May 16, 2013
- 10 Thunder Playoff Observations Paired With Depressing Grunge Songs From The 1990s…
- 33 totally awesome story ideas for the NewsOK Digital Desk…May 15, 2013
- An open letter to the cry baby known as Macklemore…May 14, 2013
- Why does Abigail Ogle have so many fake Twitter followers?May 13, 2013
- A News 9 reporter is going to be on the ABC reality show “Whodunnit?”May 9, 2013
- Oklahoma’s scariest white rapper has released another music video…May 7, 2013
- Mission Chinese could be coming to Oklahoma City…May 6, 2013
- 12 amusing and funny pics from OKC’s Westboro Baptist Church counter-protests…May 2, 2013
- 18 Possible Nicknames for David Payne’s New Storm Chasin’ Truck…May 1, 2013
And another State Rep has declared war on science…
Feb 20
2013
Well, readers, I think we can agree on one thing, and that is that high school was awful. If you’re the sort of person who really enjoyed their glory days, screw you. My date to the junior prom left with another girl and I was one of like 7 brown kids in Edmond. You can’t make me relive that crap ever. But for the kids these days, high school is about to get a little bit worse because there’s a Republican state representative who doesn’t really want them to learn anymore.
In the grand tradition of stupid things our elected representatives have proposed, students could very well start making A’s on papers they write about Jesus riding a raptor. From MotherJones.com:
Gus Blackwell, the Republican state representative who introduced the bill, insists that his legislation has nothing to do with religion; it simply encourages scientific exploration. “I proposed this bill because there are teachers and students who may be afraid of going against what they see in their textbooks,” says Blackwell, who previously spent 20 years working for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. “A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations.”
Stated another way, students could make untestable, faith-based claims in science classes without fear of receiving a poor mark.
HB 1674 is the latest in an ongoing series of “academic freedom” bills aimed at watering down the teaching of science on highly charged topics. Instead of requiring that teachers and textbooks include creationism—see the bill proposed by Missouri state Rep. Rick Brattin—HB 1674′scrafters say it merely encourages teachers and students to question, as the bill puts it, the “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses” of topics that “cause controversy,” including “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”
Real talk, readers: I’m a nerd. I’m not working on my second master’s degree because I want to give thousands of dollars to a university every year. For me, school has always been a safe haven. Even though I’m a super nerd and will never look like Beyoncé, I’m good at school. And in high school, the fact that I was always in the top of my classes was validation that I couldn’t get anywhere else. And I think it’s a load of crap that someone could potentially get the same sort of validation for spewing the sort of noise that belongs in a home school lesson taught by Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar.
But this got me to thinking. Why not rewrite all the textbooks? There are controversies in every subject that need to be corrected. Climate change and evolution aren’t the only things that offend. We probably need a textbook that officially declares what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they wrote the Constitution, or a copy of Catcher in the Rye where Holden decides in the end to be a good little boy and go back to school and love his family and not worry so much about things. Honestly, I don’t see a reason to stop revising when something is found to be incongruent with deeply held beliefs. Otherwise, our kids might grow up to think for themselves, which is dangerous.
But here’s the bottom line, really. How much more can we cripple our schools before all the publicly educated kids in the state of Oklahoma become knuckle dragging mouth breathers who possess the logic and reasoning skills of a cat chasing a laser pointer? I find it interesting that when it comes to funding, we can’t throw our schools or teachers a bone. But when it comes to rewriting textbooks and passing legislation drafted by non-educators, our representatives are all about it.
I guess there is a bright side, though. If this bill passes, the new textbooks will align perfectly with the science curriculum at Oklahoma Baptist University.
I think this is another fine case of what idiots we have in Oklahoma and its’ elected officials. I am so embarrassed that I am from here when things like this happen. The POTUS just praised us on our Pre-K program and then some hillbilly goes off and tries to legislate religion. I will pull-up daughter from the public schools if they do this and sue to keep my allotted tax dollars from going to the school system if need be to make a point. Enough is enough, I am so sick of religion and its ignorance from its followers being pushed down my throat.
Sue the school system to keep our alloted tax dollars. Sounds great! I don’t have any kids!
Sorry for the type in my previous post, I really need to disable autocorrect. Ieant to say I would pull my daughter out of public schools…not pull up.
Macro-evolution and global warming aren’t science, they’re simply ideas or wishes that have been given ‘scientific’ backing by those seeking to undermine the authority of the dominant, traditional culture in our society.
I don’t think that Biblical creationism should be taught in schools either, but does that mean that we should settle for unproven and culturally biased theories just because they are preferred by a certain segment of society?
In lieu of home schooling your kids, they should be taught by our educators how to think, not what.
You sure you’re on the right website bud?
Evolution is the best explanation of how species change in nature. It should be just as controversial as the theory of continental drift.
Global warming is a prediction that man can increase the temperature of earth. There is always some uncertainty in predicting the future. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore it. If astronomers tracked an asteroid large enough to destroy a city. And they predicted it was 10% likely to collide with earth in 10 years, the GOP would be spending a shitload of tax dollars to try to stop it. Regardless, It’s not right to group evolution and climate change together.
Rick—Obviously you know very little of Macro-Evolution to say that it is not science. Go pick up a current book on it…much like most of science the explaination deepens over time with additional evidence. It’s on the same scientific level with the theory of gravity—and not many folks go around saying gravity is just made up.
Those topics just do not fit your narrow view of science, Rick. Just like Copernican heliocentrism wasn’t science to the 16th century church.
Someone once said that the truth will set you free. I suggest that we follow truth even if it falls outside of some peoples’ dogmatic contrivances.
Hahahahahaha. Good job impersonating an Derplahoman. Love it!
Calling them “simply” ideas is a bit overboard. Are they trying to undermined traditional authority or just explain the world.
“Macro-evolution and global warming aren’t science, they’re simply ideas or wishes that have been given ‘scientific’ backing by those seeking to undermine the authority of the dominant, traditional culture in our society.”
This statement lends ample veracity to the idea that the “educational establishment” is doing a very poor job with science education, because it betrays a complete lack of understanding regarding the objectives of science as well as application of the “scientific method”.
I don’t know where to start when it comes to informing people like this who don’t even know the difference between “hypothesis” and “theory”. It’s like trying to teach Trig to someone who doesn’t understand the Pythagorean Theorem.
Are you really so naive that you believe ‘science’ is never manipulated in order to elevate certain hypotheses to the level of theory? Historically, and continuing into the present, culturally-preferred ideas often were/are stamped with the authority our society grants to ‘science’ because of the philosophical and political preferences of those who promote(d) these ideas.
By “preferred by a certain segment of society” do you mean all scientists/biologists? Then yes, we should probably base our science teachings off of them and their findings.
OBU is my alma mater and that last line made me cringe. It’s so sad because their curriculum used to teach you everything from Nietzsche to Darwin (and not in the context of “you need to know this for witnessing purposes”). OBU used to have many moderates and liberals, and the professors transformed me from a semi-narrow-minded small-town girl into an open-minded rational-thinking adult. Now the BGCO is yanking the school further to the right, nuking the Philosophy classes (and replacing them with “apologetics”), and “letting go” moderate and liberal professors because they won’t sign a paper saying they believe in literal 6-day creation. OBU won’t be an institution where good Baptists kids grow up and learn about reality and rational thinking. It will be a factory churning out young Earth creationist hyperfundies.
I am absolutely disgusted that this old white patriarch from the BGCO is trying to ruin public education in the same fashion, and I know it will pass in Oklahoma because, well, it’s Oklahoma and biblio-idolatry rules the land.
Double cringe and a +1, Jim Hurley would be rolling over in his grave…had he not been cremated…
Wow, I didn’t realize that liberal ideas were the only ‘accepted’ ideas on this site.
There is a vast chasm between macro- and micro-evolution in terms of testability and accuracy. Most everyone accepts micro-evolution or ‘natural selection.’ This is easily identifiable in the natural world. I have no problem with this being taught in schools. Macro-evolution, the chemical origin of life – these are just preferred notions.
The idea that humans might have an impact on the climate has been around for centuries, if not milennia. Most of the time, these ideas pop up, are roundly debunked, and then disappear. They are generally cultural reactions to large-scale changes in environment, which are perfectly understandable. Oftentimes the effects of large-scale environmental changes are exaggerated out of fear and also to garner attention from the more powerful elements of a society.
Keep it up! This is hysterical!
No reason to be rude. Everyone has his/her beliefs. Disagreements are part of life and we just need to accept the differences and respect them.
I really don’t know which is worse – the insufferable lameness of glib Christianity or the insufferable arrogance of self-righteous leftists.
That there are only two acceptable discourses (those of the ‘enemy’ and those who oppose them) with regards to certain topics in our society is a shame. Perhaps even more disappointing is that in a place where an improved and expanded discourse can easily be promoted, it is instead ridiculed and shunned.
“The idea that humans might have an impact on the climate has been around for centuries, if not milennia. Most of the time, these ideas pop up, are roundly debunked, and then disappear.”
Just out of curiosity, what are a few of these “ideas” that popped up, and were roundly debunked?
Still looking for an answer for my question, Rick?
Sorry, missed it!
An obvious one (and one that Oklahomans may be familiar with) was the idea that ‘rain follows the plow.’ This was heavily promoted during the settlement of the plains during the 19th century, by speculators and railroad promoters (who you would expect to hear these sorts of things from) but from respected ‘scientists’ as well. The ‘logic’ behind this theory was that plowed land was able to hold moisture better than unplowed land, and so if the vast majority of land in a region was plowed, rainfall in the region would increase. This theory really didn’t need a ‘debunking’ so-to-speak, the droughts that came in the years following managed to take care of that.
Have you ever considered starting your own satire blog?
You’ve made the same joke three times. Do you ever contribute anything to discussions besides snark?
Doubt it. Typical ignorant, arrogant leftist who thinks that they’re enlightened. You’re no better than the people you hate.
I’m sorry. Tell me more about scientists from the 19th-century.
One that might better fit the description of a ‘debunking’ was the treatment that Noah Webster (yes, that one) gave to the notion that the climate (especially in the case of winter conditions) had become warmer in both American and Europe in the late 18th century due to land clearing and other land-use changes resulting from Euro-American settlement. Webster effectively challenged the speculation of increasing warmth by prominent figures such as the Comte de Buffon and Thomas Jefferson, and his work later inspired Samuel Forry, an army surgeon, to use early 19th-century temperature data to come to the same conclusion, that the earth was definitely not warming.
Here’s an easy-to-understand visualization of the data supporting climate change during the last 163 years, its recent acceleration, and the role of fossil fuel emissions as its primary causal agent. Rick, I hope you’ll review it and give it full consideration. Skepticism is healthy, so long as its based in real and empirical data.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/how-many-gigatons-of-co2/
Yu,
I didn’t see anything on this page that matched your description of it. All of those scenarios are based on the idea that raising the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. I haven’t seen convincing evidence to indicate that this is the case. Most evidence seems to indicate that CO2 is not a climate driver (for example, in ice core data CO2 rises after the temperature does, not before), and that there are many other, more powerful dynamics at work.
Thanks for the link though and thank you for the polite reply.
40+ years of government control of education. What did you expect?
Oklahoma continues its race to the bottom. Mississippi, here we come!
Why did god make all the dinosaurs and then kill them a few years later? What did they do to make god hate them so much?
It wasn’t God. It was the the angry old white cavemen burning the fossil fuels that resulted in climate change. However that climate change came in the form of cold. In addition to the cold, winter coats were in short supply. You see the only coats came from Wooly Mammouths and Saber Tooth Tigers, as all the other animals had either hairless or feathered skins. This was all no bueno and things died.
These numbnuts voted 9-8 on this?
The Oklahoma Common Education committee:
http://www.okhouse.gov/Committees/CommitteeMembers.aspx?CommID=114&SubcommID=0
Sally Kern is of course in there.
It’s a Kernspiracy.