RE: Moscow's right/wrong conspiracy?

["Bill Belknap" <bbelknap@latah.id.us>]

Sean, I would suggest that rather than repetitively asking the question here
where you are likely to get second hand information, that you call the
district office and get from the "horses mouth" as they say.  I would
suggest you contact Dr. Albright, Assistant Superintendent in charge of
personnel and curriculum, at 882-1120.
Bill Belknap

-----Original Message-----
From: sean [mailto:o2design@wsu.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 9:59 AM
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: RE: Moscow's right/wrong conspiracy?


This does not answer my questions, either about what is being taught
or about if anyone here knows conclusively what is being taught.

Regarding this definition of theory, proving and disproving is seldom
this cut and dry.  Evidence will often as not be found in support of
and in contradiction of a theory.  That someone interprets (extends)
this to me a theory is disproven is perhaps understandable, but not
necessarily a fair or open-minded evaluation.

I remain curiousŠ
s

>
>Dear Sean,
>	Creationism is a competing scientific theory if and only if
>it generates
>testable hypotheses that cannot be disproved. What testable hypothesis does
>Biblical creationism suggest that have not been disproved? That the world
>was created in 7 24-hour days? Geology 101 disabused me of that
possibility.
>Woman was made from man? Was this the result of a cloning experiment gone
>terribly wrong? The other way around would be easier to believe. That man
is
>unique from other animals? We have some unique characteristics, but we
>acquired them the same way other animals and plants acquired theirs. Am I
>missing something?
>	The rub for fundamentalist seems to be that they take the
>Bible literally,
>and when it does not bear up under close scrutiny then the scrutinizers are
>wrong and bad. I don't think so. Alternatively the fundamentalist could see
>the Bible's creation story as a metaphor and a beautiful one at that, which
>is what I think it is. Every culture has creation stories that are fanciful
>and the one in the Bible is no different. Is one any less a good Christian
>if they accept the Bible's creation story as a metaphor?
>	Do we really want to teach our children that we think the
>Bible story may
>be right even though all the evidence is to the contrary? The world is
>confusing enough to children without denying the facts before their eyes.
>Steve Cooke
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: sean [mailto:o2design@wsu.edu]
>Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 2:33 PM
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Moscow's right/wrong conspiracy?
>
>Thanks for that info, Sue.  I see more clearly some of the criteria
>that are applied, however I'm still not sure if those established
>scientific concepts allow for or encourage differing theory.  I
>assume they do, as the challenge of evolving theory is at the core of
>investigation and discovery (ie, science).  I was struck by this fact
>and how the established view can preclude growth as I watched the
>lastest (?) PBS show on Idaho landscapes ("Shaped by Floods").  In
>it, the scientific establishment (geologists in this case) rejected
>the theory of fellow inquirer.
>
>I remain curious to know how the major alternative theories of how
>our world came to be (is that a safe phrase?) are handled at the
>different secondary ed "establishments" in our town.  Are they each
>presenting alternative views, or are they teaching acceptance without
>weighing evidence, challenging assumption, and considering
>alternatives?
>
>Thanks to anyone who might share examples to answer this question.
>s
>
>>
>>Science teachers will probably weigh in on this question as well, but I'll
>>start the ball rolling.
>>
>>Sean,
>>
>>Elementary teachers as will as secondary science teachers have a science
>>curriculum that is designed to be age appropriate and based on established
>>scientific concepts.  Much of what they teach is tied to the National
>>Science Education Standards published by the National Academy of Sciences
>in
>>Washington, D. C.  These standards are based on what academy members refer
>>to as "unifying concepts and processes," and are:
>>Systems, order, and organization
>>   Evidence, models, and explanation
>>Constancy, change, and measurement
>>Evolution and equilibrium
>>Form and function
>>
>>Teachers often refer to the above as "big ideas in science" and textbooks
>>and workbooks often use that term, too.  Those big ideas are designed to
>>provide students with ways to examine and investigate scientific data  and
>>reflect on their results.
>>
>  >I hope this provides you with the information you wanted.
>>
>>Sue Hovey
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "sean" <o2design@wsu.edu>
>>To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>>Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 9:59 AM
>>Subject: Fwd: Moscow's right wing conspiracy?
>>
>>
>>>   Can someone explain what the policy is that governs teachers' right
>>>   (or mandate) to cover the different theories relating to science or
>>>   other topics in the schools?
>>>
>>>   Thanks,
>>>   s
>>>
>>>   >

--
Thanks,
s


         * * * * * * * *
         Sean Michael