The New York Post reported in March 2012 that the city’s Department of Education avoids references to words like “dinosaurs,” “birthdays,” “Halloween” and dozens of other topics on city-issued tests because they could evoke “unpleasant emotions” among the students.
Dinosaurs, for example, conjures the topic of evolution, which could rile fundamentalists and birthdays are not celebrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Halloween, meanwhile, suggests an affiliation to Paganism.
Dinosaurs.... Fracking dinosaurs? Holy son of a bitch really? I don't really get the others either but.... dinosaurs are real fracking things, they existed once, no one can argue against that fact. I need a face palm picture with a nuke going off to show how thismakes me feel
KingCracker wrote: Dinosaurs.... Fracking dinosaurs? Holy son of a bitch really? I don't really get the others either but.... dinosaurs are real fracking things, they existed once, no one can argue against that fact. I need a face palm picture with a nuke going off to show how thismakes me feel
PC at it's worst. Can't offend anyone, so we'll deny actual truth in order to keep everyone feeling happy. It's freaking ridiculous. Can't use the word "citizen" cause it'll make those illegal immigrants sad. *rolls eyes*
....I have no words. I can't even bring myself to post that picture of Tommy Lee Jones glaring disapprovingly over his newspaper from No Country For Old Men.
KingCracker wrote: Dinosaurs.... Fracking dinosaurs? Holy son of a bitch really? I don't really get the others either but.... dinosaurs are real fracking things, they existed once, no one can argue against that fact. I need a face palm picture with a nuke going off to show how thismakes me feel
Does the US not make the teachings of evolution mandatory?
They banned dinosaurs...wow. new thing, cuz they were still taught 2 years ago. If they weren't, the schools I taught at missed the memo, as dinosaurs were still a topic. Idiots who make these choices need to be booted out of office. Time for me to also call for my overzealous need to castrate the morons to remove their reproduction capabilities.
PS, I'm a Christian and I'm insulted by the removal of dinosaurs. Put them back in education where they belong.
It's funny that nobody here has read the actual articles, and the scope and rationale of these plans. They actually make more sense than they appear.
New York is removing certain words from standardized tests, so that when it tests kids it can accurately gauge ability without culture bias. It is, believe it or not, an attempt to be more accurate and do the job better.
In Seattle, why would a city government discuss citizens? Nobody is a citizen of a city, they are a resident. the brown bag thing is a little goofy, but government employees are notoriously easy to offend.
Polonius wrote: It's funny that nobody here has read the actual articles, and the scope and rationale of these plans. They actually make more sense than they appear.
New York is removing certain words from standardized tests, so that when it tests kids it can accurately gauge ability without culture bias. It is, believe it or not, an attempt to be more accurate and do the job better.
In Seattle, why would a city government discuss citizens? Nobody is a citizen of a city, they are a resident. the brown bag thing is a little goofy, but government employees are notoriously easy to offend.
I read the article. Doesn't change the fact that it's pants-on-head that they banned dinosaurs. If any little kid is offended, I'd be shocked. It's not evolution: it's history. Unless all those bones are a conspiracy, then they happened. Deal with it, religious nutjobs.
I'm still a bit miffed at this news. Can anyone tell?
Polonius wrote: It's funny that nobody here has read the actual articles, and the scope and rationale of these plans. They actually make more sense than they appear.
New York is removing certain words from standardized tests, so that when it tests kids it can accurately gauge ability without culture bias. It is, believe it or not, an attempt to be more accurate and do the job better.
In Seattle, why would a city government discuss citizens? Nobody is a citizen of a city, they are a resident. the brown bag thing is a little goofy, but government employees are notoriously easy to offend.
I read the article. Doesn't change the fact that it's pants-on-head that they banned dinosaurs. If any little kid is offended, I'd be shocked. It's not evolution: it's history. Unless all those bones are a conspiracy, then they happened. Deal with it, religious nutjobs.
I'm still a bit miffed at this news. Can anyone tell?
When you say things like "they banned dinosaurs," it shows that you didn't really understand the scope of the policy.
It may be silly, but I'm pretty they can create plenty of questions for these tests without bringing up dinosaurs. I"m not an expert in quantitative academic testing, so I can't refute their theory that words like dinosaur could affect performance. I think, like you contend, that it would be a pretty small number. but that's a debate about test design, not an "OMG they banned dinosaurs" freak out.
One of the great ironies is that much of "political correctness" is premised on the idea that there are words that have such overwhelming meanings that people don't investigate context, or take into account the facts, and simply hear or are offended by certain words. There is a strong element of this country that hates that theory, yet proves it every time they chicken little over any effort to prevent words from use. All they hear is that words are banned, and they go nuts. Because, of course, people don't react based on words...
Polonius wrote: It's funny that nobody here has read the actual articles, and the scope and rationale of these plans. They actually make more sense than they appear.
New York is removing certain words from standardized tests, so that when it tests kids it can accurately gauge ability without culture bias. It is, believe it or not, an attempt to be more accurate and do the job better.
In Seattle, why would a city government discuss citizens? Nobody is a citizen of a city, they are a resident. the brown bag thing is a little goofy, but government employees are notoriously easy to offend.
It was pretty simple to understand, actually: "these words are being excluded from tests because they can potentially upset some students due to..." And they list the examples. Believe me, I got the scope of it. What I didn't get is how they figured DINOSAURS to have the potential to offend children. Children love dinosaurs. It's a prerequisite to being a child. I understand Halloween and birthdays being removed. I have friends who couldn't be involved in those in school. It's the removal of teaching an extinct animal that is proven to exist that becomes daft.
timetowaste85 wrote: It was pretty simple to understand, actually: "these words are being excluded from tests because they can potentially upset some students due to..." And they list the examples. Believe me, I got the scope of it. What I didn't get is how they figured DINOSAURS to have the potential to offend children. Children love dinosaurs. It's a prerequisite to being a child. I understand Halloween and birthdays being removed. I have friends who couldn't be involved in those in school. It's the removal of teaching an extinct animal that is proven to exist that becomes daft.
It's far less to avoid "upsetting the students", and far more to avoid "upsetting the parents of said students" when little Stevie comes home and tells mommy and daddy who teach their child the Creationist method about the question which talks about "_____lived 65 million years ago and roamed the Earth as giant animals of dooooooooooom".
timetowaste85 wrote: It was pretty simple to understand, actually: "these words are being excluded from tests because they can potentially upset some students due to..." And they list the examples. Believe me, I got the scope of it. What I didn't get is how they figured DINOSAURS to have the potential to offend children. Children love dinosaurs. It's a prerequisite to being a child. I understand Halloween and birthdays being removed. I have friends who couldn't be involved in those in school. It's the removal of teaching an extinct animal that is proven to exist that becomes daft.
It's far less to avoid "upsetting the students", and far more to avoid "upsetting the parents of said students" when little Stevie comes home and tells mommy and daddy who teach their child the Creationist method about the question which talks about "_____lived 65 million years ago and roamed the Earth as giant animals of dooooooooooom".
I don't know how someone can try to explain away Dinosoar fossils, and I am Christian.
timetowaste85 wrote: It was pretty simple to understand, actually: "these words are being excluded from tests because they can potentially upset some students due to..." And they list the examples. Believe me, I got the scope of it. What I didn't get is how they figured DINOSAURS to have the potential to offend children. Children love dinosaurs. It's a prerequisite to being a child. I understand Halloween and birthdays being removed. I have friends who couldn't be involved in those in school. It's the removal of teaching an extinct animal that is proven to exist that becomes daft.
It's far less to avoid "upsetting the students", and far more to avoid "upsetting the parents of said students" when little Stevie comes home and tells mommy and daddy who teach their child the Creationist method about the question which talks about "_____lived 65 million years ago and roamed the Earth as giant animals of dooooooooooom".
I don't know how someone can try to explain away Dinosoar fossils, and I am Christian.
If we can't talk about dinosaurs, how will we accurately describe our lord Jesus leading the Founding Fathers against Muhammad, the Romans and the Devil on his mighty T Rex 'Freedom', armed only with a minigun, burger and a will of iron, forged in the heart of Wallstreet?
timetowaste85 wrote: It was pretty simple to understand, actually: "these words are being excluded from tests because they can potentially upset some students due to..." And they list the examples. Believe me, I got the scope of it. What I didn't get is how they figured DINOSAURS to have the potential to offend children. Children love dinosaurs. It's a prerequisite to being a child. I understand Halloween and birthdays being removed. I have friends who couldn't be involved in those in school. It's the removal of teaching an extinct animal that is proven to exist that becomes daft.
It's far less to avoid "upsetting the students", and far more to avoid "upsetting the parents of said students" when little Stevie comes home and tells mommy and daddy who teach their child the Creationist method about the question which talks about "_____lived 65 million years ago and roamed the Earth as giant animals of dooooooooooom".
I don't know how someone can try to explain away Dinosoar fossils, and I am Christian.
The key to that mindset is not to explain, only to deny.
timetowaste85 wrote: It was pretty simple to understand, actually: "these words are being excluded from tests because they can potentially upset some students due to..." And they list the examples. Believe me, I got the scope of it. What I didn't get is how they figured DINOSAURS to have the potential to offend children. Children love dinosaurs. It's a prerequisite to being a child. I understand Halloween and birthdays being removed. I have friends who couldn't be involved in those in school. It's the removal of teaching an extinct animal that is proven to exist that becomes daft.
It's far less to avoid "upsetting the students", and far more to avoid "upsetting the parents of said students" when little Stevie comes home and tells mommy and daddy who teach their child the Creationist method about the question which talks about "_____lived 65 million years ago and roamed the Earth as giant animals of dooooooooooom".
I don't know how someone can try to explain away Dinosoar fossils, and I am Christian.
I'm so glad I live in the UK, where the dumbest thing our elected officials do is ban porn.
The only one I have any inkling of reasonable reaction to is brown bag. But even with the seriously far out reasoning, having to call something a "lunch and learn" (da feth?) rather describing it for what it is, a bag that is brown in colour. Call me calous but seriously, anyone of any race that gets offended by a bag's colouration for some event that happened 40+ yeas ago needs to wind their neck in as we say around these part. What, they going to sue supermarkets for only giving out white plastic bags?
As for removing the word dinosaurs...I have no words. In fact, I would go so far as to be offended that they would remove my favourite childhood animal from curriculumns (curiculi?) because it might bring up a topic of scientific explanantion for existence and may or may not offend some random man in the street, who may or may not be a "citizen" or "permanent visitor to the country."
Banning birthdays...
Alas, I am from good ol', nudity free Northern Ireland where petrol bombs are a mere traffic annoyance and lines of police in riot gear is considered Tuesday. Still, much rather be here where the only person who cares about the offensive language is the guy your offending. And you settle it like men. Pissing ccontest behind the pub.
Deadshot wrote: Alas, I am from good ol', nudity free Northern Ireland where petrol bombs are a mere traffic annoyance and lines of police in riot gear is considered Tuesday. Still, much rather be here where the only person who cares about the offensive language is the guy your offending. And you settle it like men. Pissing ccontest behind the pub.
Brown Bag = the paper material that's wrapped around a 40oz so I can drink in public. Other then that.....I never heard it use as a racial term. I have seen it stereotype a "race" by Hollywood. I've done it quite a few times at public BBQ's......
MeanGreenStompa wrote: If we can't talk about dinosaurs, how will we accurately describe our lord Jesus leading the Founding Fathers against Muhammad, the Romans and the Devil on his mighty T Rex 'Freedom', armed only with a minigun, burger and a will of iron, forged in the heart of Wallstreet?
Jihadin wrote: Brown Bag = the paper material that's wrapped around a 40oz so I can drink in public. Other then that.....I never heard it use as a racial term. I have seen it stereotype a "race" by Hollywood. I've done it quite a few times at public BBQ's......
Nor have I. I have heard it in relation to women who are deemed as unattractive.
Jihadin wrote: Brown Bag = the paper material that's wrapped around a 40oz so I can drink in public. Other then that.....I never heard it use as a racial term. I have seen it stereotype a "race" by Hollywood. I've done it quite a few times at public BBQ's......
Nor have I. I have heard it in relation to women who are deemed as unattractive.
I'll have to say that I've never heard it as a racial term, either. I think it would have quietly died if these morons hadn't dragged it back into the light of day in the context they say it's used.
The only people who were aware of the term were the type of people who spend life looking for reasons to be offended anyways. Now that this will be "banned" they'll find some new non-sense word to get offended about.
I have heard the term, but it is fairly old and even then it was fairly regional and obscure. It also isn't really a term, but a description, as in "she couldn't pass the brown bag test", and was used pretty much between blacks criticizing others of either being to light skinned to be considered 'really' black. It does exist, but man are they reaching back for some really old, unused colloquialisms to be upset about.
d-usa wrote: What are the valid real practical reasons to put words like that on a test, and why are people upset that they can't be used in a test?
Dinosaurs might be important to biology, natural history, evolution, science, palaeontology, etc related courses.
In my own opinion, it's like holding schools to an 1800's standard of curriculum if subjects like Dinosoars and the theory of Evolution can't be discussed. I also think that Creationism should be discussed so kids get more than one angle of people's ideas.
Dinosaur can still be used in NYC though, it just won't show up on city-wide issued standardized tests.
And Seattle is not incorrect when stating that refering to all the people as "citizens" is incorrect since there are legal-residents that are non-citizens living in the city who pay taxes and receive city services.
It really is just people getting angry for no reason.
d-usa wrote: What are the valid real practical reasons to put words like that on a test, and why are people upset that they can't be used in a test?
Dinosaurs might be important to biology, natural history, evolution, science, palaeontology, etc related courses.
In my own opinion, it's like holding schools to an 1800's standard of curriculum if subjects like Dinosoars and the theory of Evolution can't be discussed. I also think that Creationism should be discussed so kids get more than one angle of people's ideas.
But why should creationism be discussed in the classroom? Evolution is a proven scientific fact, while creationism has nothing behind it. It'd be the same as teaching about some people's ideas that the holocaust never happened. Sure, it's a different idea, but it's not one that holds any actual value or legitimacy.
Yeah, in school we were taught evolution in grade 10 science (maybe even earlier but I can't remember) there's was little to no mentioning of creationism which makes sense as the course was about science in general and as far as I'm aware creationism is not a scientific theory, if you
want to learn about creationism there is plenty of options available visit some churches, search the web, read religious text, join a course that involves studying religion, etc as creationism has no place in science (other than maybe studying the history of science or how science and religion
d-usa wrote: What are the valid real practical reasons to put words like that on a test, and why are people upset that they can't be used in a test?
Dinosaurs might be important to biology, natural history, evolution, science, palaeontology, etc related courses.
In my own opinion, it's like holding schools to an 1800's standard of curriculum if subjects like Dinosoars and the theory of Evolution can't be discussed. I also think that Creationism should be discussed so kids get more than one angle of people's ideas.
But why should creationism be discussed in the classroom? Evolution is a proven scientific fact, while creationism has nothing behind it. It'd be the same as teaching about some people's ideas that the holocaust never happened. Sure, it's a different idea, but it's not one that holds any actual value or legitimacy.
Simply, as I said, so children can understand that there are other points of view. It might lead to more respect of each other without all the hot arguments and insults that go on. As you well know, there are sizable portions of the population that don't agree with the eviidence put forward for evolution and say they have equaly valid evidence for creation. I myself believe in creation, though I couldn't say how it was accomplished.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: Yeah, in school we were taught evolution in grade 10 science (maybe even earlier but I can't remember) there's was little to no mentioning of creationism which makes sense as the course was about science in general and as far as I'm aware creationism is not a scientific theory, if you
want to learn about creationism there is plenty of options available visit some churches, search the web, read religious text, join a course that involves studying religion, etc as creationism has no place in science (other than maybe studying the history of science or how science and religion
effect each other).
When I was in 5th grade, my Science teacher discussed creationism and evolution starting with the sentence he had us write, "All life came from the Sea". There followed a lively debate since the town I grew up in was located in an isolated part of Northern Maine and had a church on practically every block. It was the one decent Science class I remember this guy teaching among his many others.
Relapse wrote: Simply, as I said, so children can understand that there are other points of view.
Except the class isn't "Viewpoints of the US", it is Science class, and Creationism isn't science. We also don't teach Algebra in English class.
To some, that's the basis of their theories and disagree with you that it isn't Science.
I think creationism would make more sense in a social studies class as social studies sort of groups most of the social sciences together (history, politics, sociology, anthropology, economics, etc) and religion is an important concept in society.
Relapse wrote: Simply, as I said, so children can understand that there are other points of view.
Except the class isn't "Viewpoints of the US", it is Science class, and Creationism isn't science. We also don't teach Algebra in English class.
To some, that's the basis of their theories and disagree with you that it isn't Science.
I think creationism would make more sense in a social studies class as social studies sort of groups most of the social sciences together (history, politics, sociology, anthropology, economics, etc) and religion is an important concept in society.
Blokus wrote: Relapse are you a young earth creationist?
I honestly don't know what the facts of Earth's creation are except for believing that God created it and the order things came into exsistence. As far as age, I believe the current evidence points to a far longer period of creation, but am open to the idea we all might one day be surprised to find different facts about it.
d-usa wrote: What are the valid real practical reasons to put words like that on a test, and why are people upset that they can't be used in a test?
Dinosaurs might be important to biology, natural history, evolution, science, palaeontology, etc related courses.
In my own opinion, it's like holding schools to an 1800's standard of curriculum if subjects like Dinosoars and the theory of Evolution can't be discussed. I also think that Creationism should be discussed so kids get more than one angle of people's ideas.
But why should creationism be discussed in the classroom? Evolution is a proven scientific fact, while creationism has nothing behind it. It'd be the same as teaching about some people's ideas that the holocaust never happened. Sure, it's a different idea, but it's not one that holds any actual value or legitimacy.
Simply, as I said, so children can understand that there are other points of view. It might lead to more respect of each other without all the hot arguments and insults that go on. As you well know, there are sizable portions of the population that don't agree with the eviidence put forward for evolution and say they have equaly valid evidence for creation. I myself believe in creation, though I couldn't say how it was accomplished.
Just because some sizable portions of the population do not agree with observable, scientific fact, does not mean that creationism has any validity in any science course. It just means that some sizable portions of the population are poorly educated.
Relapse wrote: Science is true. The thing is what is believed might be mistaken.
If this is an obtuse way of saying evolution is wrong, then do what those who are studying it all the time do: prove it. You say science is true, then you understand what you have to do. We have a hundred years of tested, retested, and reviewed data that backs up the idea evolution. It also doesn't claim to understand every element of how it works, which is why we still constantly test, retest, and review. If information changes we change with it. Science isn't static, it always is trying to prove and disprove things, including evolution. The problem with evolution, for a small group, is that it constantly proves that we are on the right track to understanding the origins of life. Unlike the Ten Commandments, the information isn't written in stone, it is always up for debate and discussion.
Saying "and god did it" isn't science, nor is it actually something you can measure, test, or verify. If it was, there wouldn't be a plurality of religious viewpoints, or atheists.
Blokus wrote: Relapse are you a young earth creationist?
I honestly don't know what the facts of Earth's creation are except for believing that God created it and the order things came into exsistence. As far as age, I believe the current evidence points to a far longer period of creation, but am open to the idea we all might one day be surprised to find different facts about it.
Relapse wrote: Science is true. The thing is what is believed might be mistaken.
If this is an obtuse way of saying evolution is wrong, then do what those who are studying it all the time do: prove it. You say science is true, then you understand what you have to do. We have a hundred years of tested, retested, and reviewed data that backs up the idea evolution. It also doesn't claim to understand every element of how it works, which is why we still constantly test, retest, and review. If information changes we change with it. Science isn't static, it always is trying to prove and disprove things, including evolution. The problem with evolution, for a small group, is that it constantly proves that we are on the right track to understanding the origins of life. Unlike the Ten Commandments, the information isn't written in stone, it is always up for debate and discussion.
Saying "and god did it" isn't science, nor is it actually something you can measure, test, or verify. If it was, there wouldn't be a plurality of religious viewpoints, or atheists.
No need to get testy. We have decades and millenia of other scientific beliefs that were eventually proven wrong. To me, it makes as much sense that God created the Universe out of nothing as it does for others to believe that molocules and atoms suddenly sprang into existance and exploded, creating the Universe. To be fair, there are a plurality of different scientific beliefs that are openly hostile to each other over different areas, and these can be tested to an extent. The data just gets different interpretations.
Did you know that satan wants us to question science. He lives in the doubt we express. He lives within the smallest atoms of life. Our doubt empowers him.
Blokus wrote: Did you know that satan wants us to question science. He lives in the doubt we express. He lives within the smallest atoms of life. Our doubt empowers him.
I believe that. One of the statements that my religion has is, "The Glory of God is Knowledge." Whenever someone entirely closes their mind to a possibility, I think that knowledge dies a bit.
Blokus wrote: Did you know that satan wants us to question science. He lives in the doubt we express. He lives within the smallest atoms of life. Our doubt empowers him.
Anybody can question science Jews, Muslims, Christians, atheists, agnostics, soccer moms, Buddhists, etc that's the beauty of it the tricky part is being able to disprove it (although it does happen from time to time).
Not being testy. Proving something is a cornerstone of science. Evolution only deals with what it is, it neither proves nor disproves the existence of god, or god's/gods' role in the creation of humanity or the universe. Evolution isn't the enemy of religion anymore than radio waves or cardiology.
Not being testy. Proving something is a cornerstone of science. Evolution only deals with what it is, it neither proves nor disproves the existence of god, or god's/gods' role in the creation of humanity or the universe. Evolution isn't the enemy of religion anymore than radio waves or cardiology.
Science is the questioning of things, even itself.
I accept that statement a lot better than the previous one that you started off with " obtuse". I don't say evolution is the enemy of religion. How is it that the anti biotics we use now have to be stronger than the ones we used a decade ago? I believe traits can be enhanced and passed on and a species benifits. I also believe God has a hand in that happening.
d-usa wrote: What are the valid real practical reasons to put words like that on a test, and why are people upset that they can't be used in a test?
Dinosaurs might be important to biology, natural history, evolution, science, palaeontology, etc related courses.
In my own opinion, it's like holding schools to an 1800's standard of curriculum if subjects like Dinosoars and the theory of Evolution can't be discussed. I also think that Creationism should be discussed so kids get more than one angle of people's ideas.
But why should creationism be discussed in the classroom? Evolution is a proven scientific fact, while creationism has nothing behind it. It'd be the same as teaching about some people's ideas that the holocaust never happened. Sure, it's a different idea, but it's not one that holds any actual value or legitimacy.
There are many different views on creationism in itself. There are those who believe that a supreme being created all life as it currently is, with little to no evolution involved. Some believe that a supreme being "wrote the program" and executed it, and all evolution follows this program and pathway. And some more believe that a supreme being put the ingredients in place, and just sat back to watch what happens.
Personally, Evolution has only proved where many of the current animals came from. Not what started the whole process, and that's where we get the philosophical debates on whether there was a big bang, or a being that started everything on our little speck of dust.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Personally, Evolution has only proved where many of the current animals came from.
Not necessarily, scientists have built timelines that go all the way to the earliest form of life known. There's also such things as fossil records, carbon dating, taxonomy, microscopes, geological records, anatomical observations, potassium-argon dating, etc to prove the existence of extinct
species. Even one of the most well known books on evolutionary theory On the Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin deals with the idea that all living things descend from a common ancestor.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Personally, Evolution has only proved where many of the current animals came from.
Not necessarily, scientists have built timelines that go all the way to the earliest form of life known. There's also such things as fossil records, carbon dating, taxonomy, microscopes, geological records, anatomical observations, potassium-argon dating, etc to prove the existence of older
species. Even one of the most well known books on evolutionary theory On the Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin deals with the idea that all living things descend from a common ancestor.
Spoiler:
I think you two might be agreeing on the same point, but using different language.
I think what he means by the statement is the path the current life took to get here.
Now let us tie this in to what words and phrases are becoming extinct and others coming into use due to political correctness.
Yep, I am not denying evolution. What I am saying is that there are creationists out there who believe that a being started the chain reaction, or something like that.
Relapse wrote: Now let us tie this in to what words and phrases are becoming extinct and others coming into use due to political correctness.
I'm not totally against political correctness like it being used as a way to set a standard for polite conversation or to bring awareness to words that can be genuinely offensive to certain groups like I don't think it's OK to be calling blacks [see forum posting rules], gays fags and the mentally disabled
retards (although I don't think you should disallowed to say them either it depends on the context more than anything). I mean I think it's had some positive effects like people generally aren't calling black people [see forum posting rules] or Negroes anymore (at least not to their face), that being said the
article in this thread is taking it way too far imo.
I think what he means by the statement is the path the current life took to get here.
Now let us tie this in to what words and phrases are becoming extinct and others coming into use due to political correctness.
Yep, I am not denying evolution. What I am saying is that there are creationists out there who believe that a being started the chain reaction, or something like that.
I don't consider myself a "creationist", but mainly because that term seems to have become equal to "young earth creationist".
But my personal belief is pretty much "everything that science says through the processes that science has discovered" and then just add "and God started it and put these processes in place".
Fafnir wrote: Evolution isn't about how life or the universe started. It only concerns the process of change.
Not true, there's been many significant texts or people in evolutionary theory who have attempted to map out the origin of life even in the second paragraph on Wikipedia's article on "Evolution" it brings up the idea that all life shares a common ancestor.
The idea of a universal ancestor does not specifically concern itself with the actual creation of life. Evolution is a process that only begins once life is actually there.
Abiogenesis and evolution are two very different things.
Fafnir wrote: The idea of a universal ancestor does not specifically concern itself with the actual creation of life. Evolution is a process that only begins once life is actually there.
Abiogenesis and evolution are two very different things.
Well, you're right that evolution isn't defined by specie origins (evolution is the transmutation of species via natural or sexual selection) it is still an important concept that has been brought up in evolutionary theory and even the idea of evolution itself can make one wonder about the
Fafnir wrote: Once again, that's not what I'm talking about. The point is evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life.
You're right that evolution isn't about the origins of life per say, it can still be relevant if you want to examine the oldest lifeforms and see how they changed over time into newer species.
Relapse wrote: Now let us tie this in to what words and phrases are becoming extinct and others coming into use due to political correctness.
I'm not totally against political correctness like it being used as a way to set a standard for polite conversation or to bring awareness to words that can be genuinely offensive to certain groups like I don't think it's OK to be calling blacks [see forum posting rules], gays fags and the mentally disabled
retards (although I don't think you should disallowed to say them either it depends on the context more than anything). I mean I think it's had some positive effects like people generally aren't calling black people [see forum posting rules] or Negroes anymore (at least not to their face), that being said the
article in this thread is taking it way too far imo.
I agree with your sentiment on this. I kind of like what Lenny Bruce had to say on all of this.
Fafnir wrote: Once again, that's not what I'm talking about. The point is evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life.
You're right that evolution isn't about the origins of life per say, it can still be relevant if you want to examine the oldest lifeforms and see how they changed over time into newer species.
But once again, that's not the point of the discussion. The point is that most creationists don't even know a thing about the point they're supposedly arguing about.
Fafnir wrote: Once again, that's not what I'm talking about. The point is evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life.
You're right that evolution isn't about the origins of life per say, it can still be relevant if you want to examine the oldest lifeforms and see how they changed over time into newer species.
But once again, that's not the point of the discussion. The point is that most creationists don't even know a thing about the point they're supposedly arguing about.
KingCracker wrote: Dinosaurs.... Fracking dinosaurs? Holy son of a bitch really? I don't really get the others either but.... dinosaurs are real fracking things, they existed once, no one can argue against that fact. I need a face palm picture with a nuke going off to show how thismakes me feel
Birthdays existed at one time too. Before the bad times. Before the coming of the political correctness.
Anyhow, this is all just stupid. Just fething stupid. The story in Seattle is about official government documents - in which case using residents instead of citizens is perfectly sensible. A little minor, but whatever. And the idea of dinosaurs and birthdays being 'banned' in New York is just about standardised testing. It doesn't mean they won't teach about dinosaurs, it just means they won't be mentioned in standardised tests that are about maths and language and don't actually need to mention dinosaurs at all.
But whatever. Rail against the great PC insanity that doesn't actually exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: It was pretty simple to understand, actually: "these words are being excluded from tests because they can potentially upset some students due to..." And they list the examples. Believe me, I got the scope of it. What I didn't get is how they figured DINOSAURS to have the potential to offend children. Children love dinosaurs. It's a prerequisite to being a child. I understand Halloween and birthdays being removed. I have friends who couldn't be involved in those in school. It's the removal of teaching an extinct animal that is proven to exist that becomes daft.
Yeah, it's daft. It's daft that for a small number of people something as just plain cool as dinosaurs have become just another political football in their quest to reject anything that challenges their selectively literal and particularly daft interpretation of the bible, so that their kid might freak out a little just by seeing them mentioned in a standardised test.
But that's the world the that the Department of Education has to deal with. And there's no need to mention dinosaurs on standardised testing, and so maybe it is for the best if they don't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: It's far less to avoid "upsetting the students", and far more to avoid "upsetting the parents of said students" when little Stevie comes home and tells mommy and daddy who teach their child the Creationist method about the question which talks about "_____lived 65 million years ago and roamed the Earth as giant animals of dooooooooooom".
No. Dinosaurs still get taught in class. This isn't about parent's reactions at all.
It's about the idea that for some kids dinosaurs might be a trigger for emotional distress during a standardised test, which might lead to a poor performance and end up producing bad information about how good this kid is at maths, english etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: In my own opinion, it's like holding schools to an 1800's standard of curriculum if subjects like Dinosoars and the theory of Evolution can't be discussed. I also think that Creationism should be discussed so kids get more than one angle of people's ideas.
They can be discussed. They can even be taught. They are taught.
They just aren't mentioned in standardised testing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: Simply, as I said, so children can understand that there are other points of view. It might lead to more respect of each other without all the hot arguments and insults that go on. As you well know, there are sizable portions of the population that don't agree with the eviidence put forward for evolution and say they have equaly valid evidence for creation. I myself believe in creation, though I couldn't say how it was accomplished.
Science isn't about being nice to people's feelings, and sure as hell doesn't use the opinions of the general population to decide anything.
Science means if you've got a solid theory that explains the evidence and demonstrates predictive power, then it should be taught.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: No need to get testy. We have decades and millenia of other scientific beliefs that were eventually proven wrong.
Not really. Thing is, science as it exists today is actually a massive institution, producing an immense amount of research daily. But it has evolved only relatively recently, and before that you could probably best describe it as a fairly small number of enthusiastic amateurs working in an ad-hoc manner, with very limited techniques and resources.
As such, theories could exist and even be broadly accepted for a long time just because new evidence developed very slowly. But now there are millions of people working in scientific research across the globe, and in areas as broad as evolution the amount of study is truly immense.
That isn't to say that we know everything about it (if that were true we'd stop studying it) but it does mean when a major theory like evolution develops it is challenged by new developments almost daily - and if it lasts a generation or two without any of that new evidence overturning it, then the likelihood of something new popping up to question it is basically zero.
But wouldn't dinosaurs be relevant to standardized tests in science courses? I don't think math and English are the only courses that have standardized tests.
Cheesecat wrote: But wouldn't dinosaurs be relevant to standardized tests in science courses? I don't think math and English are the only courses that have standardized tests.
Is the field of science so narrow they can't come up with a test that doesn't include dinosaurs? In this case they are only talking about Math and English tests, and specific state-wide ones, I believe.
Cheesecat wrote: But wouldn't dinosaurs be relevant to standardized tests in science courses? I don't think math and English are the only courses that have standardized tests.
Is the field of science so narrow they can't come up with a test that doesn't include dinosaurs? In this case they are only talking about Math and English tests, and specific state-wide ones, I believe.
Well yeah there is more to science than dinosaurs, but it's quite likely that evolution will get mentioned in science tests (as it's one of the most well known scientific theories) so I assume that most young earth creationists would be offended by that as well (I'm guessing that is the main
Cheesecat wrote: But wouldn't dinosaurs be relevant to standardized tests in science courses? I don't think math and English are the only courses that have standardized tests.
Is the field of science so narrow they can't come up with a test that doesn't include dinosaurs? In this case they are only talking about Math and English tests, and specific state-wide ones, I believe.
Well yeah there is more to science than dinosaurs, but it's quite likely that evolution will get mentioned in science tests (as it's one of the most well known scientific theories) so I assume that most young earth creationists would be offended by that as well (I'm guessing that is the main
demographic offended by the word dinosaur).
Bow bow, wrongo cheesecat, it's really old people who are kicking up the fuss this time.
I don't know about you guys, but when I was in school, they started teaching about the basics concepts of evolution back when I was in elementary, and that carried through to jr. high, and had I elected to take biology instead of physics, probably through highschool as well. It's a pretty important part of 1/3rd of what the entire science curriculum is based on, so I figure it would pop up on quite a few tests.
Reading this thread I had to wonder why dinos were racist and why people were talking about paper bags. Thank you to the person/people who explained the "brown bag test" - never heard of that before and makes the first couple of pages of the thread a lot easier to follow
I personally think all exam questions should feature dinos and evolution.
"If Shakespeare was a T-rex, what would is descendants evolve into given that time is relative and you were being forced to read one of his plays... explain your working"
timetowaste85 wrote: It was pretty simple to understand, actually: "these words are being excluded from tests because they can potentially upset some students due to..." And they list the examples. Believe me, I got the scope of it. What I didn't get is how they figured DINOSAURS to have the potential to offend children. Children love dinosaurs. It's a prerequisite to being a child. I understand Halloween and birthdays being removed. I have friends who couldn't be involved in those in school. It's the removal of teaching an extinct animal that is proven to exist that becomes daft.
Holy Moly, don't let the younglings near the local natural history museum then! Kiss those cool field trips good bye!
d-usa wrote: Can't bother with facts, it's important to just be outraged.
How's that glass house holding up?
Wait, "birthdays" can bring up bad memories or make someone feel bad? Nature needs to bring out the cheetahs STAT! to thin the herd a little. The gene pool shouldn't be inflatable.
d-usa wrote: Can't bother with facts, it's important to just be outraged.
How's that glass house holding up?
Wait, "birthdays" can bring up bad memories or make someone feel bad? Nature needs to bring out the cheetahs STAT! to thin the herd a little. The gene pool shouldn't be inflatable.
I think Cheetah SAT's would be better
"Those of you who survive shall progress to Third Grade! For those about to die, we salute you!".
d-usa wrote: Can't bother with facts, it's important to just be outraged.
How's that glass house holding up?
Wait, "birthdays" can bring up bad memories or make someone feel bad? Nature needs to bring out the cheetahs STAT! to thin the herd a little. The gene pool shouldn't be inflatable.
I think Cheetah SAT's would be better
"Those of you who survive shall progress to Third Grade! For those about to die, we salute you!".
"Back in my day we didn't have no wussy cheetahs. We had to fight off Sabre Tooths, with just sticks and twigs!"
d-usa wrote: Can't bother with facts, it's important to just be outraged.
How's that glass house holding up?
Wait, "birthdays" can bring up bad memories or make someone feel bad? Nature needs to bring out the cheetahs STAT! to thin the herd a little. The gene pool shouldn't be inflatable.
I think Cheetah SAT's would be better
"Those of you who survive shall progress to Third Grade! For those about to die, we salute you!".
"Back in my day we didn't have no wussy cheetahs. We had to fight off Sabre Tooths, with just sticks and twigs!"
Sticks and twigs?!! Luxury! Why, I remember having nothing more than dandilion fluff to blow in their face!
Cheesecat wrote: But wouldn't dinosaurs be relevant to standardized tests in science courses? I don't think math and English are the only courses that have standardized tests.
New York appears to have English Language and Mathematics standardised tests, and science testing for only grades 4 and 8... which from my experience is before evolution is taught as a concept.
Cheesecat wrote: But wouldn't dinosaurs be relevant to standardized tests in science courses? I don't think math and English are the only courses that have standardized tests.
New York appears to have English Language and Mathematics standardised tests, and science testing for only grades 4 and 8... which from my experience is before evolution is taught as a concept.
Oh, OK thanks for that also your quote looks a little messy.
SilverMK2 wrote: "IfShakespeare was a T-rex, what would is descendants evolve into given that time is relative and you were being forced to read one of his plays... explain your working"
His [Shakespeare's] descendants wouldn't evolve into anything, since Shakespeare apparently exists outside the laws of English grammar.
Cheesecat wrote: But wouldn't dinosaurs be relevant to standardized tests in science courses? I don't think math and English are the only courses that have standardized tests.
New York appears to have English Language and Mathematics standardised tests, and science testing for only grades 4 and 8... which from my experience is before evolution is taught as a concept.
When were you a student of New York public schools?
We'd definitely covered evolution by eighth grade down here in the Commonwealth, but then again I was in AP classes.
Seaward wrote: When were you a student of New York public schools?
We'd definitely covered evolution by eighth grade down here in the Commonwealth, but then again I was in AP classes.
Fair enough. Over here we covered all the foundational stuff like cell structure and all that, and once we had that grounding then moved on to evolution.
SilverMK2 wrote: "IfShakespeare was a T-rex, what would is descendants evolve into given that time is relative and you were being forced to read one of his plays... explain your working"
His [Shakespeare's] descendants wouldn't evolve into anything, since Shakespeare apparently exists outside the laws of English grammar.
