Belief vs Science

[Wombat]

Nothing new. It has been long happening on many audio websites.

 

[Tks]

Ah Creationist nonsense lobbying strikes again.

Surprised this sort of stuff is still occurring considering the precedent set when these Creationists were sent to the ether by many court rulings. I don't understand what's wrong with people anymore. Is there some sort of technologically educed mass amnesia that occurs every few months?

Very concerning to see the paradigm shift of taking precedent of someone's feeling on what they want to be true, supersedes the reality they are able to demonstrate (or unable to demonstrate in these cases).

Belief is fine, but it seems the threshold of evidence for folks (like audiophools) seems to be nearly nonexistent. Persuasion by emotion seems enough for them. As seems to be the case with all this safe space nonsense occurring for the sake of not offending anyone in class rooms, and communities.

Must we go through another Dark Ages or something to stop this cycle for a while?

 

[DuxServit]

This is the actual bill:
http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/hb164/PH/02?format=pdf

Most of the items appear to be related to the management of schools.

 

[Wombat]

This is the actual bill:
http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/hb164/PH/02?format=pdf

Most of the items appear to be related to the management of schools.

Parts 416 to 428 are interesting.

 

[SIY]

Parts 416 to 428 are interesting.

Sec. 3320.03. No school district board of education [and a bunch of other education entities] shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments. Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work.

I'm not seeing a problem with that.

 

[Pluto]

Nothing new.

I wonder how long it will be until the political correctness lobbyists force this absurdity upon OSU, currently a very well regarded school.

 

[anmpr1]

Sec. 3320.03. No school district board of education [and a bunch of other education entities] shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments. Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work.

I'm not seeing a problem with that.

The provisions of the bill that are cited do not match what the opponents in the article claim. Unless there is something else going on, I see this as pretty much a non-issue.

 

[SIY]

The provisions of the bill that are cited do not match what the opponents in the article claim. Unless there is something else going on, I see this as pretty much a non-issue.

You mean that people will make stuff up for political purposes????

Where's my fainting couch?

 

[anmpr1]

I remember Jr High biology. I think it was 7th grade. Mr. Bryan's class. Studying simple 'evolution'. Speciation from abiogenisis. I asked the teacher about the first transition? How it happened? He looked at me strangely, as if he didn't really want to attempt an answer. Giving me that "Don't be a troublemaker look." He replied with something like, "Well... we don't know for sure. But it did."

At that moment I learned a valuable lesson in 'religious faith'. LOL

 

[SIY]

I remember Jr High biology. I think it was 7th grade. Mr. Bryan's class. Studying simple 'evolution'. Speciation from abiogenisis. I asked the teacher about the first transition? How it happened? He looked at me strangely, as if he didn't really want to attempt an answer. Giving me that "Don't be a troublemaker look." He replied with something like, "Well... we don't know for sure. But it did."

At that moment I learned a valuable lesson in 'religious faith'. LOL

It's unfortunate that so many teachers are unable to answer simple questions like that. But that's a result of schools placing more emphasis on pedagogy credentials than subject matter expertise (for example, I am not considered qualified to teach high school chemistry).

 

[Ron Party]

Sec. 3320.03. No school district board of education [and a bunch of other education entities] shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments. Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work.

I'm suddenly reminded of my favorite little scoundrel:

 

[Tks]

Sec. 3320.03. No school district board of education [and a bunch of other education entities] shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments. Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work.

I'm not seeing a problem with that.

including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work.

Surly you jest?

 

[SIY]

Surly you jest?

Not in the slightest. especially with the first part of the sentence that you excised.

 

[Tks]

Not in the slightest. especially with the first part of the sentence that you excised.

So no educational penalization on tests, homework, and classwork if someone comes in and says the world is less than 6,000 years old? No problems there just to be clear from your view?

 

[SIY]

So no educational penalization on tests, homework, and classwork if someone comes in and says the world is less than 6,000 years old? No problems there just to be clear from your view?

In a science assignment? Did you bother to read the part of the sentence that you excised?

 

[Tks]

Did you bother to read the part of the sentence that you excised?

I'll answer this first since you seem to believe there is some importance to the topic of contention (the portion I wanted to draw distinction that I left bold. I don't know why you felt you needed an answer to this before answering my question though.

Yes I have read the whole thing.

In a science assignment?

Yes, unless the age of the Earth has some bearing in music class you feel you would like to elaborate on..

 

[JJB70]

In a science assignment you would be expected to provide something more than a biblical quote in support of a claim that the earth is 6000 years old. I see nothing wrong with the guidance quoted by SIY and the number of scientists, doctors, engineers etc who have beld devout religious beliefs would indicate that there is no reason a person cannot hold religious beliefs and also work according to scientific principles of research and evidence.

 

[digicidal]

I'll answer this first since you seem to believe there is some importance to the topic of contention (the portion I wanted to draw distinction that I left bold. I don't know why you felt you needed an answer to this before answering my question though.

Yes I have read the whole thing.

Reading for comprehension, however, not so much I would argue...

So you feel that students should be given higher or lower grades on an assignment due to their religious beliefs, and the expression thereof? All that policy says is that they would be graded based on "ordinary academic standards" (i.e. if you answer correctly according to the curriculum... you get points - and if you don't, you don't). This reads much more as a prohibition of religious indoctrination as anything else. The only other application (which I would also support) is that it would prevent religious persecution in the form of academic scoring bias.

Perhaps as example would help:
Student A writes on a paper on cosmological origin about the big bang, and correctly states the facts provided in the curriculum. They then include that they personally believe that the big bang was an act of God.

Student B writes that universe is merely a psychological construct and that the earth is flat because that's what they believe.

This bill would prevent Student A from being penalized due to their additional expression, and would prevent Student B from receiving any points for their answer... regardless of whether the teacher was a flat-earther or not. While I think this is a completely unnecessary addition, considering the protections of the 1st Amendment... I don't see how it is even remotely "anti-science" nor "pro-religion" - it's simply not "anti-religion" (which is what freedom of expression hinges upon).

You should be able to say whatever you want - even if it's wrong. You just shouldn't be rewarded for doing so -which is what this bill stipulates.

 

[Tks]

Reading for comprehension, however, not so much I would argue...

So you feel that students should be given higher or lower grades on an assignment due to their religious beliefs, and the expression thereof? All that policy says is that they would be graded based on "ordinary academic standards" (i.e. if you answer correctly according to the curriculum... you get points - and if you don't, you don't). This reads much more as a prohibition of religious indoctrination as anything else. The only other application (which I would also support) is that it would prevent religious persecution in the form of academic scoring bias.

Perhaps as example would help:
Student A writes on a paper on cosmological origin about the big bang, and correctly states the facts provided in the curriculum. They then include that they personally believe that the big bang was an act of God.

Student B writes that universe is merely a psychological construct and that the earth is flat because that's what they believe.

This bill would prevent Student A from being penalized due to their additional expression, and would prevent Student B from receiving any points for their answer... regardless of whether the teacher was a flat-earther or not. While I think this is a completely unnecessary addition, considering the protections of the 1st Amendment... I don't see how it is even remotely "anti-science" nor "pro-religion" - it's simply not "anti-religion" (which is what freedom of expression hinges upon).

You should be able to say whatever you want - even if it's wrong. You just shouldn't be rewarded for doing so -which is what this bill stipulates.

So you feel that students should be given higher or lower grades on an assignment due to their religious beliefs, and the expression thereof?

I want them to graded upon aspects irrespective of such. In my first post, I am quite clear about my position on something like Creationism.

All that policy says is that they would be graded based on "ordinary academic standards" (i.e. if you answer correctly according to the curriculum...

I'm sorry but I simply don't see how you extrapolated this conclusion. It clearly says they will not penalize, or reward. Thus it stands to reason we are at a serious fork in the road when a student for example decides to answer questions pertaining to evolution in whatever brand of religious flavor they fancy, yet not be penalized, nor rewarded for that. I am at a loss as to what that would even look like pragmatically.. If that were the case, then they would need a specialized indicator when parents decide a certain question on a graded piece of work needs to be thrown out of the averaging due to the question coming into conflict with religious belief.

This piece of legislation has no rational ability to even exist and be enforced. I mean, technically it can, but never with any semblance of fairness across the board.

I know that's what the conclusion of the section says: "Assignment grades and scores shall be calculatedusing ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance,including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall notpenalize or reward a student based on the religious content of astudent's work." But this doesn't make any sense. you don't get to say "oh we won't infringe on the beliefs of students" and then contradict yourself in the next sentence.

This section simply reeks of loophole mania.. Let me just grab a few more examples of this idiotic legislation trying to play both sides of the fence.

The board of education of each school district may provide for a moment of silence each school day for prayer, reflection, or meditation upon a moral, philosophical,or patriotic theme. No board of education, school, or employee of the school district shall require a pupil to participate in a moment of silence provided for pursuant to this section.

As Passed by the Houseboard of education shall prohibit a classroom teacher from providing in the teacher's classroom reasonable periods of time for activities of a moral, philosophical, or patriotic theme. No pupil shall be required to participate in such activities if they are contrary to the religious convictions of the pupil or the pupil's parents or guardians.

In this example, I'm wondering what does this even mean? Or what the purpose of this would even be? Moment of silence.. how long, what happens when there are obligatory duties like Islamic daily prayers that need tending to? Also.. what does "not requiring the pupil to participate in the moment of silence". So what exactly? That allows the kid to proceed in non-silence? Thats only possible in segregation..

No board of education of a school district shall adopt any policy or rule respecting or promoting an establishment of religion or prohibiting any pupil from the free, individual, and voluntary exercise or expression of the pupil's religious beliefs in any primary or secondary school. The board of education may limit the exercise or expression of the pupil's religious beliefs as described in this section to lunch periods or other non instructional time periods when pupils are free to associate.

In this example it looks like a few parents REALLY pushed back on the latter closing clause. But even before we get there, we have the troubling statement: "No board of education of a school district shall adopt any policy or rule respecting or promoting an establishment of religion".

What does that one mean? There's two issues with that one portion..

A) "Shall adapt no policy of respecting" (so what exactly would be the antithesis of this sort of action they'll be undertaking?)

B) "an establishment of religion or prohibiting any pupil from the free, individual, and voluntary exercise or expression of the pupil's religious beliefs" (establishment of a religion will not be condoned nor will it be suppressed? Lets toss that up to horrible language, but lets say we're talking about Sihk's, they have religious obligation to wield a dagger with them for example. How exactly will they handle this for example?) Also when you read in detail on what they mean deeper in the paper, here's what they actually allow:

1)Prayer

2)Religious gatherings, including but not limited to prayer groups, religious clubs, "see you at the pole" gatherings, or other religious gatherings

3)Distribution of written materials or literature of a religious nature (very interesting here)

4)Any other activity of a religious nature, including wearing symbolic clothing or expression of a religious viewpoint, provided that the activity is not obscene, vulgar,offensively lewd, or indecent (I'll be wondering how Sikh's will be treated on that front).

It continues at length to talk about also how students will be provided facilities like secular groups. Well if that's the case, then how is this NOT sectarian in virtue? If anything, creating these sorts of groups creates a problem they're seemingly trying to avoid in terms of contradiction.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm just not sure what it is they're trying to say in this bill.. I mean I don't expect much from an ordained minister - now Ohio state representative (Timothy E. Ginter).

Now as for your example:

Student A writes on a paper on cosmological origin about the big bang, and correctly states the facts provided in the curriculum. They then include that they personally believe that the big bang was an act of God.

Student B writes that universe is merely a psychological construct and that the earth is flat because that's what they believe.

This bill would prevent Student A from being penalized due to their additional expression, and would prevent Student B from receiving any points for their answer... regardless of whether the teacher was a flat-earther or not.

So here's the problem. BOTH would actually need to be penalized. Because the curriculum exists, and it doesn't contain any portion where any of those two takes are being taught. Especially the case when we're using a paper being written. All the teacher has to do is penalize them for not providing scientific sources from the reading material, and penalize them for deviation of curriculum. Thus avoiding "penalization for religious belief" and simply for improper sourcing of material. If the paper is open ended enough and is asking for opinion, then that is fine, then it's basically an answer to subjective deduction. But when issues of taught curriculum facts about science are at play, I don't see how either student gets out unscathed.

Basically if one student is talking about a universe being a psychological construct, and the other cosmological origins... The two papers aren't even asked of each child. They're almost completely different courses. It'd be like taking math class and being presented chemistry by one student, and biology by another. So your example has severe flaws even if I didn't focus on it's intrinsic flaws from a pragmatic point of view.

While I think this is a completely unnecessary addition, considering the protections of the 1st Amendment... I don't see how it is even remotely "anti-science" nor "pro-religion" - it's simply not "anti-religion" (which is what freedom of expression hinges upon).

You should be able to say whatever you want - even if it's wrong. You just shouldn't be rewarded for doing so -which is what this bill stipulates.

No one pushes bills arbitrarily. All this does is muddy things. The reason you don't see how it swings one way or another, is because you (like I) are not constitutional lawyers or judges. I extrapolate due to source, and I extrapolate due prior probability. One example of where this is "pro-religion" is it simply introduces the language in a framework that future bills (as constituent sentiments swings in one way or another) can be used for further proliferation of religious influence (as dressed up in a nice suit and seemingly unharmful as it may now be to us both when we look at it on the surface).

Just the fact that you're saying "While I think this is a completely unnecessary addition" is indication of an honest reaction to something that can only bring further nonsense with respect to this issue. With 39 cosponsors, it seems a few people in somewhat public policy positions seem to feel it's necessary. That's enough to give me pause in the way it does. But I am more concerned with the contradictions left and right.

 

[SIY]

"Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance,including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work."

Not sure why that's so difficult to understand. It's pretty clear to me.