My Master's Thesis: "Which Dinosaurs Adam Rode"Follow

'm guessing the move from California has to do with higher hopes of accreditation from the state govenment, since the standards are mostly the same across the country. Contrary to assumption, most institutions want the regional accreditation board's blessing, because they are so thorough and stringent. The state-sponsored route is valid, but not as prestigious in the educational community.

Sure. The existence of the state board would seem to indicate that this sort of thing isn't that uncommon, though. Are they perusing the avenue most likely to lead to accreditation? Of course. Is this some sort of crazy end run around accepted practices? It doesn't seem so. You clearly know more about it than I do, does it really seem to you that this is somehow structurally unfair and offering them an advantage that other secular institutions couldn't (and likely have already) pursued?

The curriculum is available on the web via the previous links. Per the previous cites, acceptance by the Board would mean that this degree would meet the "Training in education" requirement to gain a state teaching certificate in Texas.


Ok. Is there something that leads you to believe that they'd turn out unqualified teachers, or just teachers that held a certain set of beliefs? I suspect I could teach catechism just fine if someone paid me to, regardless of my belief system.

Although I'd be hesitant if I were to learn that my kid was being taught evolutionary theories by a Young Earth Creationist. I'd also question the qualifications of someone who believed in YEC as a hard science (as opposed to social sciences) to teach biology or earth sciences but we apparently see differently on that so no reason to drag it out.

We don't see differently on it. What we see differently on is that I'd be equally bothered by someone who believed that Christ was the son of God teaching my kid history.

With those kudos, I'm off for a Christmas party.

God bless.

:)

In contrast, a denial of evolution and modern geology & astronomy undercuts a larger swath of modern natural sciences. I could accept an arguement that the principle is the same but the degrees (in my opinion) are greater.


I don't see much of a diffrence in degrees, if any. You have a person who finds something quite litterally impossible to be a historical fact attempting to teach history and a person who finds something quite litterally impossible to be scientific fact (and really not even that the way ID is genrally presented) trying to teach science. If anything, someone believing that Christ was the child of an all powerful diety who somehow impregnated a woman is worse. ID at least has some sort of argument. A flawed invalid one, but an argument. There's no historical argument for the other case.

I'll say it again, and while I'm sure you'll disagree, it's not a personal attack.

You see this through the lens of your personal belief system. You consistently make excuses for the irrationalities of Christanity (or really, more specifically, the laziez faire Catholosism practiced by many social liberals) that you'd never accept for any other group from someone else.

Which is fine. I'd imagine I'm far more likely to make allowances for some of the flaws practiced in social sciences because I believe so strongly in their efficacy. I don't feel some sort of compuslion to deny that case though, and I'm not sure why you do. Why not just be ok with it? "I'm Catcholic and while there are certainly crazy Catholics out there on ballance I'm more comfortable with the flaws in the belief system because it's fammiliar." What's wrong with that?

I doubt I'll dissuade you from your idea that it's all self-delusion on my part so I'm not feeling any special enthusiasm.

I genuinely do not understand how you dissuade yourself of it. I'm not going to pretend I know you well or something, but it's an extremely discordant note in my imagined image of you. You seem to me a reasoned rational thoughtful very intelligent guy who somehow becomes the exact opposite if the subject turns to Jesus.

It's beyond my capacity for analysis to understand it. It, to me, would be like someone turning up some private diaries that showed Ghandi just happened to really hate Mexicans. It makes that little sense to me.

Anyway, it's your deal, I'll let it go.

Saying (and believing) that Joseph Smith found golden discs written by angels doesn't really change American history

What's that again? It doesn't? Because the end result is the same or something?


Saying (and believing) that rotting meat transforms into living maggots changes everything about biology. Saying (and believing) that the universe was created 6,000 years ago changes everything about astronomy and geology. I find Creationism to be more akin to these than to Smith & his discs.

I guess I'm missing some sort of obvious disconnect between the two, here. I think that accepting as fact things that clearly didn't take place makes any sort of meaningful study of history impossible just as stating that Lemarkian evolution (to take God out of it for a second) would for biology. I'll admit it's been quite a while since I was in a high school history class, but are we working with some kind of supposition that history can be arbitrarily taught without rigourous examination of actual facts? Because, while I realize my experience probably isn't typical, my history classes were allways brutal socratic excersizes in not accepting anything as accurate without considering source documents and points of view of the creators of same.

Someome with the capacity to blindly accept things as having happened without that framework would make it impossible for them to teach any sort of critical thinking skills in relation to US or any other History. The end results of ID or Natural Selection are the same. Of course the end result of teaching that a magical fairy appeared 500 years ago and created all historical documents and artifacts with a crystal teardrop ends with the same result as teaching history any other way, too. You loose me when you assert that it wouldn't matter so long as they got the date of the Spanish American war right. All teaching should really be about the methods of how we gain knowledge, and I think that's what you're getting at with science being effected by teaching bad methodolgy. I'd find the same to be true with teacching a flawed methedology for the study of history, too, even if the facts presented were correct. "We know George Washington was the first elected President because he is on the One Dollar Bill" just doesn't work for me.

To take this back to its roots, my initial gripe would be that, if the OP passed the Board, it would allow for science teachers to be certified in Texas based partially on an education completely at odds with actual science. With the intent of the school graduating you being that you'll teach this "inferior" version.

If someone tried to certify history teachers based on their education which stressed principles completely at odds with standard history (say, they taught that Africa colonized & dominated the world until 1900) then I'd have an issue with it.

Insert whatever sphere of education you want in there. Certification of health instructors based on an education stressing the benefits of bleeding and colonics? Against it. Certifying driver's ed instructors based on an education stressing blindfolded Zen driving? Against it. Certifying English instructors based on an education stressing that grammar doesn't matter because they'll know what you mean? Against it.

If the board was allowing certification to teach chemistry based on a master's degree in medieval alchemy, I doubt criticisms of it would draw comparisons to whether or not history teachers are Christians.

Edited, Dec 20th 2007 12:22am by Jophiel

I win! Well, they're pursuing accreditation to teach science. In a high school setting, that usually means Biology, Physics or Chemistry (we also had an 'Earth Sciences' class, i.e. geology, climatology & a little astronomy). At least a third of those seems suspect. Half if we include Earth Sciences. I don't believe that a masters degree in Science Education certifies one to teach music or literature and elementary education has its own more general certification so I'm assuming someone with such a degree will teach in one of those four fields. That's guesswork on my part.

I understand your point, believe it or not, but I pause when the 'how to teach science' parts of the coursework include phrases such as "their skills in implementing a given series of course work in science, with evaluation based on stated objectives centered on process skills of scientific inquiry" and "how to use questioning strategies to help students analyze their scientific worldview" married with what amounts to classes attempting to prove spontaneous generation and Lamarckism by discrediting evolution. The combination seems educationally toxic to me and I hope it receives additional consideration from the Board.

At the bottom of the article, the Commissioner for Higher Education in Texas seems to take a tack between you and I. That the general pedagogy classes aren't really the question but that labeling the degree as "Science Education" is the issue:

Edited, Dec 20th 2007 8:26am by Jophiel

You failed at Line #1

Incidentally, a brief reading of the article in question would have informed you that they are teaching literal 'Seven Day' Young Earth Creationism, not some hybrid "Maybe God created the world but he did it over a really long time and we just called it days" system.

Edited, Dec 20th 2007 9:00am by Jophiel

No, I understood it just fine. You started with a flawed premise. Everyone with even a secondary school knowledge of science is aware that much of it is theoretical. Or, in the language of Shadowrelm Caps-Lock, that it relies on ASSUMPTIONS!! But those assumptions are based on persistant and predictable data.

Guided evolution is probably the lamest of the three arguments; a watered down compromise in which one admits that the Young Earth people are completely lackng in evidence but not wanting to lose the fight. So they tack God onto the accepted evolutionary theory and call it a success. At least the Young Earth people could theoretically build a credible argument for nothing in the cosmos exceeding 6,000 years of age if they had the evidence for it. Guided evolution advocates rely on adding an unprovable "...and God did it" to the science and nothing more.

You should start a manhunt for Kelvy. He was much better at "open your mind and change your perceptions, man" mumbo-jumbo than you. Granted, I still didn't buy into it fromm him but at least he came across without sounding retarded.

Edited, Dec 20th 2007 11:04am by Jophiel

Shadowreilm (di i spel that gud?)

One word.

EVIDENCE

You can also try 'balance of probability' or the "what sounds more like it was made up by fUcking idiots" test.

The same mentality that invented the stories of a 7 day creation happily embraces "Speaking in tongues" and crocks of gold at the end of rainbows.

Some of us move beyond that intellectually when we learn to walk.

The principle of weight, in of itself, isn't really an assumption. You can weigh something and, under identical circumstances, weigh it again for an identical result. Saying that "You don't know if it changed weight while you weren't looking and then changed back!" is silliness. If you think that things magically change weight, it's up to you to prove it. Not give dumb hippy shit about perceptions and say that it makes every claim equally valid.Excellent. Let me know when we can and we'll add it to the textbooks.