OK, this one is a rant. (I'm not fond of rants)
I am really surprised at the ruling by a federal judge in the matter of the Dover, PA fight over a 30 second statement in the public school system. The school board mandated that the following should be read once at the beginning of the sections about Darwinistic Evolution:
from the Associated Press:
Text of the statement on intelligent design that Dover Area High School administrators had been reading to students at the start of biology lessons on evolution:
"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People,' is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."
Wow - please note the abundance of deviously designed rhetoric to undermine science. Ugh. Let me summarize:
You are about to learn about the theory of evolution. Theories are not proven, but give tested explanations and are open to more evidence and adjustment. There is another school of thought about our origins, which you may look into on your own time, called Intelligent Design. There is a book in the library about it, but that area is for your own pursuit and your family's. Keep an open mind. We are standards driven and will prepare you to know evolutionary theory.
Or, let me give you the short short version. "We're about to teach on Evolution. Some people have another idea, which if you are curious about you may study on your own. Up to you, but we test you on evolution."
Now THAT, is one insipid and nefarious statement.
The part that seems especially threatening is having an open mind. We can't have that. If evolution is the best theory, why would people be so threatened about other viewpoints. What's also interesting is that the statement says "The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families" - with the notable exception of evolution. That origin of life viewpoint is mandated, and apparently not open to evaluation or competition.
No - what we really need, in regard to this issue, is a closed mind. Nothing else in there. We can't have any heretics bringing in false theories and beliefs. (Sounds like a religious person's viewpoint to me)
An open mind is simply too dangerous to be encouraged. People might be duped into thinking they have options. Or duped into thinking for themselves. I don't really care what the conclude about the subject. I care that they cannot even mention that you have an option, or point toward something else. Open mindedness - too dangerous to encourage or sanction.
Good thing no one will read this! I might be in trouble.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Monday, December 19, 2005
Preponderances O Conferences
I've not written here for some time. Though, since I've written so little this could hardly be considered a break in my "normal" pattern of blogging. What does normal mean anyhow?
I think part of the reason for not writing, besides laziness or addiction to Halo, is the fact that my job has had a ridiculous number of conferences in the last 2 months. Here's the quick list:
I've been to Western PA, Southern VA, Coastal NJ, Central IN. In the coming several months I will be to Washington DC, a woodsy retreat center in PA, New Orleans, West Virginia and a couple I probably don't see coming.
What is it about the concept of a conference that makes it seem like the answer to problems, or communication?
The word conference itself defines what those times should be about. Conference comes from the word confer which means: To meet in order to deliberate together or compare views; consult
Though on one hand I find it irritating that I've had so many conferences recently - meaning, in the last 10 years - I must say that I also find it interesting when I think about human communication.
It seems that we were designed for face to face communication. With all the technologies and mediums we have now in this "communication age" it seems that we can't get away from the need or desire or efficiency that comes from actual human interaction.
No email, video conference, phone call or satellite hookup can compare with the efficacy and efficiency of human interaction and conversation.
In fact - to be fair - I think that this personal contact becomes even more important these days. I think of my email. I get a barrage of them all day. They range from inept and misspelled attempts to get me to enlarge my manhood, to notes from people I love. The bulk of them are people trying to communicate something important for me to do, or send, or talk about. But what happens is that I get so many of those impersonal requests, that they are mostly lost on me. I don't have time to answer this somewhat important email because I have to get through the other 30 that could be important. Gross.
It's now become so easy to communicate so little with so many. Isn't technology great?!
No - I need to have conversations with other humans. In person is best. I'm moved to action, to inter-action and to be able to communicate and say yes or no right there. They have to ask for things of me to my face, and - because it's a human relationship - I have the ability to change, refuse or modify expectations. Not so with email edicts.
I also have the advantage of being able to hear and talk about the heart and reasons behind the views and jobs I'm given from my bosses and colleagues. It's not just some "do this" thing, it's attached to people I care about, and want to help.
I guess my complaint about my preponderance of conferences then is this: I like the interactions, but I'd prefer to have them here at home. It's more the travel and time away from my normal interactions that I resent, rather than the interaction and the facile nature of communications there. I think I'll have a better attitude if I keep that in mind.
So, If you want to interact with me on this point or have some comments - just drop me an email. I'll probably read it, and just might - might reply.
I think part of the reason for not writing, besides laziness or addiction to Halo, is the fact that my job has had a ridiculous number of conferences in the last 2 months. Here's the quick list:
I've been to Western PA, Southern VA, Coastal NJ, Central IN. In the coming several months I will be to Washington DC, a woodsy retreat center in PA, New Orleans, West Virginia and a couple I probably don't see coming.
What is it about the concept of a conference that makes it seem like the answer to problems, or communication?
The word conference itself defines what those times should be about. Conference comes from the word confer which means: To meet in order to deliberate together or compare views; consult
Though on one hand I find it irritating that I've had so many conferences recently - meaning, in the last 10 years - I must say that I also find it interesting when I think about human communication.
It seems that we were designed for face to face communication. With all the technologies and mediums we have now in this "communication age" it seems that we can't get away from the need or desire or efficiency that comes from actual human interaction.
No email, video conference, phone call or satellite hookup can compare with the efficacy and efficiency of human interaction and conversation.
In fact - to be fair - I think that this personal contact becomes even more important these days. I think of my email. I get a barrage of them all day. They range from inept and misspelled attempts to get me to enlarge my manhood, to notes from people I love. The bulk of them are people trying to communicate something important for me to do, or send, or talk about. But what happens is that I get so many of those impersonal requests, that they are mostly lost on me. I don't have time to answer this somewhat important email because I have to get through the other 30 that could be important. Gross.
It's now become so easy to communicate so little with so many. Isn't technology great?!
No - I need to have conversations with other humans. In person is best. I'm moved to action, to inter-action and to be able to communicate and say yes or no right there. They have to ask for things of me to my face, and - because it's a human relationship - I have the ability to change, refuse or modify expectations. Not so with email edicts.
I also have the advantage of being able to hear and talk about the heart and reasons behind the views and jobs I'm given from my bosses and colleagues. It's not just some "do this" thing, it's attached to people I care about, and want to help.
I guess my complaint about my preponderance of conferences then is this: I like the interactions, but I'd prefer to have them here at home. It's more the travel and time away from my normal interactions that I resent, rather than the interaction and the facile nature of communications there. I think I'll have a better attitude if I keep that in mind.
So, If you want to interact with me on this point or have some comments - just drop me an email. I'll probably read it, and just might - might reply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
