|
|
Post by Seany-D on Jan 30, 2004 8:42:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by FishBait on Jan 30, 2004 8:52:51 GMT -5
that looks kinda silly, it looks like their saying, hey were still going to teach it but maybe if we call it something different all the stupid conservatives won't know they're learning about evolution
|
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Jan 30, 2004 10:05:29 GMT -5
I hate the South.
|
|
|
|
Post by FishBait on Jan 30, 2004 10:20:19 GMT -5
yeah, we really just should've let them leave
|
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Jan 30, 2004 13:38:20 GMT -5
Could have been a lot worse. Last time around, they wanted all mentioning out, now it's just specific phrasing. Parts of this seem like a move on the scientists' part to slip evolutionary teaching in under the dullards' noses.
"A rose is a rose is a rose."
|
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Jan 30, 2004 13:43:04 GMT -5
Scientists wouldn't use such fallacious logic by hiding something by using a different name. This smells like the work of administrators and bureaucrats. Granted they want evolution taught, but they are pussy footing, backing down. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Evolution is evolution. Call it what you want, but you are teaching it nonetheless and aquiescing to creationists just a little bit still gives them a swollen ego. They can then gloat they got rid of evolution in their schools, and their momentum will just grow. No thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Jan 30, 2004 16:37:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Jan 30, 2004 18:02:38 GMT -5
I don't know, Cox might be right. She wants what's best for the students, not the creationists. The first time I read the Illiad, all the gods' and goddesses' names were romanized. The next time, they were back to the greek. I still got it. If Georgia insists on not having the greek names of the gods in the Illiad, the story is the same, if not a tad inauthentic, with the roman names in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Jan 30, 2004 18:54:22 GMT -5
No, she is an administrator-she wants what is best for the school board and it's voters and is afraid to get her feet wet with the creationists. It isn't so much that the name-change is a problem, but the mere act of submitting gives a green liight to creationists. Compromise is one thing, but this is bending over in defeat.
I see the benefeits-evolution probably will get to more ears through this back door, but it is still backpedaling. It will result in a bad precedent that can just be exploited by creationists
To me, this is like teaching kids something is green, even though it is blue. The kids will think green+blue. It won't change what blue is, but it will certainly mislead and confuse the kids. There is no point in teaching less than what is known if it is relevant.
Also, I doubt the quality of teaching evolution will be up to par without the word. It won't be able to go in depth if it is afraid to use the proper term. The result will be a watered down version that is even easier to misinterpret and madmouth than the original. I can just see being in an argument, talking about evolution, and some kid saying-ppssh, what is evolution, that is that stupid biological descent thing i learned back in georgia. Evolution is a word you just made up to give that stupid theory a more scientificy sounding name.
Sorry, the idea may have been made with good intentions, but it is just a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Feb 5, 2004 14:40:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ravenlock on Feb 5, 2004 15:18:12 GMT -5
Jeez. That was a quick victory. ~Roger |
|
