Editor’s notes:
Two considerations:
First, there is no reason to believe that Common
Core is an end all to educational failures.
It is not as if there are no competing programs that are potentially and
equally effective.
Secondly, I have two daughters who are teachers (here,
in California
Those
teachers who are hell bent on social justice as defined by modern-day
Marxism, will use any educational
tool, to pursue their personal
agenda, whether that be Common Core or
not.
Use any educational tool? Like rewriting history?
ReplyDeleteFrom PBS, "The Revisionaries" is an important look at how a few right wing religious fanatics duped a state into teaching kids in public schools that evolution and creationism in science class, and that students need to be taught about the importance of the "Heritage Foundation" in history textbooks.
Once every decade, the highly politicized Texas State Board of Education rewrites the teaching and textbook standards for its nearly five million schoolchildren. When an unabashed creationist seeks re-election as chairman, the theory of evolution and U.S. history are being revised with an inaccurate and morally skewed version of reality, which could impact the classroom curricula not only of Texas, but also of the nation as a whole.
This is a must see in order to keep it from happening in other states.
"Use any educational tool? Like rewriting history?" Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of tolerance to gender reassignment, gayness taught to our Kindergartners, holistic math and English, or the last 30 years of Progressive education resulting in the failing mess, in education, we see, today.
ReplyDeleteRewriting history is what your side of the aisle does best and that is established common knowledge.
Evolution is still a theory, and, as applied to "origins," a philosophical alternative to the creation account, and nothing more. Think I am wrong? Define for me "science" and "philosophy." If you don't , I will, but I will wait to see if you have anything of import to say.
Evolution is not a theory, it is accepted and proven scientific FACT. Science not is something you "believe in" or not.... you understand the evidence for why it is true... or in your case, you obviously don't.
ReplyDelete"The theory of evolution is like the theory of gravity, it is a scientific fact." - Neil de Grasse Tyson, PhD
Last time I looked, "it" was still called "The Theory of Evolution." The fear mongering as to trans fats, is a consensus scientific opinion that is proving to have no basis in reality, if we are to believe the increasing number of articles making that point. Caffeine was going to kill us all . . . . but fewer and fewer scientists believe this, today. Ditto for eating eggs; remember when more than 2 eggs a week, was our death? That has been almost universally abandoned - 5/6 eggs a week is just fine, maybe more (?). Global Warming was going to give us a decade of disastrous, high intensity, hurricanes. Katrina (2005) was only the beginning . . . . . . laughably wrong. When you write of "evidence," you allude to the notion that science is or can be quantified in the results of observable and controlled experimentation. I believe that to be true. If true, then the nonsense opinions about "origins" are nothing but conjecture, since the origins of this universe cannot be and were not observed nor duplicated in the lab. Such is philosophy, not science. Never forget, it is "consensus opinion," or, "scientific fact" that told us there were 9 planets in our solar system . . . . . . turns out there are only eight planets. So much for "scientific fact" based on consensus opinion. And, I could give you a hundred such examples.
ReplyDeleteClearly... if the blogger compares his examples to evolution, he DOESN'T understand the science and the evidence. This basic anti-science bent has become the hallmark of the GOP - a dangerous direction.
ReplyDeleteFirst, there are plenty of Republicans who disagree with me. Secondly, I gave no examples of evolution. My brief comments as to the theory of origins, made the point that philosophical conclusions are, often, confused for [utopian] science. The fact of the matter is this: there are several theories as to the origins of the universe. Which one are you defending and why is THAT particular theory, your "scientific fact?"
ReplyDelete