|
|
I know. That's why I'm not completely up in arms about this law. I think religion should be a separate subject, however I'm not going to spend energy fretting over this law. As long as kids are able to learn both at an adequate level so they are prepared for modern discussions, then I am fine with whatever.Originally Posted by oucub23
interesting that OOO won't watch a movie about ID and the issues within Darwinism but then states he hasn't found any evidence that people are abandoning Darwinian Evolution...
Richard Dawkins believes in ID so should we dismiss him? no one, Theists/Atheists can prove where life came from but nothing to this point proves where the origin of life came from...Dawkins suggests it could have been an alien race...seriously, that's more believable to him than a supreme being
Don't be intentionally dense. If you want to be SUPER technical about it: no, the bill does not REQUIRE creationism to be taught in school. Even the biggest relgious zealot out there would agree that would be unconstitutional and inappropriate.
What it wants to do and might actually do is forbid teachers from giving bad grades to students that ****ert faith-based opinions on hot-button issues as a part of the science curriculum. Giving bad grades or making a kid do an ****ignment over again (whatever you might consider "punishment" or "penalizing") is a part of teaching.
What do you think the purpose of this bill is, in your own words?
So where did those aliens come from?
What part of the bill would do that?
Seriously? Dude.
We can't keep spoon-feeding you this stuff. You need to try to keep up, or get out of the thread.but no student in any public school or institution
shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a
particular position on scientific theories.
forbid teachers from giving bad grades to students that ****ert faith-based opinions on hot-button issues as a part of the science curriculum.
These two things arent the same. You are too smart to not understand this. Why are you continuing to lie about it when everyone (except for OOO) can see that you are wrong?
I realize you're not intentionally dense, just born that way. There is no super technicality to it. Your paranoia has driven you to believe that the bill is requiring the injection of religion into the classroom. You can't provide any evidence the bill does that so you have resorted to believing the mysterious "code" has been applied that will forever banish science from the classroom. The students are still tested on their knowledge of various theories and their grades should reflect their knowledge of those theories...regardless if they individually disagree with those theories.
And, although you have missed this time and again, the only part of the "bill" that interested me was the freedom to debate APG. I didn't know classrooms were teaching APG as a fact and I heartily welcome it's pros and cons being discussed. To some, like the Mother Jones professor, APG is above being debated which is ludicrous.
The irony is AGP is a ****ing religion, but Mallen doesnt want it to be disputed by a student in science cl**** because he doesnt want religion in science cl****.
So you want to make it a prerequisite for any student that they have to state that they believe in evolution or APG to p**** a science course, regardless if they can express fully their understanding of those theories?
LOL...sad but true.
I know, I know, they are not verbatim the same. You're going to have to sort of put, like, three puzzle pieces together. Read this slowly:
1. Johnny is ****igned to write a paper on the origin of life. (Science ****ignment)
2. Johnny writes paper based on Genesis. (Kid rejects modern science, which is subscribing to a particular position on scientific theory, namely that he REJECTS it.)
3. Teacher wants to fail the kid because he didn't cover the course material. (Certainly is penalizing in "any" way.)
4. Johnny sues teacher for punishing him for SUBSCRIBING to the theory (ha, not a theory really) of creationism. He would be adopting the position that modern science is wrong about evolution or the origin of life (insert topic here) and that he doesn't subscribe to them. He's just telling the teacher the "truth". This bill would prevent the teacher from punishing the kid with a bad grade. The teacher COULDN'T PENALIZE THE KID. This statute gives a cause of action to the kid. The teacher would be in violation of a state statute.
Don't you see? The kid can't be corrected. The bill is intended to allow kids to eschew science in favor of their own opinions, and the intention is clear as day given the current political climate in Oklahoma, the text of the bill, etc.
And if that's NOT the point of the legislation, then tell us what the point of the legislation IS.
Tell us:
1. What the bill does.
2. What the intent of the bill is.
No, no one is saying that at all. Try again.
they can't answer that...one alternate theory is that life formed "on the backs of crystals" which apparently means that over millions/billions of years crystals somehow created life or something like that but overall there is no way to understand where life originated and that's a point that atheists struggle with because very few people are truely atheistic they are deistic/agnostic
You're just making **** up now.
1. Clearly, I'm not a dense person.
2. Paranoia? Clearly not. Oklahoma has proposed more anti-evolution legislation than any other state, introducing 8 bills with "academic freedom" language since 2004.
3. Clearly, I never said the bill required injection of religion into the classroom. I defy to you to show us where I said that.
You love to spout ****, but for those of us with an IQ above 100, you're all hat and no cattle, son.
You continue to prove your stupidity.
How does being evaluated on a school's curriculum escape you? Please explain?D. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt students from learning, understanding and being tested on curriculum as prescribed by state and local education standards.
E. The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act shall only protect the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. The intent of the provisions of this act is to create an environment in which both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the facts and observations of science, and the ****umptions that underlie their interpretation.
Got it
So far, so good.
And the teacher could still do so.
And here is where you fail. The bill would do no such thing. The teacher has penalized the student for failure to cover the course material (also failing to apply the scientific method, and failing to understand core principles of science), NOT for not subscribing to a particular position on scientific theories. If the kid had written Genesis then supported every bit of it with groundbreaking solid science he wouldn't/shouldn't be punished. "believing in Genesis" isnt the variable here, it is whether or not he showed competency in the scientific principles the ****ignment was designed to instill
I am sure you read this, and I am sure that because you are so ****ing smart you understand it. Now why are you continuing to lie about this entire topic:
If I am wrong and there is a part you dont understand let me know. We will sort out it for you and maybe if you read it real slow it you will be able to comprehend it.D. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt students from learning, understanding and being tested on curriculum as prescribed by state and local education standards.
E. The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act shall only protect the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. The intent of the provisions of this act is to create an environment in which both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the facts and observations of science, and the ****umptions that underlie their interpretation.
Yes he can. The fact is that this bill would do the exact opposite of what you are claiming it does.
Whatever secret intent you may think you can divine from it is irrelevant because that isnt what the bill does.
1. Nothing from what I can tell, except maybe it makes the ****ty science teachers behave more like the good ones
2. To keep ****ty science teachers from failing a kid for writing a paper that attempts to disprove an element of AGP (for example) just because the ****ty teacher thinks their job is to make sure students "believe in" AGP. But, I dont know if it is really necessary.
And since you ask, the bill itself addresses that very question:
So there ya go.The intent of the provisions of this act is to create an environment in which both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the facts and observations of science, and the ****umptions that underlie their interpretation.
If you had just read the bill in first place you would have A. Seen that Mother Jones was wrong and B. had all of your questions answered.
Not sure why you chose the "regurgitate bull**** then just keep lying until people lose interest" approach. Thats just you I guess.
Ironic no, that you are so fervently against "because the Bible said" in school, yet you have no problem going with "Because Mother Jones said" or "Because Comedy Central said" in everyday life? Which is more backwards, really?
Last edited by Sancho; 02-20-2013 at 03:40 PM.
Einstein...your IQ may be so low it could save you from the gas chamber.
OOO, Mallen,
Still waiting:
I want OOO or Mallen to cite the specific part of this bill that would prevent a teacher from penalizing a student for basing a paper on global warming on the following:
"Because Al Gore said so"
Or for basing a paper on evolution on the following:
"Because, Darwin and ****. You know, nucleotides or whatever."
Cite the specific language in the bill that would allow that to happen.
As a science teacher if I asked how old the earth was on a test, and a kid came back with 10,000 years old, I would count that wrong. If they then came back with that's what my Sunday School teacher told me. I would have to say what?
That's what I thought.
What a ****ing joke. The best part is that you're REALLY convinced. That's the part that turns the sadness of your meager intellect into something fun we can all enjoy.
It's just a bill to make science teachers better. Nothing to see here folks! Don't worry about the clear intent of the bill, the language of the bill, or the reasonable outcomes from the bill!
As to my lying and inability to understand: How many statutes or regulations have you written Sancho?
I'm glad you agree.
"You answered the question wrong". He is evaluated on his understanding of scientific concepts as put forth by the school curriculum. He can disagree with what the curriculum states but he has to be able to recite it for tests. He could write down 4.5 billion years for the answer but not personally believe it. It's really as simple as that.
As a science teacher, are you going to tell the student that APG is a fact require and him to agree?
No one is debating that. No one needed a statute for that. No one was being penalized for that, or it would be unconstitutional. Schools can't penalize kids for private religious beliefs. Did you really think they could? Are you aware of a problem in OK schools regarding the same that we all aren't? If so, I 100% encourage you to call the media and the ACLU, because that's just wrong.
No, it isn't, or there wouldn't be a statute written, a liberal watchdog in Oakland California involved, and Comedy Central wouldn't give a ****.It's really as simple as that.
So I guess you have no rebuttal then? Its just "you are stupid" and "how many statues have you written"?
What a ****ing joke. The best part is that you're REALLY convinced. That's the part that turns the sadness of your meager intellect into something fun we can all enjoy.
It's just a bill to make science teachers better. Nothing to see here folks! Don't worry about the clear intent of the bill, the language of the bill, or the reasonable outcomes from the bill!
As to my lying and inability to understand: How many statutes or regulations have you written Sancho?
Come back when you can make a coherent case for what you claimed this bill does.
This bill just makes our science teachers better, Sancho! That's what it does!
Like I said before, you are literally too stupid to prove wrong. And it's sad man, because you strike me as a guy that likes the Constitution, and you can't even tell when constitutional lines are being blurred.
Keep running with that lie.
You lost. It's over.
Man oh man, are you ever right! This bill basically is ineffective, but at its most effective: it merely makes our science teachers better! Nothing to see here folks! The World, by Sancho the Wise!
You're debating it.
I have no idea why the statute was proposed (and really don't care) but I also didn't know in some schools APG was being taught as a "fact" and was beyond debate. The liberal watchdog, who regards APG as fact, has to describe the proposed statute as a "code" when he can't find solid evidence to support his position. Comedy central already showed they didn't have a clue about it...but then they really only care about being funny.
This from a beta male who thinks that because Comedy Central agrees with him it makes him right.
What I said was that it probably does nothing. MAYBE it would make ****ty teachers behave like good teachers. Do you think good teachers penalize students for believing in creationism Mallen?
Your tone and content give away your desperation. It isnt flattering.
You arent even attempting a rebuttal because you know its over.
Boom. Head shot.
A bill that does nothing!!!! Of course, the entire time! That's certainly what the author of the bill intended! To write a bill that does nothing. Whew. And to think, I was concerned about the potential and intended impact of this statute or similar on our state. I sure am glad that the bill does nothing.
Those watchdog groups and sophisticated political satirists...they're so stupid, amirite Sanchy boy??? Let's go drink some Busch Light together, whadayasay?
He heaves a hail mary! It falls harmlessly to the turf, 40 yards shy of the end zone.
I love football! Would you rather play football? As long as I'm near you, Sancho. I don't know about everyone else, but this attorney needs you, with all your education and sophistication, to explain laws to him. In fact, you ought to be in DC.
SANCHO FOR PRESIDENT, YALL! WHO'S WITH ME?
D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-O-N.
Game is over dip****, You lost.
Isn't that the way it is now? If so, why does there need to be a bill? It's not like if the kid gets a wrong answer on a test he gets shot or something. What's the point of the bill?
No, I would tell him Evolution a theory based on evidence like all other scientific theories are. And that the answer he was told from his sunday school teacher was a theory based not on evidence, but based on spiritual belief and faith.
I would also explain that this is a Science cl**** and that religion will not be discussed in this cl****. If you want to discuss ID or Creationism please come to my philosophy cl**** 5 period.
The following users like this post: OUMallen
There may not be a compelling justification for the bill. Maybe all Oklahoma science teachers are as good as you.
In the end though the bill doesn't do what Mallen and OOO claimed it would do, which is the whole point of this debate.
Its actually kind of funny because they are frothing at the mouth over a bill that if it does anything at all, its exactly what they claim to want.
Best guess is chemical reactions.
If a student comes to you and asks you: Teacher, how did life originate, why do we have so much diversity of life on this planet?
What scientific facts/evidence do you point them to without any elements of faith?
The most delicious irony of this whole thread is that this legislation would only be needed if there are science teachers who are like OOO and Mallen. People who think the purpose of science cl**** is to make students "believe in" global warming and evolution. People who think being anti-intellectual simply means disagreeing with them. Essentially, unfathomably arrogant and condescending pseudo-intellectual bullies. Maybe this measure would prevent students from being bullied and intimidated by Mallen/OOO type teachers into taking one side or another on a controversial issue out fear of being penalized.
Can you imagine being a student in OOO's science cl**** after he tells you that because he ran with no shirt on one day it proves AGW is real? After he insists that if a study is published it means it can't be flawed? Would you feel like you would be given a fair grade if you turned in a paper that concluded with skepticism of AGW, regardless of how well you demonstrated your understanding of the curricula?
Can you imagine if Mallen was your science teacher after he used Mother Jones, Comedy Central, and "a Liberal watchdog group from Oakland" as "proof" of some asinine ****ertion? After watching him repeatedly fail to comprehend plain English text that is right in front of him as he did with the very bill we are discussing in this thread? Hell, you wouldnt know what you would be safe writing. Even if you could back up your writing with text directly out of the textbook he would just lie, tell you it says something else, or tell you that you are stupid for not getting some arcane code out of it.
Maybe there are Mallens and OOO's teaching science out there and this bill is to protect kids from them.
Your thoughts, JD?
Last edited by Sancho; 02-20-2013 at 07:28 PM.
Wow talk about much ado about nothing.
Here's the bill for you to read.
Quick, somebody call Jon Stewart to bully us on national TV.The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act shall only protect the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. The intent of the provisions of this act is to create an environment in which both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the facts and observations of science, and the ****umptions that underlie their interpretation.
Again, can't a student and teacher already do this? What is the purpose of the bill?!?
Well clearly it is to turn science classes into Sunday school. Mother ****in' Jones said so. Just ignore that there is no language in it that would actually do so.
Can you imagine a cl**** taught by Sancho? If you disagree with him on one topic he'd gleefully declare to the entire cl**** that you're a ****ing idiot, a piece of ****, and/or a liar. Then he'd follow you to subsequent unrelated classes and interrupt any discussion you're involved in to continue to shout his opinions about you to anyone who was (or wasn't) listening.
2 users like Troker's post: Drake, OnlyOneOklahoma
Sounds like Mallon as well.
I think its sweet that you are still following me around.
The following users like this post: Troker
From the guy that thinks we are saving our oil....a laugh a minute.
87 made me laugh a couple of times and provided some good info in the lawn care thread. I need a new foil.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
