Textbook Sparks Florida Debate
I’m convinced things are getting out of hand. The Miami Herald reports on a brewing debate in Broward county Florida related to a McGraw-Hill first year biology textbook that includes a paragraph, one single paragraph, stating “common to human cultures throughout history is the belief that life on earth did not arise spontaneously. Many of the world's major religions teach that life was created on Earth by a supreme being.''
The Herald also reports that “A teacher's manual that accompanies the book suggests instructors organize an in-class debate on the origins of life.”
And the problem with this is? Well, it depends who you ask. Let’s take a look at a sampling of reactions reported by the Herald.
''Once you start asking public school teachers to instruct on matters of religion in science classes, you're in trouble,'' said one state Representative.
True, but the text doesn’t seem to be doing that. I’m not so sure about the teacher’s manual. Organizing a religious debate in a high school biology class sounds like a REALLY bad idea. Truth is not determined by the most articulate or intimidating spokesperson.
''This book is not presenting creationism in any form as a scientifically credible view, the book is a far cry from the creationist-friendly text (Of Pandas and People) at the center of an ideological brawl in the Dover, Pa., schools.'' said the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education.
Yeah, I think I agree with this observation. I mean, the statement is TRUE and it’s not pushing any particular creation theory of the thousands that exist. On the other hand, we all know the only one the students are likely to be familiar with don’t we?
''When you talk about origins of man, you can't help but bring religion into the classroom. The book is making an attempt to do that; it needs to be applauded,'' 'said the executive director of the Creation Studies Institute, a church-affiliated research group in Fort Lauderdale.
Oh yes you can because evolution is not specifically about the “origins of man” and while teaching about religions is ok, advancing any particular religion is not.
The book's publisher, Glencoe, a division of McGraw-Hill, says the paragraphs do not support creationism or intelligent design and contends the book adheres to mainstream theories of evolution.
What would you expect them to say? I’d like to know the rationale behind including the paragraph in the first place. How does it enhance the teaching of biology?
A member of Broward's biology textbook adoption committee, who has taught biology for 23 years says she would have no problem teaching from Biology: Dynamics of Life, so long as the discussion does not push beyond presenting creationism as a belief, not a scientifically tested theory.
The problem is refer to the previous post related to “Closet Creationists.” While those teachers which accept evolution would not push “creationism as a belief,” those “Closet Creationists” would and are already doing so. Why provide the perfect foil for introducing Creationism as an alternative to evolution?
An executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers, says teachers should not present a lesson that calls evolution into question. ”Our position on intelligent design is that it should be stamped out and the people who promote it should be stomped on,'' he said.
Stamped out and stomped on? And they accuse me of being demeaning and belittling. Allow me to suggest that the NABT also refer to the post on “Closet Creationists.” Actually while I find this kind of militant quote surprising, I don’t necessarily disagree with making statements of this tone.
To my mind the convention that says it is impolite to criticize or ridicule someone’s religious beliefs goes out the window when a religion tries to impose its beliefs on everyone else as some so-called Christians are trying to do with Christianity today.
The Herald also reports that “A teacher's manual that accompanies the book suggests instructors organize an in-class debate on the origins of life.”
And the problem with this is? Well, it depends who you ask. Let’s take a look at a sampling of reactions reported by the Herald.
''Once you start asking public school teachers to instruct on matters of religion in science classes, you're in trouble,'' said one state Representative.
True, but the text doesn’t seem to be doing that. I’m not so sure about the teacher’s manual. Organizing a religious debate in a high school biology class sounds like a REALLY bad idea. Truth is not determined by the most articulate or intimidating spokesperson.
''This book is not presenting creationism in any form as a scientifically credible view, the book is a far cry from the creationist-friendly text (Of Pandas and People) at the center of an ideological brawl in the Dover, Pa., schools.'' said the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education.
Yeah, I think I agree with this observation. I mean, the statement is TRUE and it’s not pushing any particular creation theory of the thousands that exist. On the other hand, we all know the only one the students are likely to be familiar with don’t we?
''When you talk about origins of man, you can't help but bring religion into the classroom. The book is making an attempt to do that; it needs to be applauded,'' 'said the executive director of the Creation Studies Institute, a church-affiliated research group in Fort Lauderdale.
Oh yes you can because evolution is not specifically about the “origins of man” and while teaching about religions is ok, advancing any particular religion is not.
The book's publisher, Glencoe, a division of McGraw-Hill, says the paragraphs do not support creationism or intelligent design and contends the book adheres to mainstream theories of evolution.
What would you expect them to say? I’d like to know the rationale behind including the paragraph in the first place. How does it enhance the teaching of biology?
A member of Broward's biology textbook adoption committee, who has taught biology for 23 years says she would have no problem teaching from Biology: Dynamics of Life, so long as the discussion does not push beyond presenting creationism as a belief, not a scientifically tested theory.
The problem is refer to the previous post related to “Closet Creationists.” While those teachers which accept evolution would not push “creationism as a belief,” those “Closet Creationists” would and are already doing so. Why provide the perfect foil for introducing Creationism as an alternative to evolution?
An executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers, says teachers should not present a lesson that calls evolution into question. ”Our position on intelligent design is that it should be stamped out and the people who promote it should be stomped on,'' he said.
Stamped out and stomped on? And they accuse me of being demeaning and belittling. Allow me to suggest that the NABT also refer to the post on “Closet Creationists.” Actually while I find this kind of militant quote surprising, I don’t necessarily disagree with making statements of this tone.
To my mind the convention that says it is impolite to criticize or ridicule someone’s religious beliefs goes out the window when a religion tries to impose its beliefs on everyone else as some so-called Christians are trying to do with Christianity today.
posted by Alencon at 3:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home