DescentBB

January in Aurora, Colorado, a social studies teacher answered questions in his world geography class about president George Bush's speech from his students.

Caricaturing Bush's speech, the teacher said, \"'It's our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the world like us.'\"

He continued: \"We're the only ones who are right, everyone else is backwards and it's our job to conquer the world and make sure they all live just like we want them to.\"

Unbeknown to him, one 16-year-old student recorded part of the class on his MP3 player. When his father heard it he was so incensed that he shopped it around to local conservative radio stations, where it finally found a home with radio talk-show host.



contact here now:

Oh dear!

If things keep up like this, next thing you know US educators will be trying to pawn off creationism by repackaging and remarketing it as a 'science'.

Once educational content is being manipulated in such a manner, it's then a short hop to imposing criteria on who should and shouldn't be privy to such enlightened wisdom.

Obviously the state can't allow potential subversives to gain knowledge - that's a given. So they get culled from mainstream education first.

Then you broaden this to anyone who questions the state's actions - because the land of the free can't be truly free while it's divided.

By now, educational curriculum has been further 'refined' to enhance those lucky enough to be allowed to study, a deeper understanding and appreciation of 'the american way'.

contact wrote:Once educational content is being manipulated in such a manner, it's then a short hop to imposing criteria on who should and shouldn't be privy to such enlightened wisdom.

Education is always being manipulated, the only difference is that in this case the one doing the manipulation doesn't agree with the popular view on things. I'm getting tired of all of the propaganda that circulates these days.

contact wrote: If things keep up like this, next thing you know US educators will be trying to pawn off creationism by repackaging and remarketing it as a 'science'.

This is nothing new. Science teachers already do the same thing by teaching the theory of evolution as if it was a "fact". It happened to me in highschool, my Biology teacher really stressed to us that it was a fact every chance he got. Sad...

History class was another deception. I hated history in high school because it was very one-sided.

So again, nothing new.

Xamindar, the theory of evolution is quite indeed a fact. It does happen, now whether or not it's the ONLY thing that happened and not some divine intervention, that's the question. To say that evolution does not happen is just sheer lunacy. Darwin believed in God but said that species can and do change as a result of environment. I do agree though that educators should not be spouting their own beliefs...teach what the field you are in has agreed to in basis, i.e...the sky is blue.

Zuruck wrote:Xamindar, the theory of evolution is quite indeed a fact. It does happen, now whether or not it's the ONLY thing that happened and not some divine intervention, that's the question.

You missed the point. I never said evolution doesn't happen. The type of evolution that my teacher taught us (species evolving into completely different species) is a THEORY. Yes, creatures do evolve, for example human's mouths are getting smaller, but to the extent that the "theory of evolution" teaches is unknown (as far as I know).

I hope you are not a biology teacher.

Nah I'm not a teacher, good thing I'm not too because I would fail any kid that believed in God just for being that stupid. I'm confused about your understanding of evolution, what do you mean by complete change? Do you mean by saying humans evolved from primates? The evidence is pretty stark that we did, a nearly identical genetic make-up, opposable thumbs, a comprehending mind, it's there.

As for history, that's always going to be one sided. The history that we know is incredibly one sided. I watched a program on the history channel about Custer and they treated him like a war hero, when in fact, he is responsible for the death and destruction of countless Native American lives / tribes. Not quite a hero in my mind but you get the drift. History is written by the victors, may be not right, but the way it's been. Columbus was a blood thirsty savage, yet we have a holiday named after him.

Xamindar wrote:You missed the point. I never said evolution doesn't happen. The type of evolution that my teacher taught us (species evolving into completely different species) is a THEORY. Yes, creatures do evolve, for example human's mouths are getting smaller, but to the extent that the "theory of evolution" teaches is unknown (as far as I know).

I hope you are not a biology teacher.

Species do not evolve, populations within species evolve. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact in the sense that evolution = "descent with modification". This is abundantly documented in the geological record. As you pointed out, it is also a theory - and a remarkable one at that.

Much as I'd like to debate this, it's not the topic. This has been hashed over very well elsewhere.

Back on topic--What are you all getting so upset over? The guy taught something conservative talk radio show hosts disagree with, and then everyone wonders why they're lambasting him for teaching it.

They are not part of the government; they are private individuals. They have a perfect right to express their opinion on the matter.

Before someone starts complaining about \"censorship\", what role did the government have in this? None. Did this person's career get ruined by the government? No. Did he get figuratively beaten over the head with a stick by some people who disagree with him? Yes.

If you're complaining about these people who are complaining about the man who said this, you are simply trying to do to them what they tried to do to that teacher--which, in essence, amounts to telling other people \"this guy's an idiot!\".

If you're going to call these talk show hosts ranting about this guy \"censorship\", then chew on this: I will censor your censoring of their censorship.

All teachers spew propaganda. I am in 7th grade, and it is spewed everywhere in my life. The thing is is by 5th grade, we have our own opinions, and propaganda can't change that. I have arguments with my own classmates more than my teacher tries to put subliminal messages into me, however. But reading this guys comments, wow does this teacher in that article suck.

Dakatsu wrote:All teachers spew propaganda. I am in 7th grade, and it is spewed everywhere in my life.

All teachers huh? I am not saying that yours does not. I don't know him/her. But at 12 years old, is it possible that what you are taking as propaganda is merely a limit in your experience and perception of the world due to your very young age?

When folks are young they tend to think their view is the right view and any knowledge beyond thier own is suspect. It's not a bad thing, just part of being young. I think it is healthy to question your teachers and parents (with in reason) about thier view of things.

Whoops, I meant to say many teachers. At least one teacher per grade level spews propaganda, against or for my opinion.

I must be lucky. Except for the religious instructor who spews everything as factual and has his own personal agenda, I've had GREAT teachers and I learned a lot. I'm gonna miss them come June...

Bee

Depends where you go to school at. I go to a \"magnet\" school called Bay Point Middle School in St. Petersburg, FL. The teachers here follow a general pattern. The teachers are more prepared to give referrals to kids who don't follow their views. I have gotten two referrals from my Social Studies teacher, but I am a favored student of my science teacher.

But like I said, matters what school you go to. Of course, I am in Florida where no one cares about education or schools. It is defintatly easier for you to be beaten up in our crappy system than lets say... California.

Seriously, my county owes 22 million dollars, and we spend.... like 100 something billion on Iraq each week. I wish someone would get this money to a place it deserves to go, and stop this war so I can get a good education.

Get all you can out of your teachers, then go to online forums for the particular subject matter and ask questions there. Thats what I do when I need to know more. Wikipedia is also a great source of information.

As much as I like my teachers, Wiki is my next best friend... Well...except for you guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

A science forum is here... (Don't fool around there)

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/

Bee

I look at the wiki too It is awesome, and defenatley answered many of my questions.

Dedman wrote:When folks are young they tend to think their view is the right view and any knowledge beyond thier own is suspect. It's not a bad thing, just part of being young. I think it is healthy to question your teachers and parents (with in reason) about thier view of things.

"Question Authority" ??

Yeah, that's a good thing. Just be ready to at times accept the fact that the authority is right.

Sometimes authority is right, sometimes it is not. How will you ever know unless you question it and compare it to \"other\" wisdom or ways of thinking.

I am not advocating rebellion towards authority, just a healthy dose of skepticism.

One of the best things you can do is learn to think for yourself. Never blindly accept what is handed to you.

Dedman and I are in complete agreement. Well said.

My issue with some younger folk (myself too, when I was that age (oh so many (many, many) years ago ... ), is that they just dump the \"authority\" views without giving them due consideration. It's the old story -
How do you get good judgement?
Experience.
How do you get experience?
Bad judgement.

what i'm wondering is: what reason did that kid have to record the teacher's speech? and secretly no less.

because last i checked, you are supposed to inform someone that they're being recorded.

My cell phone can record stuff, if my teacher was talking, I could secretly pull it out, and hit the record button. It isn't really that hard. I also bet the kid wanted his teacher to get into trouble as well.

And on authority, it matters what they say. IF it is logical, okay. If it isn't, thats when I challenge authoritah.

Ferno wrote:what i'm wondering is: what reason did that kid have to record the teacher's speech? and secretly no less.

because last i checked, you are supposed to inform someone that they're being recorded.

In a "public" setting, you're free to record at your hearts content. Thats how the news media can legally get away with filming on-scene. If this were a telephone conversation, that would depend on how your state's laws are written. In some states you aren't required to tell the other person you're recording this conversation while in some you are.

MD-2389 wrote:In a "public" setting, you're free to record at your hearts content.

I am not debating this statement cause I agree with you. I do have a question though. Is the inside of a class room considered "public"? I don't know the answer. That's why I am asking.

Dedman wrote:

MD-2389 wrote:In a "public" setting, you're free to record at your hearts content.

I am not debating this statement cause I agree with you. I do have a question though. Is the inside of a class room considered "public"? I don't know the answer. That's why I am asking.

When school is in session, the classrooms are not open to the public. In fact, our school is locked by security guards and the only way in or out is with a permission slip.

If you leave without permission, you aren't allowed back in that day. Parents are not allowed into the classrooms unless its an open class. Any parent or pupil can talk to any teacher but only after classes have ended. So, in that respect, its not public.

Edit: BTW, we ARE allowed to record anything if done quietly, but are not allowed to turn on cell phones.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:Edit: BTW, we ARE allowed to record anything if done quietly, but are not allowed to turn on cell phones.

Bee

You have to inform the person that they're being recorded first.

Dedman wrote:

MD-2389 wrote:In a "public" setting, you're free to record at your hearts content.

I am not debating this statement cause I agree with you. I do have a question though. Is the inside of a class room considered "public"? I don't know the answer. That's why I am asking.

You're allowed to record in a classroom, yes. While it may a closed session from the outside, you still have public individuals in your classroom. I've known people to openly record classroom sessions as a method of note taking (or in one person's case, to make sure she caught everything the teacher was trying to get across since she couldn't write all that fast.). You only have to inform if its a one-on-one private conversation.

10th Plank of the Communist Manifesto...

Ferno wrote:what i'm wondering is: what reason did that kid have to record the teacher's speech? and secretly no less.

because last i checked, you are supposed to inform someone that they're being recorded.

Says who? No one can (or should) make you do anything you don't want to do. To say otherwise means you're not free.

i'm not saying you can't do it at all. i'm saying you have to at least tell them first.

like the calls that start out with: \"this call may be recorded\". if you don't want to be recorded, you have the option of either telling them you don't want to be recorded or hanging up.

A teacher on the other hand, can either tell the person recording they don't want to be recorded, end the class right there, or whatever other method the teacher chooses.

Ferno wrote:like the calls that start out with: "this call may be recorded". if you don't want to be recorded, you have the option of either telling them you don't want to be recorded or hanging up.

A teacher on the other hand, can either tell the person recording they don't want to be recorded, end the class right there, or whatever other method the teacher chooses.

A moral/ethics issue; okay. Not that they can't, but shouldn't.

Xamindar wrote:I never said evolution doesn't happen. The type of evolution that my teacher taught us (species evolving into completely different species) is a THEORY. Yes, creatures do evolve, for example human's mouths are getting smaller, but to the extent that the "theory of evolution" teaches is unknown (as far as I know).

Dude you need to go back to school and study science some more. A scientific theory is very distinct from the layman's (i.e. your!) interpretation of the word "theory". A theory accepted by the wider scientific community (i.e. peer reviewed acceptance over a lengthy period of time) is not "just a theory" as creationists love to say.

No, a scientific theory is far more than "just an idea" which is how creationists (and other ignorant individuals) interpret the wording.

There is "Nuclear Theory" - and will you tell me that the tens of thousands of students who have studied, performed experiments, built reactors, caused nuclear fission (and in some cases fusion) to occur and all of them absolutely following the predictions of nuclear theory.... are you going to tell me that "Nuclear Theory" is "Just a theory"? No - because to do so would be to fly in the face of a staggering amount of overwhelming evidence that says Nuclear Theory is 100% correct in all applications it has ever been subject to.

Evolutionary theory has the same weight of scientific FACT behind it. Just as Nuclear theory won't ever become "Nuclear Law", neither can Evolution ever become "Evolutionary Law" - due to the incredibly rigorous requirements for a theory to become a law.

THIS IN NO WAY DIMINISHES THE VALUE, OR THE LEGITIMACY OF THE THEORY CALLED _______ <insert theory name here>.

You are confused by semantics, and ignorance, and the sooner you stop simply accepting things, and start learning things, questioning things, and trying to understand things, the better off you'll be.

Right now, you do not possess the ability to distinguish fact from fiction, and this is the key which will unlock the real world for you, rather than the make believe world you currently live in.

Dang, I almost spit out my Sprite...good post Mobius.

My my Mobius such anger. Any theory can't stand on its own. You know that. Theories have to be supported by evidence that they are correct. The stronger the evidence, the stronger the theory. So, yes, nuclear theory is a very strong theory because a large number of experiments have been performed that successfully support it. Micro evolution is a very strong theory because a large number of experiments have been performed successfully support it. Macro evolution is a weak theory because no experiments have been performed that sucessfully support it.

Hear! Hear! Note and Recognize the difference and the implications of such facts!

snoopy wrote:My my Mobius such anger. Any theory can't stand on its own. You know that. Theories have to be supported by evidence that they are correct. The stronger the evidence, the stronger the theory. So, yes, nuclear theory is a very strong theory because a large number of experiments have been performed that successfully support it. Micro evolution is a very strong theory because a large number of experiments have been performed successfully support it. Macro evolution is a weak theory because no experiments have been performed that sucessfully support it.

You're incorrectly limiting experimentation to lab experiments though. There's another kind of experiment--an experiment of observation. It's used all the time in many sciences, especially Astronomy. We can't experimentally reproduce planets orbiting the sun in a lab, but I doubt that you would call that a weak scientific theory too. Instead, in astronomy, we just experiment via observation, e.g. I predict that the next star with nearby planets that we look at will have the planets orbiting it too. So the same goes for biological evolution.

Jeff250 wrote:You're incorrectly limiting experimentation to lab experiments though. There's another kind of experiment--an experiment of observation.

Actually, I wasn't. Macro evolution remains weak, because there's no way to confirm it, via lab experiments, observation, or otherwise. It (by nature) remains a philosophically driven issue.

snoopy wrote:Macro evolution remains weak, because there's no way to confirm it, via lab experiments, observation, or otherwise. It (by nature) remains a philosophically driven issue.

Why not? And why philosophically driven?
As far as I understand it, discoveries of transitional fossils, re-emerging traits of ancestors (whales with legs), and genetical analysis confirm it?

Nono, you got it all wrong.

God put those fossils there to confuse the scientists. They aren't real.

No, the fossils are real.

I have just spent the last 45mins googling \"Whales with legs\" and reading reports from both sides of the \"fence\". I must admit that the \"Pro E\" articles all basically say: We feel that this fossil shares certain traits with current whales and therefore we STATE that this is....
Rather than: There is evidence that suggests and therefore we feel this COULD be....

Remember all evidence is simply evidence, how it is interpreted depends on what you are trying to find defined by the mindset you start with: Evolution or Creation, which to me is a theological argument anyway. They are bases of belief that determine your approach to all evidence presented.

ie If you have an evolutionary mind set, you will interpret all evidence through this viewpoint. If you have a creationist mind set, you will interpret all evidence through that viewpoint.

Whether someone is a \"raving lunatic who believes all kinds of lies\" depends on your viewpoint (see above)

Weyman, I think we are talking about different things. There was a post by Mercury some time ago that explained it quite well. The idea is that even now you can find animals that exhibit traits of their proposed ancestors, for instance, whales that have grown legs, or humans that walk on hand and feet.

These findings are actually *predicted* by evolutionary theory. The reason is that genetic blueprint of the legs might be preserved in whales but \"switched off\" in the modern day versions. You only need a small mutation to switch it back on. However, if the animal does not have an ancestor with legs, it should be nearly impossible that one of it suddenly exhibits this trait: much more is required than a change of an on/off gene. So, the theory predicts that you will never find sharks with legs...

What differents a scientific theory from an everyday theory is that it makes specific predictions. It predicts what you *should* find if the theory were true, and - more importantly - what you should *never* find if the theory is true (=falsification). Therefore, the interpretation of the evidence is not really not as subjective as you claim it is, Weyman.

snoopy wrote:Macro evolution remains weak, because there's no way to confirm it, via lab experiments, observation, or otherwise. It (by nature) remains a philosophically driven issue.

here's a quite extensive overview of evidence for macroevolution.