4th Grade Science Test

[Pogo]

It looks like this comes from a private school so it's the parents choice as to how they educate their kids.

I don't think there are many people who want religion taught in public schools, however there is much support for teaching Intelligent Design which is Creationism without the scriptures and reference to God. It is being promoted by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank in the US. All the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Institute and believe the designer to be the Christian deity. By avoiding direct reference to God and the Bible, it's hoped that it will get through the courts. If it does, it will be taught in many public schools.
Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/SIZE]

As long as it's not taught as science, I have no problem with discussing intelligent design as a possibility. It's a very good means to teach the scientific method and provides a better understanding of what science is and what science is not.

An interesting concept is one in which God could have created all this evidence to make it appear as if the Earth was billions of years old. That idea is also expressed as Solipsism, a very deep and useful logical construct. In my opinion, teaching this to children has the effect of separating their developing religious faith with the physical evidence that can be measured, which is what science should do.

That's really an interesting idea.
However, I don't like the idea of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools for several reasons.

Intelligent Design is a very thinly veiled attempt to teach the creation story as portrayed in the Bible. Our schools are filled with children being raised as Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, and atheist. Better the schools stick to science and leave the supernatural explanations to parents and churches.

The primary goal of science is to discover and explain our world. Intelligent Design does neither. It's sole purpose is to support an existing believe. It uses science to do that while ignoring all scientific evidence that might discredit that belief. This is not science and certainly should not be taught in a science classroom.

If parents want Intelligent Design taught to their children, they are free to send their children to private schools or they can teach them at home or through their church. Our country is falling behind the rest of the world in science education. We need to use our classroom hours to teach the basics of real science.

>> KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

... According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision." <<

-- Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

 

[ScienceRocks]

WTF is wrong with these people?

This is from South Carolina.

They believe in the bible without thought. Close minded people that shouldn't be teaching anything called "science".

 

[ScienceRocks]

It should be marked either, "Science or bible class". One should know one way or the other.

This should be taught in a bible(religious) setting of course.

 

[asterism]

It looks like this comes from a private school so it's the parents choice as to how they educate their kids.

I don't think there are many people who want religion taught in public schools, however there is much support for teaching Intelligent Design which is Creationism without the scriptures and reference to God. It is being promoted by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank in the US. All the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Institute and believe the designer to be the Christian deity. By avoiding direct reference to God and the Bible, it's hoped that it will get through the courts. If it does, it will be taught in many public schools.
Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/SIZE]

As long as it's not taught as science, I have no problem with discussing intelligent design as a possibility. It's a very good means to teach the scientific method and provides a better understanding of what science is and what science is not.

An interesting concept is one in which God could have created all this evidence to make it appear as if the Earth was billions of years old. That idea is also expressed as Solipsism, a very deep and useful logical construct. In my opinion, teaching this to children has the effect of separating their developing religious faith with the physical evidence that can be measured, which is what science should do.

That's really an interesting idea.
However, I don't like the idea of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools for several reasons.

Intelligent Design is a very thinly veiled attempt to teach the creation story as portrayed in the Bible. Our schools are filled with children being raised as Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, and atheist. Better the schools stick to science and leave the supernatural explanations to parents and churches.

The primary goal of science is to discover and explain our world. Intelligent Design does neither. It's sole purpose is to support an existing believe. It uses science to do that while ignoring all scientific evidence that might discredit that belief. This is not science and certainly should not be taught in a science classroom.

If parents want Intelligent Design taught to their children, they are free to send their children to private schools or they can teach them at home or through their church. Our country is falling behind the rest of the world in science education. We need to use our classroom hours to teach the basics of real science.

One of the problems that approach causes is that it leaves students incomplete with regards to science in the modern world and many develop "faith" in science and have no critical thinking skills. Teaching the alternative beliefs as alternative beliefs with little or no scientific evidence results in a good understanding of where philosophy and science intersect.

In my opinion it makes for even better scientists.

The theory of epicycles was not derived from any evidence, it was dreamed up to explain an apparent pattern of planets. That was junk science. Thinking that evolution disproves the existence of God is another application of junk science parroted by people ignorant of alternative views.

The notion that there is no God because there is no physical proof is silly. There was no physical proof of neutrinos before 1930 but that didn't change the reality of their existence. Science does not operate in a vacuum and it does not have all the answers.

I do object to intelligent design being taught as scientific fact, because it's clearly not. Intelligent design is a philosophical perspective and a continuation of Thomas Aquinas' opinions. Far too many of those either in the scientific community or on the peripheries of it are quick to dismiss the possibility of the concept because of their ignorance. Without proper exposure to the logic behind these views, they lack the critical thinking skills required to avoid having "faith" in their own views. History is riddled with examples of this bias, from flat earthers to phrenologists, and the Piltdown Man. Resistance to heliocentrism before Copernicus was almost universal even though it was accepted by astronomers in India over 1000 years prior and was originally proposed by Aristarchus 1700 years before Copernicus.

 

[asterism]

Are you not following this?

The kid (and her classmates) were not the "wrong" ones here. The child is the innocent victim. The school is directly in the wrong, and the parents are indirectly wrong for having sent her into that wacko den of iniquity in the first place.

Your elementary school teacher did not "hide" her indifference; she expressed it. Perhaps paying more attention in English might have been wise, but what you're trying to equate here is a difference in opinion, or even less than that, in scale of importance. So today you have a different opinion on her teacher's strike? Big whoop.

On the other hand filling kids' heads with crap like "dinosaurs existed four thousand years ago and if your parents say different they're liars" is not even remotely vaguely smelling-distance-with-binoculars close to that. That's undermining her whole faith in institutions and in parenting itself. That's fucked up and dangerous. Next step is "turning your parents in". That's brainwashing. It's no wonder the father is upset and pulled her from the school, but what the hell was he thinking sending her there in the first place?

I had an elementary school teacher tell us that the earth is rotating at "thousands and thousands of miles per hour". That's what an innocuous misinformed error is.

This is deliberate intellectual and emotional sabotage.

As I said before, I don't envy the father having to explain to his child why he sent her into such a fucked up environment. That could take a long time for her to figure out and forgive.

Yes, I'm following this. I frequently have to correct my kids when they tell me about things they've learned at school. Sometimes, I am the one that is incorrect.

My elementary teacher did indeed hide her indifference, that's why she lied to us and said that the janitor would be just fine because he got unemployment insurance while the strike was going on. He didn't, and she knew it.

There are many many situations where schools and church mislead children and this is just one of those. This situation is terrible, and as I said previously I wouldn't stand for it.

Riiiiiiiiight.... so you're actually trying to equate outright BS propaganda about what the world is and who the child can trust for these deep questions ---- a basic framework that will influence the child's entire life --- with the question of whether or not some janitor qualifies or unemployment.

That may be the most transparent bullshit I've ever read on a message board. So the whole "I wouldn't stand for it" song and dance rings more than a little hollow. It rings far more true as a thinly veiled assent for "intelligent design", which in turn is a thinly veiled blah blah, already been said. The only part I don't get is how you figure you're going to sell this point.

No, whether some long-forgotten janitor got on with his working life or whether any of my classmates had to re-learn how fast the earth rotates, is in no possible conceivable way the same thing as brainwashing vulnerable kids about how life itself works and who to trust about it. This dog don't hunt.

Blantant lies by a teacher to her elementary school students certainly affects "who the child can trust" don't you think?

 

[Flopper]

As long as it's not taught as science, I have no problem with discussing intelligent design as a possibility. It's a very good means to teach the scientific method and provides a better understanding of what science is and what science is not.

An interesting concept is one in which God could have created all this evidence to make it appear as if the Earth was billions of years old. That idea is also expressed as Solipsism, a very deep and useful logical construct. In my opinion, teaching this to children has the effect of separating their developing religious faith with the physical evidence that can be measured, which is what science should do.

That's really an interesting idea.
However, I don't like the idea of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools for several reasons.

Intelligent Design is a very thinly veiled attempt to teach the creation story as portrayed in the Bible. Our schools are filled with children being raised as Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, and atheist. Better the schools stick to science and leave the supernatural explanations to parents and churches.

The primary goal of science is to discover and explain our world. Intelligent Design does neither. It's sole purpose is to support an existing believe. It uses science to do that while ignoring all scientific evidence that might discredit that belief. This is not science and certainly should not be taught in a science classroom.

If parents want Intelligent Design taught to their children, they are free to send their children to private schools or they can teach them at home or through their church. Our country is falling behind the rest of the world in science education. We need to use our classroom hours to teach the basics of real science.

>> KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

... According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision." <<

-- Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Intelligent Falling??? I wonder what bible verse Newton's Theory of Gravitation violates. The article didn't say they were also disputing the Law of Gravitation. Guess that will be next as we slowly march back into the dark ages.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, I'm following this. I frequently have to correct my kids when they tell me about things they've learned at school. Sometimes, I am the one that is incorrect.

My elementary teacher did indeed hide her indifference, that's why she lied to us and said that the janitor would be just fine because he got unemployment insurance while the strike was going on. He didn't, and she knew it.

There are many many situations where schools and church mislead children and this is just one of those. This situation is terrible, and as I said previously I wouldn't stand for it.

Riiiiiiiiight.... so you're actually trying to equate outright BS propaganda about what the world is and who the child can trust for these deep questions ---- a basic framework that will influence the child's entire life --- with the question of whether or not some janitor qualifies or unemployment.

That may be the most transparent bullshit I've ever read on a message board. So the whole "I wouldn't stand for it" song and dance rings more than a little hollow. It rings far more true as a thinly veiled assent for "intelligent design", which in turn is a thinly veiled blah blah, already been said. The only part I don't get is how you figure you're going to sell this point.

No, whether some long-forgotten janitor got on with his working life or whether any of my classmates had to re-learn how fast the earth rotates, is in no possible conceivable way the same thing as brainwashing vulnerable kids about how life itself works and who to trust about it. This dog don't hunt.

Blantant lies by a teacher to her elementary school students certainly affects "who the child can trust" don't you think?

No.

The world is full of diversity about the relative importance or meanings of things, of which it should be noted your own assessment that the teacher was "blatantly lying" is one. We all navigate that stuff and make our choices among them, as you did here. But to start filling an eight-year-old's head with not only factual bullshit but to undermine her trust in her own parents, that's a WAY 'nother level. That's indoctrination.

The difference between a child being on one hand given a one-sided version of a strike (if it was even that) and on the other hand being made into a programmed Moonie-bot doesn't even belong in the same sentence. Being told to shut one's mind to alternate views isn't exactly teaching "critical thinking" is it?

[edit: I posted "eight-year-old" assuming from the description of a "fourth grade" test. However the father who wrote in about it described his daughter as a ten-year-old. One wonders if she's been held back ]

 

[Pogo]

It looks like this comes from a private school so it's the parents choice as to how they educate their kids.

I don't think there are many people who want religion taught in public schools, however there is much support for teaching Intelligent Design which is Creationism without the scriptures and reference to God. It is being promoted by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank in the US. All the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Institute and believe the designer to be the Christian deity. By avoiding direct reference to God and the Bible, it's hoped that it will get through the courts. If it does, it will be taught in many public schools.
Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As long as it's not taught as science, I have no problem with discussing intelligent design as a possibility. It's a very good means to teach the scientific method and provides a better understanding of what science is and what science is not.

An interesting concept is one in which God could have created all this evidence to make it appear as if the Earth was billions of years old. That idea is also expressed as Solipsism, a very deep and useful logical construct. In my opinion, teaching this to children has the effect of separating their developing religious faith with the physical evidence that can be measured, which is what science should do.

The quiz wasn't a science quiz, it was a quiz about what was on a DVD. I don't know any Christians who don't think the world is billions of years old and it is something that isn't in the Bible.

Never been to South Carolina then? There's a reason we have a wall between this state and that one. Actually we have volunteers out there right now sawing the border. If we can just get Georgia to cooperate we're gonna push it out to the Bermuda Triangle, where it prolly came from.

Two questions: (1) where do you get the idea that this is "about what was on a DVD" and (2) what the hell difference does it make what the medium was? It could have been on an overhead projector; doesn't change the message or the faults in it.

 

[asterism]

That's really an interesting idea.
However, I don't like the idea of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools for several reasons.

Intelligent Design is a very thinly veiled attempt to teach the creation story as portrayed in the Bible. Our schools are filled with children being raised as Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, and atheist. Better the schools stick to science and leave the supernatural explanations to parents and churches.

The primary goal of science is to discover and explain our world. Intelligent Design does neither. It's sole purpose is to support an existing believe. It uses science to do that while ignoring all scientific evidence that might discredit that belief. This is not science and certainly should not be taught in a science classroom.

If parents want Intelligent Design taught to their children, they are free to send their children to private schools or they can teach them at home or through their church. Our country is falling behind the rest of the world in science education. We need to use our classroom hours to teach the basics of real science.

>> KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

... According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision." <<

-- Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Intelligent Falling??? I wonder what bible verse Newton's Theory of Gravitation violates. The article didn't say they were also disputing the Law of Gravitation. Guess that will be next as we slowly march back into the dark ages.

Check the source.

 

[asterism]

Riiiiiiiiight.... so you're actually trying to equate outright BS propaganda about what the world is and who the child can trust for these deep questions ---- a basic framework that will influence the child's entire life --- with the question of whether or not some janitor qualifies or unemployment.

That may be the most transparent bullshit I've ever read on a message board. So the whole "I wouldn't stand for it" song and dance rings more than a little hollow. It rings far more true as a thinly veiled assent for "intelligent design", which in turn is a thinly veiled blah blah, already been said. The only part I don't get is how you figure you're going to sell this point.

No, whether some long-forgotten janitor got on with his working life or whether any of my classmates had to re-learn how fast the earth rotates, is in no possible conceivable way the same thing as brainwashing vulnerable kids about how life itself works and who to trust about it. This dog don't hunt.

Blantant lies by a teacher to her elementary school students certainly affects "who the child can trust" don't you think?

No.

The world is full of diversity about the relative importance or meanings of things, of which it should be noted your own assessment that the teacher was "blatantly lying" is one. We all navigate that stuff and make our choices among them, as you did here. But to start filling an eight-year-old's head with not only factual bullshit but to undermine her trust in her own parents, that's a WAY 'nother level. That's indoctrination.

The difference between a child being on one hand given a one-sided version of a strike (if it was even that) and on the other hand being made into a programmed Moonie-bot doesn't even belong in the same sentence. Being told to shut one's mind to alternate views isn't exactly teaching "critical thinking" is it?

[edit: I posted "eight-year-old" assuming from the description of a "fourth grade" test. However the father who wrote in about it described his daughter as a ten-year-old. One wonders if she's been held back ]

So here's the summary:

I think this is akin to teachers lying to students and it's something I would not abide if it happened to my kids.

You think this is much more than that and you don't think a teacher blatantly lying to her students affects who the child can trust.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OK the test is a bad sign for sure but go out in public and ask Obama voters to name the current VP....that's really sad

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2