posted
See, I was planning on getting a Ph.D and teaching, but apparently that position has no meaning anymore. Now I am going to go kill myself.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can I get my history degree that way too? It'd make things a LOT easier.
Hopefully they'll say no. Creationism isn't science, it's religion. I would have no problem with them giving some sort of religious studies degree. Otherwise every ordained clergyman in the nation, according to Texas, will be a ready-made Science teacher.
I don't know how controversial this is. How many people really support giving out science degrees for creationism studies?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming that they teach (and test) the required science topics, I don't see how it could legitimately be denied, even though they're teaching other things whose purpose is to somewhat undermine the science teaching.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In other words, they have a preconcieved truth and everything in science has to fit within that truth.
I don't see how, given that mission, they could be accepted.
I think you may be confused about what the job of an accrediting agency is. Unless you mean "by most other scientists" when you said "be accepted."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a certain segment of the population, apparently, that embraces ignorance.
The fact that this thread could be considered controversial shows just how large that group is in the united states.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really surprised that they're teaching cosmology. We didn't get into it much in my Astronomy class except to say that the age of various globular clusters repudiates the Big Bang theory. When I asked him what happened instead, he said there wasn't enough evidence to know yet.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way public education works here in Texas, even if these people got a degree in science education, they'd still have to pass a content TExES test in order to become a teacher. That means that they'd have to at least know a decent amount of real science. Not that I'm defending this decision, as it seems sort of stupid to me. I'm just saying that just because a person has a degree in science education doesn't mean they are going to be able to get a job teaching science.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's hoping that these master's degrees accredited in Texas do not allow one to teach in Canada. Yikes.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to get my Theology Degree from the University of The Flying Spaghetti Monster please, and my English Degree from the Marcel Marceu School of French Mime.
Hey, it would go good with my Ethics degree from Al Capone University (who's motto is, "You talkin to me? Al Cap U. if you'se talk'n to me.)
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's hoping that these master's degrees accredited in Texas do not allow one to teach in Canada. Yikes.
How would you go about making sure that happens? By not accepting the accreditation of U.S. Universities? Or just Texas universities? Or just disallowing people with degrees from that specific school.
Of course, if you do that, then you'll basically have to become your own accrediting agency.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This degree is not accredited anyway. They've applied for accreditation and asked for permission from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to offer the degree. Those are two different things. So far the only "green light" is that the advisory committee to the Coordinating Board reccomended that they be allowed to offer the degree. That says nothing about their acreditation status.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: The way public education works here in Texas, even if these people got a degree in science education, they'd still have to pass a content TExES test in order to become a teacher. That means that they'd have to at least know a decent amount of real science. Not that I'm defending this decision, as it seems sort of stupid to me. I'm just saying that just because a person has a degree in science education doesn't mean they are going to be able to get a job teaching science.
I suspect you're mistaken when it comes to teachers who work at private schools, such as evangelical Christian schools. Generally, private schools are not answerable to the state Dept. of Ed., but must obtain and maintain accreditation (if they want anyone to honor their diplomas). For the major accrediting agencies, it is not a requirement that teachers be certified to teach, only that they have a degree from an accredited university. Which this institute is apparently seeking to become.
posted
mph: I don't think I "have to"... Although it would be *awesome*, many times I do not necessarily get what I hope for
In this case though, I suspect that the Ontario College of Teachers (or other provincial professional body) probably has setup guidelines to only allow teachers with degrees from Canadian universities and agreements with select foreign schools that they have deemed appropriate already.
I know with doctors and dentists at least, that many foreign educated immigrants have trouble getting their degrees recognized and in some cases have to do additional study before being allowed to work. While teachers would probably be less strict, hopefully their process is still good enough to catch something like this.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: This degree is not accredited anyway. They've applied for accreditation and asked for permission from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to offer the degree. Those are two different things. So far the only "green light" is that the advisory committee to the Coordinating Board reccomended that they be allowed to offer the degree. That says nothing about their acreditation status.
My comments have been based on them getting accredited. Because if they're not accredited, I don't see any problem, because a non-accredited degree is pretty dang worthless.
quote:In this case though, I suspect that the Ontario College of Teachers (or other provincial professional body) probably has setup guidelines to only allow teachers with degrees from Canadian universities and agreements with select foreign schools that they have deemed appropriate already.
That would really surprise me. I would have guessed that the U.S. and Canada would generally accept the judgment of the appropriate accreditation agencies in each other's countries. If you find out the answer, let me know.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I the only one who sees this as a serious threat?
Joe Christian gets his master's degree in Science from this institution.
He's be Evangelically raised, from his home schooling by Evangelical parents to a Evangelical college to this master's degree so he is quite indoctrinated and ready for his mission.
He goes to your local high school and tries for a position as teacher.
The school rejects him, possibly laughing at his Creation Science degree.
He sues claiming religious prejudice in the hiring practices. He claims that his Master's degree is just as valid as any other, and he wants the job.
Either the institute gets a lot of cash from the lawsuit, or the school caves in and he teaches science. He teaches ID and creates a lot of IDettes.
Or, he goes for the job, the science dept says "No." but the School Board controlled by some IDophiles over rules them, "In fear of a lawsuit" and brings him on board.
True science teachers have not worried overly about ID since they know that they would teach it as "What's wrong with ID". If they were fired a new Science teacher would take their place. Now we find that the ID people want to create IDettes to take the place of Science Teachers.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: To be eligible for certification, you will still have to satisfy requirements for two methodology courses in a face-to-face environment and meet the academic and language proficiency requirements for certification.
quote: All programs of teacher education must be completed through an acceptable postsecondary institution.
There are also rules on how the program must be structured and what time must be allotted for what.
You also have to send in your academic records and transcripts, presumably there are minimum requirements in order to pass the evaluation.
Nothing concrete except that from the text it does seem like the process is *something* more than just rubber stamping degrees from foreign schools.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nothing concrete except that from the text it does seem like the process is *something* more than just rubber stamping degrees from foreign schools.
Nobody said anything about rubber-stamping. I'm talking about accepting accreditation as valid.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm talking about that from that site it seems that in addition to accreditation you also need certification and membership/a license in the Ontario College of Teachers. That process seems to list the requirements that I mentioned above, i.e. not just rubber-stamping licenses to teach in Ontario for anybody that happens to have an accredited degree
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It says that the degree must come from an "an acceptable postsecondary institution." The question is whether this means accredited, or something more (or less) than that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It also says that there are requirements for how the teaching program must be structured and "academic requirements for certification."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. I'm hoping the bureaucracy works in this case. Sigh.
I also found this hopeful bit:
quote: If you wish to be certified to teach in Ontario and plan to take your teacher education program outside the province, the program you are enrolled in must:
* equal the Ontario faculties of education pre-service teacher education programs leading to a certificate of qualification, and ...
[rant] Master classes for creationist SCIENCE education???? Talk about an oxymoron!
Creationism belongs in RELIGION class, not science. Fall of the Roman Empire take two! Who needs all those libraries and museums and research centers anyway with real science! Burn them down and let's begin another 1000 years of religious darkness!
(Was that a good enough shell for you Rivka?)
Ok ok... rant over. But seriously. This is not good for civilization. These people are desperate to have their worldview take root (whether for power over the faithful or sincere belief) and they know that it's best to swallow a lie within a truth, so they disguise their myths as science to keep teaching it to the young.
Why can't they be satisfied with teaching it in religion/theology class?? "Oh no, because everyone knows that science is reality... but our stories are reality too so they must be science!" It's sneaky and underhanded and I know what they're up too...these people aren't satisfied with raising their children to believe like them...which is their right...but they are trying to fool everyone else into thier beliefs too.
quote:Why can't they be satisfied with teaching it in religion/theology class??
Why is this so hard to understand?
They believe that evolution is bad science consciously designed to further a secular/atheistic philosophy. Given that belief (which I don't hold), it makes perfect sense that they don't want to restrict their version of events to religion/theology class.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I know Dag. Except science is reality. Religion is myth, philosopy at best.
I believe in the divinity of Elvis! I think schools should teach the theory of how Elvis created the cosmos with his sidburns.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:They believe that evolution is bad science consciously designed to further a secular/atheistic philosophy.
I'd say that it is more accurate that they are trying to stop evolution from being taught, because the theory is not what their religion believes happened. Whether evolution is "bad science" or not doesn't factor into the discussion, until they try and come up with reasons not to teach it.
Scientists call ID "bad science" all the time, so the IDers try and throw it right back at them. It doesn't mean they believe it's true. I certainly wouldn't grant them this belief as a starting position for their goals.
It wasn't:
Evolution is bad science --> Evolution shouldn't be taught
It was more like:
Bible is true --> Evolution contradicts the bible --> Evolution must be false --> Evolution must be bad science --> Since Evolution is bad science it shouldn't be taught
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, I know Dag. Except science is reality.
And they believe that their view is supported by science.
I'm not asking you to believe it. Just to understand that their holding of a premise you don't accept is the reason why they aren't satisfied with teaching it in theology/philosophy classes. You asked why this is so, and I tried to answer.
If you just want to play "look at the dumb creationists" let me know and I won't try to explain any more.
quote:I'd say that it is more accurate that they are trying to stop evolution from being taught, because the theory is not what their religion believes happened. Whether evolution is "bad science" or not doesn't factor into the discussion, until they try and come up with reasons not to teach it.
It must be convenient for you to think this is so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It must be convenient for you to think this is so.
It's a conclusion I've reached by evaluating the available evidence to me, which is more than I can say for most proponents of ID.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
The vast, vast majority of science is not "reality", as it is almost always later found to be incorrect.
That's not to disparage science and its usefulness in discovering things about reality, but science is not "reality". It's an incredibly useful tool.
quote:Religion is myth, philosopy at best.
If you want to understand why people are doing this, start by remembering that they don't agree with you about this.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, and then remember that they are also not scientists for any meaningful definition of the word scientist, and their opinion about what is and is not science should carry as much weight with us as a taxi cab driver in paris telling us the best way to get from 110th and frederick douglas to times square.
quote:Science is more correctly the measuring of reality and then describing reality based on all available measurements.
Agreed on both counts.
edit: Apparently the post I was replying to got deleted.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I was trying to decide whether it was worth posting.... I guess maybe it was But you quoted the highlights. I think I left that up there for about 2 seconds... you have a fast load on your browser Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
"Science is dangerous speculation, heresy at best"
And you have the same attitude that we condemn theists for having in the past. When you insist on portraying all who are religious as idiots or fools, you are one step closer to seeing them as a liability to the happiness of YOUR ideal society.
I have found that if there is there is condescension if not outright contempt for other people's positions then discussion on topics dealing with those positions are rarely fruitful.
edit: Also I have decided that Rivka is a rabble rouser Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd say that it is more accurate that they are trying to stop evolution from being taught, because the theory is not what their religion believes happened. Whether evolution is "bad science" or not doesn't factor into the discussion, until they try and come up with reasons not to teach it.
It must be convenient for you to think this is so.
Do you take issue with the following "diagram" by Xavier?
quote:Bible is true --> Evolution contradicts the bible --> Evolution must be false --> Evolution must be bad science --> Since Evolution is bad science it shouldn't be taught
Just because creationists are able to come up with arguments that evolution is bad science does not mean that we can ignore the first steps in their reasoning process. I obviously can't link a study but I think it's a fair generalization to say that most creationists start from the point of view that the Bible is correct and then proceed to try to justify that view with existing evidence (as opposed to starting with existing evidence and arriving at creation).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm kicking the ant hill, but a thought occurs to me..
If gay couples have to accept 'civil unions' instead of 'marriages', can we define a new type of degree for colleges like this?
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Right. We don't know what those requirements are.
There is additional requirements beyond simple accredition. The teacher's college must meet specific standards in curriculum to match the Ontario College of Teachers demands. I'm not familiar with the specifics (though I could find out if anyone cares), but only certain US schools have an arrangement with the OCT for their degrees to be accepted.
I can't speak for other provinces, but I imagine it's similar.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you take issue with the following "diagram" by Xavier?
To be fair to Dag, I was in the middle of adding that to my post when he posted. I am an admitted post editor! So it's not like he ignored it when he posted, since it wasn't there yet.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
The "Science" that this church is wanting to attack are not just Evolution, but everything from Geology to Astrophysics--because it all contradicts their core beliefs.
They do not want to teach Religion in Religion class and science in science class. They want to make sure that Religion is above Science.
Then they want to make sure that their religion is the religion taught.
Then they want to make sure that their version of their religion is the religion taught.
One or two are planning on being the first Protestant Pope.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the teaching of creationism shouldn’t be set up as an alternative to the teaching of evolution. Evolution is serious science and creationism, how it is being defined here, isn’t.
However, I admire those scientists who are open to considering how elements of creationism might influence evolution, and I agree that the teaching of evolution could be more open to questions along those lines and others.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now see, science is a study of repeatable and observable events.
Intelligent Design holds that whoever made life on Earth has stopped making it. It is not a scientific theory, as it cannot be tested or proven. At the most scholarly level, it is an explanation equivocal to "aliens built the pyramids" - assuming something so primitive cannot have produced something so spectacular.
Evolution is testable and provable, and has been continually been supported by new scientific discoveries. We know that DNA mutates, and can therefore produce changes in a single member of a species, we know that offspring inherit traits from their parents, meaning the single member of a species can generate more members similar to it, and we know that species with traits that are most compatible with the environment are best fit to survive and therefore most likely to pass on their traits. It's a lovely cycle, I think.
I don't see any problem with the idea that perhaps what Darwin recognized is part of the means God used to make life in his image. It makes more sense to me that God would abide by the rules he invented for the universe. But that idea is not science; it's not testable and it can't be repeated. "Creationist science" is spawned by jealousy; a perceived exclusion from explaining how the world works by a theory that appears to attack their moral values and lifestyle. In short, this "science" is not based on observation and repetition, but from emotions. It should be regarded as such.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But you quoted the highlights. I think I left that up there for about 2 seconds... you have a fast load on your browser 
