Update on proposed Texas science stardards
The Texas Education Agency informed me that the first revision of the proposed Texas science standards will soon be posted online, maybe on Wednesday. There will not be much time to send in comments on this revision because the state board of education is scheduled to review it on Nov. 19-21. So please stay tuned. If you want to send in comments now, see this. For more info, see the "Texas controversy" post-label groups in the sidebar of the homepage (ignore the instructions here for sending in comments and follow the instructions given in the preceding TEA document). To keep down the number of comments that I send in, I am not going to send in more comments until I see the revised standards -- however, here are my general principles concerning the high school (grades 9-12) standards:
.
(1) Rule SE 3A -- Instead of eliminating the "strengths and weaknesses" language entirely, replace it with the words, "scientific strengths and scientific and pseudoscientific criticisms." This language has the following features: (i) It makes no assumptions about whether the criticisms are scientific or pseudoscientific; (ii) a pseudoscientific criticism is not a real "weakness," so the term "weaknesses" was changed to "criticisms" (my original proposed rewording had the term "weaknesses"); and (iii) the term "scientific and pseudoscientific criticisms" excludes "poof"-type creationism and supernaturalism because those things do not pretend to be scientific. Teaching criticisms -- even pseudoscientific criticisms -- of prevailing scientific theories serves the following purposes: broadening students' education, encouraging critical thinking, helping students learn the material, increasing student interest, helping to prevent misconceptions, and helping to assure that technically sophisticated criticisms are taught by qualified science teachers. For example, IMO the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a valid criticism of evolution theory, but analysis of the SLoT as a criticism of evolution theory would be a worthwhile educational exercise for the students.
(2) There should be uniform core principles for all of the different branches of science. I have been informed that the revised standards have this.
(3) The standards should not philosophize about science -- e.g., discuss testability and falsifiability. It is impossible to reach any consensus on philosophies of science.
(4) The standards should not define terms -- defining terms is likely to lead to confusion. In particular, attempts to define "scientific theories" as strong by definition should be avoided; standard dictionaries do not define "scientific theories" in this way -- there are strong scientific theories and weak scientific theories. The definitions of terms should be left to standard dictionaries.
(5) Don't misapply the term "evolution" to directionless changes that do not represent development or patterns of progression. So "stellar evolution" is OK but "evolution of the atmosphere" and "evolution of the geosphere" are not.
.
.
(1) Rule SE 3A -- Instead of eliminating the "strengths and weaknesses" language entirely, replace it with the words, "scientific strengths and scientific and pseudoscientific criticisms." This language has the following features: (i) It makes no assumptions about whether the criticisms are scientific or pseudoscientific; (ii) a pseudoscientific criticism is not a real "weakness," so the term "weaknesses" was changed to "criticisms" (my original proposed rewording had the term "weaknesses"); and (iii) the term "scientific and pseudoscientific criticisms" excludes "poof"-type creationism and supernaturalism because those things do not pretend to be scientific. Teaching criticisms -- even pseudoscientific criticisms -- of prevailing scientific theories serves the following purposes: broadening students' education, encouraging critical thinking, helping students learn the material, increasing student interest, helping to prevent misconceptions, and helping to assure that technically sophisticated criticisms are taught by qualified science teachers. For example, IMO the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a valid criticism of evolution theory, but analysis of the SLoT as a criticism of evolution theory would be a worthwhile educational exercise for the students.
(2) There should be uniform core principles for all of the different branches of science. I have been informed that the revised standards have this.
(3) The standards should not philosophize about science -- e.g., discuss testability and falsifiability. It is impossible to reach any consensus on philosophies of science.
(4) The standards should not define terms -- defining terms is likely to lead to confusion. In particular, attempts to define "scientific theories" as strong by definition should be avoided; standard dictionaries do not define "scientific theories" in this way -- there are strong scientific theories and weak scientific theories. The definitions of terms should be left to standard dictionaries.
(5) Don't misapply the term "evolution" to directionless changes that do not represent development or patterns of progression. So "stellar evolution" is OK but "evolution of the atmosphere" and "evolution of the geosphere" are not.
.
Labels: Texas controversy (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/10/2008 02:57:00 PM
1 Comments:
DARWINISTS NEVER REALIZE -1-
In claiming that a dinosaur grew wings while trying to catch flies, Darwinists never realize that the fly already had a perfect wing and flight system with the ability to flap its wings 1,000 times per second.
Darwinists never realize that the atoms they claim gave rise to all life on Earth are in fact unconscious entities.
In claiming that atoms such as phosphorus and carbon combined together as the result of coincidences and organized themselves under the effects of natural phenomena such as lightning, volcanoes, ultraviolet rays and radiation in such a way as to give rise to proteins, cells, fish, cats, rabbits, lions, birds, human beings and all of life, Darwinists never realize that these atoms are devoid of consciousness, intelligence, ability, information and of life itself.
In claiming that life evolved as the result of mutations, Darwinists never realize that 99% of mutations are harmful.
Darwinists never realize that the theory of evolution is a blind theory put forward in the limited technological atmosphere of the 19th century.
In claiming that species evolved from one another, Darwinists never realize that not a single piece of evidence to confirm this has ever been obtained from the fossil record.
In claiming that living species increased in number by evolving from one another over long periods of time, Darwinists never realize that all the known phyla, including others that went extinct, emerged suddenly and at the same time in the geological period known as the Cambrian, immediately after a period in which only the single-celled organisms existed.
Darwinists never realize that the fossil record proves that living things have remained unchanged for millions of years.
Darwinists never realize that the theory of evolution, a fictitious hypothesis put forward under the primitive 19th-century understanding of science, has not been confirmed by any scientific findings or experiments so far.
In claiming that Archaeopteryx is the “missing link” between reptiles and birds, Darwinists never realize that Archaeopteryx was a complete flying bird.
In suggesting that Archaeopteryx was an incompletely developed bird, Darwinists never realize that birds were living in the same period, and even earlier.
In claiming that life emerged as the result of blind chance, Darwinists never realize that the odds of a single, average-sized protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10300.
Darwinists never realize that the chances of a functional protein forming by chance are 1 in 10950.
In analyzing these probabilities, Darwinists never realize that in mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 in 1050 are in practical terms ?impossible?.
Darwinists never realize that the cell, which they maintain came into being by chance, and that given the state of 19th century technology was regarded as a balloon filled with water, has a structure as complex as that of the city of New York.
Darwinists never realize that the power station known as the ?mitochondrion? inside the cell, itself no larger than 1/100 millimeters, is far more complex than an oil refinery or hydroelectric station.
Darwinists never realize that a single DNA molecule that exists in every one of the 100 trillion cells that constitute the human body and which they maintain came into being as the result of blind coincidences, contains enough data to fill 1 million encyclopedia pages.
In claiming that the eye came into being by chance, Darwinists never realize that the eye is irreducibly complex and that it cannot function unless all its 40 main components are all present and working in harmony together, nor that this by itself totally undermines the theory of evolution.
Darwinists never realize that the human eye provides an image that is far superior to and clearer than that of the most advanced cameras.
Darwinists never realize that every neuron in the human brain has about 1,000 to 10,000 synapses (connections with other cells), that there are 1 quadrillion synapses in the brain, that this means some 1,000,000,000,000,000 acts of communication, and that it is impossible for all this to have come about by chance.
Darwinists never realize that while the fastest data processing man-made computers perform 109 operations per second, the human brain, which they claim came into existence by chance, can perform 1015 operations a second.
Darwinists never realize that it is absolutely impossible for chance to organize nerve cells in such a way as to establish an astonishing communications network.
Darwinists never to realize that by producing substances known as ?antibodies? against microbes known as ?antigens? or other foreign bodies, the cells of the defense system try to kill these or else prevent them from reproducing, that the most important feature of these antibodies is that they can distinguish between hundreds of thousands of different microbes in nature and prepare themselves to destroy them.
Darwinists never realize that there are even antibodies capable of recognizing artificial antigens produced in the laboratory and then injected into the human body.
Darwinists never realize that antibodies immediately identify and produce the most effective weapon to be used against the foreign body in question.
Darwinists never realize how it is possible for the queen bee, whose brain is just a few cubic millimeters in size and consists of very simple nerve nodes, to understand of her own will and with her own intelligence for what purpose the comb cells are built and to lay the appropriate eggs, with no confusion ever arising.
Darwinists never realize that the human kidneys are around 10 cm in size and weigh 100 grams and contain more than 1 million micro purification plants, that the blood that carries everything essential for our survival is constantly purified in these plants, and that not even the giant machines built by human beings can replicate the functions of the kidney.
Darwinists never realize how when cells need to be manufactured and when a cell needs to be destroyed, these functions are performed with perfect timing and in a perfect order inside the human body, completely beyond our will or knowledge.
Darwinists never realize although the enzymes that carry electrons by floating through the fluid between the cells are not conscious entities, were they one day to decide to randomly scatter the messages they carry in the body?s flawless communication system rather than to their correct destination, the resulting chaos in the brain would totally demolish the sense system, and all links with the outside world would be severed.
Darwinists never realize that the way that the cells in bone known as osteoclasts perform such functions as altering the length and shape of the bones and shrinking notches on the bone surface, and that while the osteoclast wreaks destruction in the bone, osteoblast cells begin manufacturing bone in such a way as to constitute the skeleton, and that all these take place in perfect order in every bone cell in the human body.
Post a Comment
<< Home