An interesting (to say the least) fight is going on for the minds and hearts of our Texas Youth. The Neo/Ultra-conservative movement, which seems to get more and more wrapped up in it's own ever increasing hyperbole, wants to revise American history they think has been corrupted. What conclusion one draws is as important as knowing the facts, and currently, to their way of thinking, students are forced to listen to biased information leading them to conclude........what?
The 'what' is what I don't get. I got through public school and college without coming to the conclusion that America is bad. The conclusion I did come up with was that people do bad things and if you do not have checks and balances they will continue to do bad things. But the neocons, this new wave of "we are right-our God is awesome-America is the best!" thinking individuals that took up the call to run for public office, seem to believe their rhetoric and underestimate the harm they will cause as they try to rectify what they perceive is our history written by folks obsessed with oppression.
Right after Iran took the hostages my sisters and I went to a big patriotic rally at the L.A. Coliseum. It was about half full if I recall correctly. We heard rousing speeches, heard patriotic music, and got to buy a lot of stuff - which I still have - including a bumper sticker that I proudly displayed at my work space describing my very Christian sentiments: "Let's Bomb Iran."
You see back then I really loved America, loved it enough to want to turn every man woman and child in Iran into glass. I understood Iranians to be the folks that took my fellow Americans hostage. Nothing more and nothing less. If they had to die to preserve my country's honor and to pay for their misdeed, well so be it.
What I did not understand at the time was why this whole event took place. You see I had nothing to compare and contrast, no background, no understanding of what motivated my new enemy. All I knew was I loved America and they had just spat on the country I loved. Plus they were not Christians, so that made them even more evil.
When you see yourself as perfect, it's hard to understand why anyone would have a problem with you. My God, we are America, look at how many people want to move here - from Iran even! How could anyone have problems with us if we are good, God fearing, and stand on the side of justice for all?
Well we are all those things and we are not those things. When we do things for the right reason we should be proud and when we do it for the wrong reason, like keeping a Shaw in power the people did not want, then we deserve the criticism and yes, the outrage that leads to the taking of hostages. What is important here is to understand the dynamics in play so that we learn form them and - if we are smart - don't repeat them.
So how does McLeroy and his neocon cohorts think this point in history should be taught? Apparently if one discusses the anger of Iranians over the U.S.'s role it is seen as being apologetic. The thinking appears to be that we played no role in these malcontents behavior, and even if we did - it was done for purely sound reasons of National Security - the taking of hostages is clearly reprehensible and deserves no discussion as to why.
There is a danger in not wanting to evaluate equally all the pieces in play. It is hard to accept that - yes, you did start the fire. What is important is to understand the dynamics and move past and forward in a manner that is both aware of them and able to overcome or avoid them, lest history repeat itself.
I too love America for all it has provided me and I want to make sure that what it has to offer in the future is real and not based on a patriotic duty to ignore, forget, not mention, justify, mislead, condone, or avoid what has taken place in the past to get us to this point in time..
Iranians, I apologize for wanting you all to die. Now that I know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth it is much easier for me to realize that I was wrong. I'm still pissed as hell that you did it, but at least I understand why.
Showing posts with label Don McLeroy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Don McLeroy. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Compare and Contrast this!
I find it, well.......disturbing - that we have elected to our State Board of Education folks that are so hell bent on elevating the perception to our children that America is great and it got that way simply because it is great.
Here is one of many changes the good folks at McLeroy's Neocon SBE have recommended for 8th Grade Social Studies.
Now compare and contrast is good, I like to do it now, but as a kid I sucked at it. It teaches critical thinking which is a good thing, a good type of pedagogy. But you can only compare and contrast things that are related. Jean Pierre Godet"s "I love America" words cannot be compared or contrasted with anything Susan B Anthony's said.
Why the brilliant scholars at the Texas SBE think students will come away with something of relevance shows just how clueless these people are. Susan B Anthony was a leader in the woman's suffrage movement, you know, when loving America for keeping the vote from woman was what made us great!
The same goes for Upton Sinclair who wrote about the U.S. meat packing industry leading to the passage a few months later of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act. And Ida B. Wells who wrote about lynchings and civil rights for blacks, and WEB DuBois who dealt with racism in America.
To conclude that their work was the result of pessimism is to miss the big picture here. They were moved to act because America during their time was flawed. Yes the same America that Godet loved for allowing him to dream a new dream was the same one holding others down. Without their optimism to see that change was possible, without their personal sacrifice, without their toil for a cause that would benefit others not just themselves, where would we be?
Now the neocon way of thinking is let's forget all that bad stuff, focus on just the good. Why? I think I know, it's because they want the America of the past. They don't see these people as moving us forward, they see it as a change that destroyed our American Values. Why celebrate muckrakers - it only encourages others (students) to challenge the status quo. We will give you change that we want and you should be grateful for what you have.
Contrary to McLeroy's neocon way of thinking, historians are not obsessed by oppression when they discuss these individuals and the warts that were part of the day to day encounters. Oppression leads to change, change is what is recorded and what should be learned. Being told that Godet "loved America" is beneficial in what way other than "golly-jeepers that sure feels swell!"
Lets look at this from another angle:
Note: Yea - I changed "put an end to woman's suffrage" As my kid pointed out with that look of "you idiot!"
Here is one of many changes the good folks at McLeroy's Neocon SBE have recommended for 8th Grade Social Studies.
Why the brilliant scholars at the Texas SBE think students will come away with something of relevance shows just how clueless these people are. Susan B Anthony was a leader in the woman's suffrage movement, you know, when loving America for keeping the vote from woman was what made us great!
The same goes for Upton Sinclair who wrote about the U.S. meat packing industry leading to the passage a few months later of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act. And Ida B. Wells who wrote about lynchings and civil rights for blacks, and WEB DuBois who dealt with racism in America.
To conclude that their work was the result of pessimism is to miss the big picture here. They were moved to act because America during their time was flawed. Yes the same America that Godet loved for allowing him to dream a new dream was the same one holding others down. Without their optimism to see that change was possible, without their personal sacrifice, without their toil for a cause that would benefit others not just themselves, where would we be?
Now the neocon way of thinking is let's forget all that bad stuff, focus on just the good. Why? I think I know, it's because they want the America of the past. They don't see these people as moving us forward, they see it as a change that destroyed our American Values. Why celebrate muckrakers - it only encourages others (students) to challenge the status quo. We will give you change that we want and you should be grateful for what you have.
Contrary to McLeroy's neocon way of thinking, historians are not obsessed by oppression when they discuss these individuals and the warts that were part of the day to day encounters. Oppression leads to change, change is what is recorded and what should be learned. Being told that Godet "loved America" is beneficial in what way other than "golly-jeepers that sure feels swell!"
Lets look at this from another angle:
I love King George for giving so many of us the right to dream a new dream in America. Such words were lost on muckrakers such as Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, and Adams.Compare and contrast that optimism!
Note: Yea - I changed "put an end to woman's suffrage" As my kid pointed out with that look of "you idiot!"
Monday, June 8, 2009
A strange kind of common sense
Don McLeory, our local dentist, evolution debunker, and ex-State School Board head, wrote a pretty nice article in our local paper, The Eagle (Sunday, June 7, 2009), on the virtues of keeping ideology out of the science classroom. On the surface, his argument appears very sound and echoes what the scientific community has been stating all along, that “science is the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomenon as well as the knowledge generated through this process”. Where Dr. McLeroy and his followers find comfort is in the term “testable.”
“If it is not testable, it is not science” Dr. McLeory notes. The understanding here is that one cannot test in the laboratory or field the different hypothesis used to support the theory. This Dr. McLeory contends allows a student on “scientific grounds to challenge any untestable ideology being taught as dogma.”
The theory of evolution is not dogma, nor, for a scientist, is it an ideology. A scientific theory is:
The constant battle over evolution by the ID folks have hurt science in the name of trying to hold onto their own dogma and ideology. Allowing guys like Dr. McLeory to dictate what our children should or should not be taught in a public setting does nothing but muddy the waters of logical thinking. We end up confusing kids who then grow up to be confused and ignorant adults, all in the name of perpetuating the belief that their holy book is somehow the absolute, accurate, and definitive explanation as to how their God works.
In their paper “The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition A theoretical framework and implications for Science Instruction” Chinn & Brewer (1993) noted:
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves (Matt. 7:15)
“If it is not testable, it is not science” Dr. McLeory notes. The understanding here is that one cannot test in the laboratory or field the different hypothesis used to support the theory. This Dr. McLeory contends allows a student on “scientific grounds to challenge any untestable ideology being taught as dogma.”
The theory of evolution is not dogma, nor, for a scientist, is it an ideology. A scientific theory is:
“A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.”It is based on the use of a Hypothesis:
“A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Scientific hypotheses must be posed in a form that allows them to be rejected.”So the new argument that the Intelligent Design folks are using is to try to use the definition against itself, as if it will get caught in an endless loop of if-then-else logic and completely self-destruct. They use the logic that because you can’t test what took place millions of years ago, then the hypothesis is not valid, which means you can’t use it to support the theory. This logic is also used to support the inclusion of a supernatural cause. Because the supernatural causation can’t be tested either, it is just as plausible a theory as the scientific one.
The constant battle over evolution by the ID folks have hurt science in the name of trying to hold onto their own dogma and ideology. Allowing guys like Dr. McLeory to dictate what our children should or should not be taught in a public setting does nothing but muddy the waters of logical thinking. We end up confusing kids who then grow up to be confused and ignorant adults, all in the name of perpetuating the belief that their holy book is somehow the absolute, accurate, and definitive explanation as to how their God works.
In their paper “The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition A theoretical framework and implications for Science Instruction” Chinn & Brewer (1993) noted:
“The 3-week instructional unit on evolution [given to a class consisting of 50% creationists] included a section on fossil evidence for evolution. Before instruction, only 1% of the students agreed with the statement “Fossils were intentionally put on earth to confuse humans.” After instruction, however, 7% of the students agreed with the same statement.”“For the supernaturalist” Dr. McLeory argues, “the phrase “natural explanations” does not just undermine his view of science but actually excludes it by definition. If science is limited to only natural explanations but some natural phenomena are actually the result of supernatural causes then science would never be able to discover that truth—not a very good position for science. Defining science to allow for this possibility is just common sense.”In Science you cannot allow for the possibility of something that cannot be tested. Common sense should lead you to that conclusion, which is why Dr. McLeory will use whatever method he can to keep our kids in the dark.
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves (Matt. 7:15)
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Science and Dogma - Keep them Apart!
Argggg another “debate” in our paper over teaching evolution in public schools.
I would like to end this debate here and now. Evolution is a FACT. All life has descended from a common ancestor. As much as my scientist self cringes at speaking the blasphemy of “fact”, that is apparently how it must be done. In truth, evolution is the hypothesis, and we can only reject it if we find evidence to support another hypothesis. If you believe in God then you must believe in evolution. All life, and I mean all life, is based on DNA. DNA was designed to mutate, mutations lead to good traits and bad traits. That is how it is done, that’s God’s model, to say it does not happen that way is to deny God his creation. Shame on you.
Now lets examine the stupidity of Don MCLeroy’s argument. (Mr. McLeroy is the Chairman of the Texas State Board of Education – lucky us!)
First – evolution is vital to understanding biology. Why are Asians and American Indians so sensitive to alcohol? Because they lack alcohol dehydrogenase. Why? Evolution. What are spines on a cactus? Modified leaves, Why? Evolution. If you want to teach kids to memorize terms, that is not science nor is it education.
Second, there is no other plausible theory for how life got to where it is today. None. The fact that you can’t explain how a flagella was developed does not negate the theory. The fact that you can disagree with the hypothesis posed on a particular aspect does not throw the whole theory out. The evidence points this direction, it supports the hypothesis. But more importantly it does not support any other hypothesis proposed.
Third, identifying the weakness is just a lame attempt at allowing those that will never accept evolution to have their say. This is designed to mask how the scientific process works. Since you will never "fail to reject" the hypothesis your purported weaknesses will always be biased. This is counter to how science works. We never say the hypothesis is true, we only reject or fail to reject. In science you must be willing to do both. You can talk about the weakness in evolution all you want, but if it is done only to discredit it and not support another hypothesis then you are hurting scientific reasoning and hence education.
The evidence on evolution, taken as a whole, leads science to say “fail to reject.” Would you propose also handing out literature in church pointing out the weakness to the idea of God? Would this threaten our children’s faith? Asking for scientific proof of God negates faith the same way that ignoring evolution denies how science and our world works.
Forth - The evolution side is not dogmatic. It is evidence based. If you truly want to let the test of scientific explanation win then put up your intelligent designer hypothesis to the same scrutiny but be prepared to be disappointed. Evolution detractors will never give up on their belief that it happened just like the Bible says. The Bible is the word of God – and you can’t deny that or you would….deny God. That is dogmatic.
I give credit to God for his model; you deny him his creation because of your Bible. So here's the deal. I will give up the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor if another hypothesis is presented and supported better than the current model for evolution. Will you give up on ID if the evidence is not there?
The Eagle, Sunday, 11-16-08
I would like to end this debate here and now. Evolution is a FACT. All life has descended from a common ancestor. As much as my scientist self cringes at speaking the blasphemy of “fact”, that is apparently how it must be done. In truth, evolution is the hypothesis, and we can only reject it if we find evidence to support another hypothesis. If you believe in God then you must believe in evolution. All life, and I mean all life, is based on DNA. DNA was designed to mutate, mutations lead to good traits and bad traits. That is how it is done, that’s God’s model, to say it does not happen that way is to deny God his creation. Shame on you.
Now lets examine the stupidity of Don MCLeroy’s argument. (Mr. McLeroy is the Chairman of the Texas State Board of Education – lucky us!)
First – evolution is vital to understanding biology. Why are Asians and American Indians so sensitive to alcohol? Because they lack alcohol dehydrogenase. Why? Evolution. What are spines on a cactus? Modified leaves, Why? Evolution. If you want to teach kids to memorize terms, that is not science nor is it education.
Second, there is no other plausible theory for how life got to where it is today. None. The fact that you can’t explain how a flagella was developed does not negate the theory. The fact that you can disagree with the hypothesis posed on a particular aspect does not throw the whole theory out. The evidence points this direction, it supports the hypothesis. But more importantly it does not support any other hypothesis proposed.
Third, identifying the weakness is just a lame attempt at allowing those that will never accept evolution to have their say. This is designed to mask how the scientific process works. Since you will never "fail to reject" the hypothesis your purported weaknesses will always be biased. This is counter to how science works. We never say the hypothesis is true, we only reject or fail to reject. In science you must be willing to do both. You can talk about the weakness in evolution all you want, but if it is done only to discredit it and not support another hypothesis then you are hurting scientific reasoning and hence education.
The evidence on evolution, taken as a whole, leads science to say “fail to reject.” Would you propose also handing out literature in church pointing out the weakness to the idea of God? Would this threaten our children’s faith? Asking for scientific proof of God negates faith the same way that ignoring evolution denies how science and our world works.
Forth - The evolution side is not dogmatic. It is evidence based. If you truly want to let the test of scientific explanation win then put up your intelligent designer hypothesis to the same scrutiny but be prepared to be disappointed. Evolution detractors will never give up on their belief that it happened just like the Bible says. The Bible is the word of God – and you can’t deny that or you would….deny God. That is dogmatic.
I give credit to God for his model; you deny him his creation because of your Bible. So here's the deal. I will give up the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor if another hypothesis is presented and supported better than the current model for evolution. Will you give up on ID if the evidence is not there?
The Eagle, Sunday, 11-16-08
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)