7 ms·
Wouldn’t an easy non-law compromise here be to reword questions slightly? For example, instead of asking “How did humans come into existence?” ask “According to
by crgwbr 7y ago
Wouldn’t an easy non-law compromise here be to reword questions slightly? For example, instead of asking “How did humans come into existence?” ask “According to the theory of evolution, how did humans come into existence?“ That would accurately test a student’s knowledge of what was taught without requiring them to agree with the answer.
- moccachino 7y agoAccording to my belief system any mention of evolution is blasphemy so I can not answer this question.
- dfxm12 7y agoYou're making the false assumption that this about freedom of religion. This is about Republican politicians recognizing that undereducated voters tend to vote Republican and thus are trying to keep Americans undereducated in an attempt at self preservation.
- gatherhunterer 7y agoIf it is a biology class then it is inherently an evolution class. Evolution is the central theory of biology and all of its sub-fields.
- __MatrixMan__ 7y agoIt's the dominant theory, and it's a darn good one, but isn't that a bit like saying that all geometry is euclidean geometry?
- crazydoggers 7y agoNo... not even close. If interested why, there’s lots of reference material: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1416594795/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_.FRZDbQQQ6YSY https://www.amazon.com/dp/1416594795/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_.F... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
- __MatrixMan__ 7y agoI didn't read the book, but the Wikipedia article doesn't have anything to say regarding the domains of biology that might be well explained by other theories.
- Balgair 7y agoNot really. Everything, except maybe the physical-chemistry reactions, is there due solely to evolution. No evolution, no molecules. To translate (very poorly and grossly) to math, it's like all operations are evolution, only the numbers aren't.
- __MatrixMan__ 7y agoJust to be nitpicky: the carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere of Mars (probably) have nothing to do with evolution. Unless you're a fan of cosmological natural selection (which I happen to be, but it's not a widely accepted theory). Anyhow, without evolution we would still have all of those things, we wound have just lost our ability to tell a convincing story for why they are the way they are. It seems unlikely, but if an alternative explanation were too arise and be deemed more useful by biologists, then the study of that theory would also be biology. In fact, it would still be biology if it were deemed less useful, it just might not make it into the textbooks in that case.
- gowld 7y agoYes, if people followed the law independent of the law, the law would not be needed. This holds in general. The law is to protect students against anti-religious teachers who punish students for making religious statements.
- mattigames 7y agoThe law may be intended for that, the actual consequence is disregarding facts as if where opinions and growing up believing doing so its Ok.
- crazydoggers 7y agoWhy does there need to be a law to protect students who provide incorrect answers? I guess we need a law to protect students from having to read controversial books too?
- yawboakye 7y agoBecause, well, there's no correct answer. Only what's less wrong. Asimov explains better https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.ht...
- crazydoggers 7y agoTests don’t need to grade “maybe a tiny tiny tiny bit wrong” from “horribly horribly wrong and misinformed” Evolution is not contested in the slightest. Should we grade tests to allow students to believe that things fall up? If you think that’s hyperbole then that’s the problem right there. The whole evolution debate is so tiring.
- yawboakye 7y agoIt wasn’t Newton’s theory that taught us that things fall down. It’s pretty a gutter material to compare observation/reality with a theory that spans eons, a duration no one has lived entirely. That said, if the theory of evolution gives meaning to your life, makes you a good person, and opens your eyes to appreciate everything and everyone around you, in other words, if it’s your sustenance then definitely hold on to it. Because, imo, that’s what life is about. But let others find theirs and enjoy their short time here.
- leetcrew 7y agothis seems reasonable. perhaps all science questions should be asked this way. it would be a subtle reminder that what you are learning is only the best current explanation, not the absolute truth of the universe. a lot of material you learn in grade school is simplified to the point of being almost wrong anyway.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- yawboakye 7y agoBias: I'm Christian. This is probably the best contribution anyone made to the conversation. The role of faith in a person's life cannot be diminished, especially where the scientific option is contested. I belong to a Christian denomination that doesn't believe in The Trinity. I never answered questions about it that implied that it was the belief I held. I didn't mind writing essays on it though when the question started with "According to the trinity doctrine, ..."
- crazydoggers 7y ago> especially where the scientific option is contested There’s no contention on evolution. That’s like saying the equivalent... “According to the theory of gravity, apples fall to earth...” Couching all these questions as if they are not facts does nothing but ease people’s minds who don’t want to deal with reality, and does a disservice to students.
- phy6 7y agoI used to feel this way, until I read the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. The author points out correctly that too often the arrival of our current state of scientific beliefs from the past is drawn out as a straight line, and that the history of what was 'scientific truth' for a time was altogether forgotten or not taught. The easiest(), most respectful and accurate solution is to always couch a belief from the context and ontology of where it came from, including religious, scientific and personal beliefs. As I become more learned with age, I find no greater delight than being humbled by how little we can actually claim to know. In my opinion this humility should be used for our advantage: by the small burden of contextualizing the origins and boundaries of a [scientific] belief, I think we prime ourselves for accelerating cross domain scientific revolutions. Referencing the origins of belief systems is a practice we can employ to benefit future understanding. I'd argue the same is true for someone who studies multiple religions and their various interpretations. How would they arrive at any greater understanding without having references to the origins of groups of belief? easiest from a strategic perspective of increasing the rate of scientific revolution. There is of course a short term burden of contextualizing beliefs.
- ppod 7y agoI think a problem with this approach is that since it doesn't ask for the student's actual belief, the student might score highly but still hold beliefs that may be dangerously wrong when used in a practical situation. For example, a student may give a correct answer to this question, but when employed as doctor and prescribing a treatment (e.g. for contraception, pregnancy issues, heritable diseases) they may act according to their beliefs rather than the theory they were asked about, with dangerous consequences.
- cptskippy 7y agoCouldn't you then ask if the individual is willing to practice the prescribed belief over their own?
- mattigames 7y agoThat seems like a handwavy way to disregard the way that theory came to be, meaning that instead of "According to theory of evolution" a more honest complete question would be "According to all the evidence we have acquired over the last few centuries in the fossil record thanks to the studies of hundreds of anthropologists and biochemists how did humans come into existence?"
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]