Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

[-0-]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_texas_public_schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.html

When public-school students enrolled in Texas’ largest charter program open their biology workbooks, they will read that the fossil record is “sketchy.” That evolution is “dogma” and an “unproved theory” with no experimental basis. They will be told that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth. These are all lies.

The more than 17,000 students in the Responsive Education Solutions charter system will learn in their history classes that some residents of the Philippines were “pagans in various levels of civilization.” They’ll read in a history textbook that feminism forced women to turn to the government as a “surrogate husband.”

Responsive Ed has a secular veneer and is funded by public money, but it has been connected from its inception to the creationist movement and to far-right fundamentalists who seek to undermine the separation of church and state.

Infiltrating and subverting the charter-school movement has allowed Responsive Ed to carry out its religious agenda—and it is succeeding. Operating more than 65 campuses in Texas, Arkansas, and Indiana, Responsive Ed receives more than $82 million in taxpayer money annually, and it is expanding, with 20 more Texas campuses opening in 2014.

Charter schools may be run independently, but they are still public schools, and through an open records request, I was able to obtain a set of Responsive Ed’s biology “Knowledge Units,” workbooks that Responsive Ed students must complete to pass biology. These workbooks both overtly and underhandedly discredit evidence-based science and allow creationism into public-school classrooms.

A favorite creationist claim is that there is “uncertainty” in the fossil record, and Responsive Ed does not disappoint. The workbook cites the “lack of a single source for all the rock layers as an argument against evolution.”

...

Child abuse in action.

sebastianlieken

That is a bloody big post....

Turtwig

Reminds me of this too.

Seriously Texas needs to get control of its fundies.

PopePalpatine

That's going to be hard when they have a fundie for a governor.

Czarcasm

[-0-] wrote: »

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_texas_public_schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.html


Child abuse in action.

I'm trying to think how could I word this post in a way that wouldn't be considered personal abuse for that sort of ridiculous exaggeration, but I don't think it'd make any difference.

As regards the article, sure it's insidious and it's unpalatable, but Charter Schools are more like private schools here in that they can operate their own ethos and curriculum independently of the public school system. They receive state funding, but not as much as public schools, so this means they can be funded by private sources who want to push their own agenda, and Creationists aren't the only organisations with an agenda. There are many Charter Schools funded by private businesses and corporations.

Insidious? Certainly.

Child abuse? Consider revising.

Morbert

"Responsive Ed"... More like Reactionary Ed.

Days 298

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm trying to think how could I word this post in a way that wouldn't be considered personal abuse for that sort of ridiculous exaggeration, but I don't think it'd make any difference.

As regards the article, sure it's insidious and it's unpalatable, but Charter Schools are more like private schools here in that they can operate their own ethos and curriculum independently of the public school system. They receive state funding, but not as much as public schools, so this means they can be funded by private sources who want to push their own agenda, and Creationists aren't the only organisations with an agenda. There are many Charter Schools funded by private businesses and corporations.

Insidious? Certainly.

Child abuse? Consider revising.

Teaching that feminism made women turn the government into "surrogate" husbands. Teaching that evolution is a just theory with no basis. Gravity is just a theory yet I dont see conservatives jumping out windows...

It is damaging to a child. Is it an abuse of the empty whiteboard of the young mind and its innocence. I certainly see no reason to revise child abuse. Not that an outlandish of a conclusion.

Czarcasm

Days 298 wrote: »

Teaching that feminism made women turn the government into "surrogate" husbands. Teaching that evolution is a just theory with no basis. Gravity is just a theory yet I dont see conservatives jumping out windows...

It is damaging to a child. Is it an abuse of the empty whiteboard of the young mind and its innocence. I certainly see no reason to revise child abuse. Not that an outlandish of a conclusion.

I don't know if you're aware of... No, actually you SHOULD BE aware of the fact that children (since you too were a child once) are capable from a very young age of critical, analytical and independent thought. Their minds are absolutely NOT "empty whiteboards". Otherwise, many adults in this very forum who were raised and indoctrinated in the Catholic faith would never have deviated from that position, many having deviated from that position from a very young age as they began to discover more about the world around them.

Abuse? Creationists are doing these children a favour if you REALLY took a moment to think about it.

Turtwig

By your reasoning inequality isn't an issue because a few people in the poverty line make it to prosperity. Facts are most people who are born with a religion stay with that religion. Most of the ideas and thought processes people learn in school are believed until the day they die. Pointing out minority exceptions only weakens your argument. The biggest influence on children is the culture of their education and their peers.

Czarcasm

Jernal wrote: »

By your reasoning inequality isn't an issue because a few people in the poverty line make it to prosperity. Facts are most people who are born with a religion stay with that religion. Most of the ideas and thought processes people learn in school are believed until the day they die. Pointing out minority exceptions only weakens your argument. The biggest influence on children is the culture of their education and their peers.

You'll get no argument from me on that score, which is why if these children were educated and raised in a bubble, their opinions might never change, but the fact is that as they are exposed to more and more information, the more their opinions may change. I'd agree that most of the ideas people are taught from an early age stay with them, but thought processes? Different story entirely as and when the brain develops. If we were to take Ireland as an example, look at how much references are made to "cultural Catholics", and I think it's fair to say that most of these people would've been educated and influenced by the RCC right throughout childhood, but as they grew into adulthood, they learned more about the world around them, and began to reject ideas they'd been taught to believe for most of their childhood.

There are of course and always will be fundamentalists who are unwilling to have their views challenged and will reject any ideas which challenge their beliefs out of hand, but I think it's also fair to say that those people are in the minority.

[-0-]

Jernal wrote: »

By your reasoning inequality isn't an issue because a few people in the poverty line make it to prosperity. Facts are most people who are born with a religion stay with that religion. Most of the ideas and thought processes people learn in school are believed until the day they die. Pointing out minority exceptions only weakens your argument. The biggest influence on children is the culture of their education and their peers.

How many misconceptions were people taught in school, and are still believed to this day?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

The answer is a lot.

Hotblack Desiato

Czarcasm wrote: »

You'll get no argument from me on that score, which is why if these children were educated and raised in a bubble, their opinions might never change, but the fact is that as they are exposed to more and more information, the more their opinions may change.

Exactly.
These are non-mainstream schools, the parents of these children have made a conscious decision to send their children there to prevent them hearing about anything that might burst their little fundamentalist christian conservative bubble.
This is why there are fundamentalist christian 'universities' in the US.

These parents are doing their children a grave disservice.

Brian Shanahan

Czarcasm wrote: »

Child abuse? Consider revising.

Deliberately trying to ensure that children are not capable of rational thought or functioning in the modern world is child abuse. And what that crowd is doing with their "education" is exactly that.

Czarcasm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Deliberately trying to ensure that children are not capable of rational thought or functioning in the modern world is child abuse. And what that crowd is doing with their "education" is exactly that.

Rational thought is merely a matter of perspective. What you rationally consider to be child abuse, I would consider your opinion irrational. See how that works? The children are not being physically, sexually nor mentally tortured, ergo the word abuse does not apply in this instance.

By your definition, any child's education that doesn't tally with your rational ideas about education, that child is being abused, meaning that approximately 90% of the world's children are being abused? Does that sound like a rational conclusion to you?

recedite

In the UK nowadays you can buy a state school by paying 10% of establishment costs. About half of all state schools are now "academy schools" and half of academy schools have a religious sponsor.
Nutty creationist car dealer Peter Vardy has four of them, where creationism is "encouraged" although by law they must still teach proper mainstream versions of science (officially).

The academy scheme was introduced by the closet Christian Fundie Tony Blair, perhaps after one of his prayer sessions with George Bush junior (both being the type of men who listened to the voices in their heads in preference to any rational evidence around them)

Conservatives have since latched onto the concept as it takes control of schools away from the councils and makes them more "market driven".

In principle an academy school could specialise in anything at all, for example a pharmaceutical or tech firm could become a sponsor, resulting in higher quality science education.
The problem is that the govt. over there are not choosy enough about who they hand control to, especially when 90% of pupils have not chosen the school for its "ethos"; they are just attending their local school.

Sulla Felix

Czarcasm wrote: »

Rational thought is merely a matter of perspective.

It's not really. The generally accepted definition across sociology, psychology and political science is that it's agreeable to reason and that acts guided by rational thought are those that are optimal for the fulfilment of solving a problem or achieving a goal. These children are not being taught to think in a way that will result in that ability.
The very act of teaching a child in this way is irrational and unreasonable. It is not, by any standard I wish to hold to, reasonable to teach a child outright lies as truth, nor is it optimal for the presumed goal of preparing the child for adult life.

Czarcasm

Sulla Felix wrote: »

It's not really. The generally accepted definition across sociology, psychology and political science is that it's agreeable to reason and that acts guided by rational thought are those that are optimal for the fulfilment of solving a problem or achieving a goal.

OK, just to take this on first - who sets the standard then for what's an act guided by rational thought with the aim of achieving a goal? If the parents of these children believe in Creationism, then supporting an organisation that promotes Creationism and setting up schools to fulfil the problem of lack of promotion of Creationist theory solves the problem of promoting Creationist ideology. Seems like a perfectly rational action from their perspective.

These children are not being taught to think in a way that will result in that ability. The very act of teaching a child in this way is irrational and unreasonable. It is not, by any standard I wish to hold to, reasonable to teach a child outright lies as truth, nor is it optimal for the presumed goal of preparing the child for adult life.

It's irrational and unreasonable to you and I certainly, but is it irrational and unreasonable to those people who believe in Creationism? They are preparing their children for adult life as they see it, from their perspective.

Cards on the table here. Though I am Roman Catholic myself, I am still an advocate for secular education. Because I believe that if a parent wants to raise their child in their faith, that should be their responsibility. It should not be the responsibility of the educational system. I'm also an advocate for teaching children IT skills in school in order to prepare them for adult life. I was told that IT is just a tool in primary education rather than something that would be included in the curriculum. Am I supposed to think that Irish children are being abused because I don't believe they are being prepared to compete in the global jobs market?

I might be given to believe that if I hadn't attended the Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition last weekend and witnessed for myself evidence that independently of the crippled curriculum, Irish children are well placed on the world stage to compete with other countries in terms of scientific advancements and discoveries. The runner-up in the individual category was 13 years of age, came up with this -

Shane Curran (13), a second year from Terenure College Dublin claimed the runner up individual prize with a project that involved writing software and building a system to help run a laboratory. He already has plans underway to commercialise his product, Chemical.io, and to make it available to laboratory managers.

The project involved creating a web page and a doing a significant amount of programming to provide services such as monitoring supplies of chemicals, cataloguing lab equipment and even keeping tabs on experiments. He had 150 people test the system and make suggestions about the services needed by them and he worked these into his package. “Their response was really positive,” he said.

He built the system to use the cloud rather than having to build the software package on a local computer, a decision that would save lab managers thousands of euro, he said. Shane receives a BT trophy and €1,200.

Source: Irish Times Website


And guess what?

Mission Statement for Terenure College

Affirmation of Ethos:

By enrolling in the College, parents/guardians and their son commit themselves to actively supporting and respecting the ethos of the College in particular with regards to our identity as a Catholic and Carmelite School. This will include participating in the religious and liturgical life of the College.

Each pupil is expected to take a full and active part in the life of the College according to the individual talents with which he has been blessed. In keeping with the College tradition of academic excellence, each pupil is required to apply himself to work and study in a most serious and conscientious manner. Participation in the College’s Co-Curricular Activities is an integral part of being a pupil in the College.

Parent(s)/Guardian(s) and their sons also commit themselves to accepting and supporting the College Code of Discipline and College Regulations as will be constituted from time to time.

Source: Terenure College Website


It hardly seems rational to think of the above as an abused child unprepared for the modern adult world now does it? The more pertinent question should be -

Is the world ready for him?

Hotblack Desiato

Unless Terenure College has become a creationist school, I fail to see the relevance to this discussion.

BTW, €1200 for writing a web page and waving around a bit of cloud woo? That kid has the judges sussed! It's certainly not science though.


'Rational thought is merely a matter of perspective.' - biggest whopper I've seen in here in a while. To think it's usually catholics accusing atheists of moral relativism :rolleyes: you can have your own morals if you really want* but you can't have your own facts.


* invalid where prohibited by local or state laws

Frank Lee Midere

[-0-] wrote: »

How many misconceptions were people taught in school, and are still believed to this day?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

The answer is a lot.

I was told most of those misconceptions were not true. In school.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

The academy scheme was introduced by the closet Christian Fundie Tony Blair, perhaps after one of his prayer sessions with George Bush junior (both being the type of men who listened to the voices in their heads in preference to any rational evidence around them)

I thought it wasn't possible to hate that man any more than I already did. But I was wrong.

Hotblack Desiato

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I was told most of those misconceptions were not true. In school.

I was told in school that God made a ladder between heaven and earth (parish priest draws helpful chalk diagram at this point of a circle, a cloud and a ladder) and Adam and Eve broke the ladder (rubs out part of ladder) and Jesus came and put the ladder back. Yay blackboards!

I was also told that women don't understand arithmetic, 'that's why Dunnes price everything with a .99' (4th class male teacher)

We were also taught the world was flat before Columbus thing, that there was no education in Ireland until the catholic church, and no doubt plenty more stuff I just rolled my eyes at and kept shtum, because the great benefit of a catholic education is you quickly learn your opinion or even knowledge matters f**k all so just shut up and absorb and parrot what you're told.

Czarcasm

ninja900 wrote: »

Unless Terenure College has become a creationist school, I fail to see the relevance to this discussion.

I was trying to use an example of religion/education I thought would be a bit closer to home. It's certainly relative when posters are trying to maintain that educating children with a religious ethos is abuse.

BTW, €1200 for writing a web page and waving around a bit of cloud woo? That kid has the judges sussed! It's certainly not science though.

"Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition", not to mention the fact that Science is derived from the Latin word for "knowledge", but then at 13 years of age what would a teenager know about computer science and chemistry in order to come up with a project like that. The kid was just pissing around on the computer, sure who needs the scientific method, right? You might not consider it science, but science it is.

'Rational thought is merely a matter of perspective.' - biggest whopper I've seen in here in a while. To think it's usually catholics accusing atheists of moral relativism :rolleyes: you can have your own morals if you really want* but you can't have your own facts.


* invalid where prohibited by local or state laws

I'm sure you're aware of the differences between Catholics in Ireland and Catholics in say for example Brazil? Not to mention the fact that there is a difference between what we would consider fundamentalist or devout Catholics and more progressive Catholics (no need to point out the oxymoron from your perspective, I see it! ).

Now, are we done with the petty point scoring? Because I'm fairly sure you didn't need all of the above pointed out to you and you were just being obtuse.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

The academy scheme was introduced by the closet Christian Fundie Tony Blair, perhaps after one of his prayer sessions with George Bush junior (both being the type of men who listened to the voices in their heads in preference to any rational evidence around them)

I'd put good money on both those men being atheist in reality. Shrub seems to only know one passage in the bible, the one parroted by all the rich American "christians" when they try to justify shafting 99% of their fellow citizens (the parable of the talents), and Blair jumped on every bit of woo (including going to Mexico to partake in a "Mayan rebirth" ritual) he thought would make him more electable.