New Texas State Law-updated

[flying_death_bombs55]

I hope they do this at my schoolyay

[Barihawk]

I am a Texas native.

 

 

 

Your theory is flawed because by Texas Law neither Creationism or Darwinism is taught in public schools. Both are mentioned, but no detail is given. Any evolution is strictly biological adaptation, not man-from-monkey.

 

 

 

Err, obviously you didn't take AP Biology, and even when I took Bio I, theory of evolution was MENTIONED. And of course they wouldn't teach man from monkey because in the theory of evolution, man didn't evolve from monkeys. Educate your self. Please. And don't reply with an off topic statement.

 

 

 

Did I not say in my post that evolution is tought, just not Darwinism. And forgive my gross generalization (the man-from-monkey). You seem to think you can make them for my faith, I will repay the favor. Evolution does not necessarily mean atheism. Many educated Christians believe in evolution. Just not what Darwin cooked up. And Texas teaches us evolution in plants, humans, animals, etc. The origins of man are what are not taught.

 

 

 

PS: I took Pre-AP biology, as Biology was only offered to Freshmen in our district, and Freshmen can not take full AP courses (only Juniors and Seniors can, and they would be taking Chemistry or Physics).

[Rebdragon]

And Texas teaches us evolution in plants, humans, animals, etc. The origins of man are what are not taught.

 

Hehe.

 

 

 

The inherent, desperate human need to feel special is hilarious.

[Barihawk]

Haha, Reb. Got me there. But that's a pointless off-topic issue :P.

 

 

 

But ya gotta admit. Humans should be separate. After all, the fact that we are here posting about it:

 

 

 

A) Means that we are more advanced and therefore are special

 

B) The animals are more advanced and do not waste their time in such pursuits, making humans special....ed.

[HellsBells]

Damn, can't think of a good sarcastic reply. Oh, got one!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOST IDIOTIC LAW EVER!!!!!

[Rebdragon]

Damn, can't think of a good sarcastic reply. Oh, got one!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOST IDIOTIC LAW EVER!!!!!

 

Uh... "sarcasm"... ya... definitely most sarcastic person evah :-k .

 

 

 

Haha, Reb. Got me there. But that's a pointless off-topic issue :P.

 

 

 

But ya gotta admit. Humans should be separate. After all, the fact that we are here posting about it:

 

 

 

A) Means that we are more advanced and therefore are special

 

B) The animals are more advanced and do not waste their time in such pursuits, making humans special....ed.

 

But that's the thing :P . We're so far above the next species on the list, in matters of consciousness, intelligience, and altruism, yet somehow this species still has a need to feel even more special than we already are. It's just hilarious :-w .

 

 

 

Of course we should be seperate, there's no other species known to man that could fit within or league, within our category. But it's laws like this one in Texas that go to show that humans still feel a desperate need to be special and above everything else, even when that's already unbearably obvious anyways.

[happybappy]

Maybe we will start having student filibusters! :lol:

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

...No one else think this is comon practice anywhere else?

 

I find nothing new in this...at all. What's the big deal?

 

It's common practice for students to be able to interrupt the teacher whenever they want in such a way that the teacher has no power to stop them :-s ?

 

 

 

That's completely different. No law has been passed to let student's interrupt

 

But that is exactly what this law does. I read about it earlier today, even though, according to what I read, it is called a "state mandate." I'm not sure if that's the same as a law. It would be nice if the OP could link to a source describing this law.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

I am a Texas native.

 

 

 

Your theory is flawed because by Texas Law neither Creationism or Darwinism is taught in public schools. Both are mentioned, but no detail is given. Any evolution is strictly biological adaptation, not man-from-monkey.

 

 

 

Err, obviously you didn't take AP Biology, and even when I took Bio I, theory of evolution was MENTIONED. And of course they wouldn't teach man from monkey because in the theory of evolution, man didn't evolve from monkeys. Educate your self. Please. And don't reply with an off topic statement.

 

It all depends on which part of the state you live in. I'm pretty sure that even if Barihawk had taken AP Bio at his local high school, he still wouldn't have learned much about evolution.

[kelem_ryu]

...No one else think this is comon practice anywhere else?

 

I find nothing new in this...at all. What's the big deal?

 

 

 

They don't exactly have to make it a law. A teacher who wouldn't allow a student to voice his or her opinion, as long as it is at least semi-relevant to the topic isn't worth his salt anyway.

[Bubsa]

Damn, can't think of a good sarcastic reply. Oh, got one!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOST IDIOTIC LAW EVER!!!!!

 

 

 

Go cry, emo kid.

[darkmage099]

I think this is a good law. It can spark debate and give people insight on both creationism and evolution. I also see now way it can get out of hand because the teacher can still judge whether it is school appropriate or not.

[Rebdragon]

I think this is a good law. It can spark debate and give people insight on both creationism and evolution. I also see no way it can get out of hand because the teacher can still judge whether it is school appropriate or not.

 

I'm pretty sure that 99.7% of members on this forum have established and agreed with the fact that evolution should stay in science class and creationism should stay in religion class. Giving students the power to go against this fact is in no way a logical or intelligient way to go about things.

 

 

 

Problem is, it's in the South. Intelligient Design (believed as a science :lol: ) runs rampant der, which leaves one to wonder whether the vast majority of teachers would really make the right call in an evolutionist/creationist student situation.

 

 

 

The teacher could already judge what a student thought was appropriate or inappropriate for the current class discussion, and thus had the power to stop any kind of tangents or rambling done by the students. But with this law... honestly, what the hell is the reason behind it? If I'm reading it right, it's stupid for giving students almost as much power as teachers in the classroom. If I'm reading it wrong, then the law doesn't even do anything new, and is thus meaningless. Either way it appears worthless.

 

 

 

Oi.

[Zonorhc]

It's just there so its proceedings can soak up your tax dollars.

 

 

 

Because some people are dumb enough to think it actually does something new and/or worthwhile...

[darkmage099]

It's just there so its proceedings can soak up your tax dollars.

 

 

 

Because some people are dumb enough to think it actually does something new and/or worthwhile...

 

 

 

I'm not saying it should be a law. I'm just saying that this should already be implemented in class.

 

 

 

 

 

The teacher still has more power than the student because he/she can decide when it gets out of hand.

[Bloodredsword]

I think thats both a bad idea and a good one

 

 

 

Good side: People with REAL opinions can voice them, and be heard

 

 

 

Bad: Tons of kids will just make up random "real" opinions just to waste class time

 

 

 

 

 

meh 6/10

[navyplaya]

Found out some new info, updated first post.

[Rebdragon]

Found out some new info, updated first post.

 

Ah, well it woulda helped to know that before :lol: .

 

 

 

Though this is a strange idea stuff :-k . It's like a school doing a weird policy, except instead a state government decided everyone would follow that weird new policy.

 

 

 

'Kay, teachers got the power still, students can't really waste time and use the law to protect them, so I guess I don't see much wrong with it then. Doesn't sound like this should've been a law though, more like just a general suggestion for schools to let the kids teach a little too :-k .

[Baezal]

Hey, what'dya know, I live in Texas and will be a Junior next year! W00t!

 

 

 

I hope the teachers have short attention spans...

[navyplaya]

Found out some new info, updated first post.

 

Ah, well it woulda helped to know that before :lol: .

 

 

 

Though this is a strange idea stuff :-k . It's like a school doing a weird policy, except instead a state government decided everyone would follow that weird new policy.

 

 

 

'Kay, teachers got the power still, students can't really waste time and use the law to protect them, so I guess I don't see much wrong with it then. Doesn't sound like this should've been a law though, more like just a general suggestion for schools to let the kids teach a little too :-k .

 

 

 

 

 

Well its not like it forces kids to do it, just gives them the right to the option of doing it, so that schools have to let kids do it.

[Flametrooper]

We already do this in most of my classes. I mean, especially in English last year that was like 50% of the class time was class-wide discussions. And they really added a lot to the class. Then again, I'm in Honors so maybe since there's less poser "gangsta"s in the Honors class, or less d*cks who are trying to be cool by interrupting with some [developmentally delayed]ed crap, and more people who are actually willing to contribute to the discussion - you know, it helps a little.

[Craiglowery]

Where does the madness stop!?

[warri0r45]

Sounds fine by me. Pre update I would have said bugger off, it'll compromise my education and take up time to learn what it is I actually need to know but the fact that it needs to be legislated with a teacher and actually thought out makes it much more potentially productive and less disruptive.