. Several times in this thread you’ve misquoted or twisted positions to make it sound like something was justifying your perspective. The misquotes don’t do that.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Uh, yes you can.No, you can’t extrapolate from cells to populations.
Math? Yuck.What mathematics degree do you hold? What mathematics have you taught?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.