Here's a newspaper article about a classroom debate on global warming. Class debates are good, I think — they get the students thinking about the evidence and working over how to present it persuasively, although I also think it's up to the instructor to provide some guidance. Realistically, sixth graders aren't going to have a good handle on either the facts or the theory, and it's up to the teacher to give them the battery of data they're going to use to make their arguments. And sometimes it can go wrong.
In this case, the students who do not believe humans contribute to global warming presented a graph that showed CO2 fluctuations that did not correlate with warming or cooling patterns.
In a climax that sent half the class to its feet and forced the judge to call for order, opponent Monique Nem slapped a contradictory graph onto the prosecution's table.
"We've proven you wrong! The CO2 levels have shot up," she said.
The jury responded more warmly, however, to Caleb Poppe's response: The graphic cited a Hawaiian source; Hawaii has volcanoes; volcanoes emit CO2.
Wha…? That was an absurd response—although, unfortunately, it persuaded the class, and they 'voted' against the idea of anthropogenic global warming—since then what we'd expect to see is fluctuations correlated with eruptions. I suspect that what Ms Nem showed was the well known measurements from Mauna Loa Observatory which show a steady increase in atmospheric CO2, while also beautifully showing seasonal variations in concentration, too. Unless young Caleb wants to argue that volcanoes in the northern hemisphere have a seasonal cycle, erupting in the winter and not so much in the summer, his argument is bogus.
Well, you say, he's a sixth grader — he doesn't know any better, yet, and we certainly don't chew out kids for not knowing something they haven't been taught yet.
Except, unfortunately, Caleb is the son of the teacher in this class, Ken Poppe, who has openly professed global warming denialism. It ought to be the job of the teacher to explain why this student's argument is fallacious (and better yet, to have the other students sufficiently well prepared that they can see the fallacy themselves), but since he favors that nonsense, he's going to slant the class in an inappropriate direction.
Papa Poppe says a few truly stupid things.
Only one parent questioned Poppe's decision to hold a global warming debate. That mother expected him to present Al Gore's global warming movie "An Inconvenient Truth" as indisputable facts, Poppe said. After he explained his neutrality in the classroom, the mom allowed her child to participate in the debate, he said.
"Neutrality" is not a desirable characteristic in a science teacher. When the two positions are a) supported by the evidence, and b) not supported by the evidence, you are not doing your job to claim that a and b are equal. To do so is to unfairly promote the status of the unsupported premise…which is exactly what Ken Poppe is doing. He is lying to promote crackpottery in the science classroom.
It gets worse.
"You don't understand someone's position until you can argue it to their satisfaction," Poppe said, quoting a famous physicist. "I don't believe in Darwinism either, but I can argue it as well as any Darwinist."
Jebus. He claims to be a paleontologist, too. I pity the children of Longmont, Colorado, saddled with creationist incompetent for a science teacher.
- Log in to post comments
"You don't understand someone's position until you can argue it to their satisfaction," Poppe said, quoting a famous physicist. "I don't believe in Darwinism either, but I can argue it as well as any Darwinist."
What a fucking tool.
Does Poppe believe in the power of propaganda to persuade rubes, I wonder?
Hopefully someone will slap some sense into Poppe's fat fundy face.
"I don't believe in Darwinism either, but I can argue it as well as any Darwinist."
Whoa. I know that this is not the main point, but that's really a stunning statement. He can't argue as well as ANY "Darwinist." So does he think that belief in evolution cause a person's ability to argue to increase percipitously (huh, I wish...I could use some extra persuasive ability) or that the evidence of evolution is so overwhelming that it's impossible to argue against it? And if the second, how does he possibly justify his belief?
I am a little suprised that this idiot is not from Colorado Springs just like the rest of the nutty assholes here in Colorado. However, Longmont is fairly a conservative town in it's own right. Remember, people like this never let facts stand in the way of their retoric.
Not only did the debate go poorly in this classroom, I am afraid the current global warming discussion in society in general is about the same.
I was listening to a right-wing radio show the other day, The Mike Gallagher Show. He had on that senator or congressman from Oklahoma, Inhofe (?) on. He was complaining that middle school teachers in his state were making kids watch An Inconvenient Truth once a week. Yeah, right! Meanwhile the discussion on another show is what a hypocrite Gore is for using so much energy in his own house. He is also accused of trying to crash the American economy, cynically using the issue as his road to the White House etc..
And unfortunately Gore has been quoted as saying things like "The debate is over, and there is no doubt that global warming is human caused." Thus giving fodder for his critics.
The whole things has become to political. Conservatives seem to reject it by default because it is "liberal" cause. On the other hand, scientifically illiterate liberals are too unaware of the presence of uncertainty in something like climate science.
Everytime I turn around someone is doing something colossally stupid in my state! Dammit! I live right nect to Longmont (and I wish I could say I was surprised).
The Mauna Loa CO2 measurements can be compared with the
Global average online.
This shows that local effects (including not just volcanoes but also local
weather systems, and the fact that Mauna Loa in in the NH subtropics)
are modest.
While I do feel sorry for those kids, I think this shows an interesting (and entertaining) point. While scientists with PhDs tend to strongly argue for human-activity related global warming, a small majority of sixth graders are of the opposite opinion.
I was listening to a right-wing radio show the other day, The Mike Gallagher Show. He had on that senator or congressman from Oklahoma, Inhofe (?) on. He was complaining that middle school teachers in his state were making kids watch An Inconvenient Truth once a week.
I'm an English teacher in Berkeley California and I feel so strongly about this that I am devoting an entire semester to Al Gore's movie. Every student is required to write five single-spaced reports of no less than ten pages on why the movie is 100% accurate. Plus, there is a contest to see who can remember the most lines from the movie, verbatim. One student can already recite the movie from the beginning to nearly halfway without making a single error. The prize is a free roundtrip ticket to visit the headquarters of Planned Parenthood. My students are so excited. A few complained at first but they quieted down when I told them that if they dared to question anything in class again, I would fail them without hesitation.
And unfortunately Gore has been quoted as saying things like "The debate is over, and there is no doubt that global warming is human caused." Thus giving fodder for his critics.
Yeah, if only Gore had said something else, his "critics" would have no fodder.
Right.
Hm, seems you've broken out in trolls again.
Is this the same Kenneth Poppe as the author of, "Reclaiming Science from Darwinism: A Clear Understanding of Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design"? The first line in the Amazon screed is, "Darwinism is a 150-year-old icon that has been propped up by unproven suppositions."
And look! William Dembski wrote the forward and it's published by Harvest House Publishers, "...where we are committed to providing high-quality books and products that affirm biblical values, help people grow spiritually strong, and proclaim Jesus Christ as the answer to every human need."
"Neutral"? Not even close.
I think the goal was more about debating than the truth about global warming. Notwithstanding the teacher's personal (moronic) beliefs or the students' infantile comprehension of the data they were looking at, the presentation and defense of an argument based on demonstrable data as a basis for scientific discourse was the real lesson.
The fact that this was newsworthy in Longmont says something else entirely.
Sorry about the follow-up, but his "biography" is on the Harvest House webpage - http://www.harvesthousepublishers.com/books_authordetail.cfm?ED_ID=1016…
Amazingly, on H.H. he's just, "Kenneth Poppe, career biology instructor...". On his own page (www.ifsed.org) he becomes Dr. Kenneth Poppe. Speaking of which, his webpage needs more than a little work. Ah, that explains it; he's using Sitebuilder. Idiot.
The real debate about AGW boils down to two extremes: We're causing "nearly all of it", or "only most of it".
The second axis of the AGW Opinion Graph has extremes of "it's going to be catastrophic for humans" and "it's going to be quite bad for humans".
There are, of course, outliers, like the "Jesus will come back before we all boil" people, and the "I'm getting paid a hundred grand to handwave and smokescreen for Big Energy; hooray for money!" people.
Next semester, I'll be teaching a history debate, entitled, "The Holocaust: Did It Really Happen?" followed by another biology debate, "Blacks: Subhuman or Not?"
The point is not to impart any particular substance regarding the subject matter, but simply to teach these 12 years how a proper debate is organized.
I think you'll agree that it will be a dynamic and exciting classroom experience for all.
Seriously, how can you expect to understand why anti-Semitism is wrong if you aren't intimately familiar with each of the arguments set forth in Mein Kampf?
Unfamiliarity with all the arguments is a recurring failure of our public school system, most likely because of the Marxist origins of that system.
It must be really easy to pass a science class when the teacher is "neutral" regarding scientific matters.
Hey there,
Just wondering; I'm having a debate with a climate change denialist, and was wondering if anyone could direct me to any online forums where I might be able to ask questions and find answers. Realclimate is a great site, but it can be hard to find out answers to some of the "layman" questions I need answered.
Thanks!
I occasionally listen to the right-wing radio stations just to see what anti-science stuff they're spewing. On KSFO last week, the host explained that "consensus" has no role in science, so it doesn't matter if a large majority of scientists agree that global warming has been aggravated by human activities. No, it's supposed to be about what's right (that's the science part, you see) versus what is wrong (and that's the non-science). He has no clue that scientific "truth" is provisional and subject to constant refinement. He gave a stupid example: two plus two is four. That's true, so I guess that's scientific. The radio host didn't understand that mathematical results are just a tiny bit different from scientific research.
I quote the idiot's words here.
Mike, one suggestion would be the Global Change mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange - there you would be able to ask questions.
Otherwise, there are a couple of the ScienceBlogs that deals with global warming - Stoat is one, can't recall the others, though Mooney at the Intersection is talking about some aspects (mostly hurricanes).
You can't really discuss global warming on a scientific level in a 6th grade class, or with the general public, or with most activist types. It's like asking people to evaluate a design for IC or a chemical plant - they don't even have the fundamental background in physics necessary to understand the specific technical background that needs to be filled in before discussing the issue, so anybody with a half-decent background in the subject matter can make up plausible-sounding fictions. Most of the commentary on it as political issue is incredibly vacuous - even people who manage to get all the facts right typically are just parroting them from their preferred source with as little understanding as those who have them wrong. It's unsurprising that people get confused about it easily when most discussions of it they hear are just back-and-forth appeals to authority.
Holy crap! I never expected Longmont to be mentioned anywhere outside of Boulder county. And this is certainly not the way I would hope to have it mentioned.
Unfortunately it's not surprising, since we do have a large population of kooks here. Why, just today that same paper carried a letter from a woman who claimed (among other things) that America was founded on Biblical beliefs and that not supporting the President's every action and position was disgusting.
Kyle--
Is Longmont a tiny school system? Because I went to elementary in a small farming community, and even there you werent allowed* to have a mom/dad/aunt/uncle/etc for a teacher.
Helps avoid strange situations like this.
*except in the cases of high school, where there was only one Advanced History teacher, etc. I cant imagine they only have one sixth grade teacher.
Why do global warming deniers also have to be IDiots? I thought the two might be independent; apparently they are not. I guess goddunnit is a common thread running between the two.
Tim Lambert over at Deltoid deals with GW quite a bit as well.
Eli Rabett also writes on the topic at his blog.
Sheldon (#4):
Eh? "Society in general"? USAian "society" perhaps, but intelligent dicussion does happen elsewhere in the world. Not debate--that is over--but discussion. What is not happening (it seems) is action...
s/dicussion/discussion/
# apologies, back from a nice dinner here in France with a bottle of fermented frogs, er, grapes…
That's incomplete, but closer to the truth than not. Unlike disciplines like the humanities, consensus is not a goal of science, but a byproduct of striving to best explain the data.
The conclusion that we're having an major effect on the global climate is not valid because a bunch of scientists agreed that it's valid - it's the other way around.
Makes me think of a "debate" in my daughter's history class recently when she criticized the fantastical view -- raised as a "controversy" by the teacher -- that Egyptians built the Mayan pyramids. The whole experience went badly for her as students piled on with ad hominem attacks... I imagined it was probably like that scene in the recent King Kong when the "good guys" get attacked by giant bugs. The lesson learned? Grade school students (and many others also) are surprisingly immune to arguments from evidence... sigh...
Zeno - from your quote:
"Morgan: Yes, so the fact that they would try to come to a consensus--that's not how the scientific community works."
I've been trying to figure out what on earth this talking point (consensus is meaningless and not a part of science) is supposed to mean, how its repeaters understand it, and I think this is a big chunk of it - that they imagine the consensus on global warming is scientists sitting down and talking, all squishy-liberal democratic like, "try[ing] to come to a consensus". There's no understanding that it's because the research overwhelmingly points one way. It's interesting, because this is contrasting what they imagine as absolute (vs, as you point out, provisional) truth ('good' science) with what is being painted as postmodernish opinions in standard Republican War on Science style ('bad' science).
"Global warming on trial"??
Since when do you prosecute the effect and not the cause? :) The prosecution won, so GW was sentenced for... failing to exist? I suppose the teacher would describe the OJ Simpson case as "Murder on trial"?
Why not put humans on trial? Don't kids watch TNG reruns anymore?
ERV: You couldn't be from *that* small a town, if teachers' children had any option. In my town, there was only one class at each grade. I can't remember there every being any suggestion that there was another option (though everyone had sympathy for the teachers' kids--their parents were always harder on them to avoid an appearance of favoritism).
I remember looking at the Mauna Loa info in middle school (8-ish years ago?) and a question on the worksheet we got asked about the possible causes of seasonal variations, what the long-term trend was, etc. We figured out the trend easily enough, but then, we clearly had a better science teacher.
Dan S., I think you're right. Rodgers & Morgan have it backward and probably because they imagine scientists getting together for pretzels and beer (or, more likely, white wine and brie) and cooking up some cover story for whatever research they'd like to do. Rodgers likes to repeat that it's all about political power and money. (I'm sure he believes it, too.)
Caledonian makes the important point that the consensus comes second, after the research establishes solid evidence for a (usually narrowing) range of possibilities, but he give Rodgers way too much credit if he thinks that is the argument that Rodgers is making. Rodgers and Morgan are both narrow black-and-white polemicists who think an example from math can provide a good analogy to scientific "proof". These are not deep thinkers we're talking about.
I don't give political 'critics' of science any benefit of the doubt if I can help it. But that particular point was correct, even while it was being used in a horribly wrong argument to reach a fallacious conclusion. Consensus doesn't have a role in the scientific method; in the status of scientific knowledge, yeah, but only as a side-effect of having rational standards. We teach that the Earth is spherical because there's a consensus on that, but the consensus doesn't exist because a bunch of people agreed to back the same thing. The consensus exists because everyone* who looks at the evidence reaches the same conclusion. Science isn't politics, although people who think everything is politics seem to have problems understanding that.
*Well, nearly. But the people who don't seem to have a little trouble making their case coherently...
Re #8
That's a joke right? That is what you mean by 'Your Wingnut Fantasy'?
And unfortunately Gore has been quoted as saying things like "The debate is over, and there is no doubt that global warming is human caused." Thus giving fodder for his critics.
google yields no such quote, and you provide no citation. Gore has claimed that global warming is largely human caused, and indeed the debate -- in terms of consensus among climatogists -- is over.
On the other hand, scientifically illiterate liberals are too unaware of the presence of uncertainty in something like climate science.
The same is true of scientifically illiterate redheads. But you seem to be implying that liberals are generally less aware of uncertainty in climate science than non-liberals, which is quite foolish.
There is uncertainty in all science, and plenty in climate science, but the gross fact of anthropogenic warming is well established.
Consensus doesn't have a role in the scientific method; in the status of scientific knowledge, yeah, but only as a side-effect of having rational standards. ... The consensus exists because everyone* who looks at the evidence reaches the same conclusion.
So one can infer from consensus in the relevant scientific community that the consensus reflects a rational conclusion, making the KSFO claim that "consensus" has no role in science wrong, and your defense of the "point" also wrong and point missing; "doesn't have a role in the scientific method" is a response to a strawman -- "science" and "the scientific method" are not synonymous. Without consensus and its role in science, we, as a society, would have no idea what to teach in science classes, and no idea what policies are consistent with science and which are not, because we cannot each individually acquire all of the expertise and knowledge of every scientist in every discipline; the fact is that the vast majority of what the vast majority of people believe to be "the science" is a result of accepting the consensus and not personal research.
Just wondering; I'm having a debate with a climate change denialist, and was wondering if anyone could direct me to any online forums where I might be able to ask questions and find answers. Realclimate is a great site, but it can be hard to find out answers to some of the "layman" questions I need answered.
Mike, a good one I visit often is http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/. It was one of Blogger's "Blogs of Note" a while back. There is a weekly roundup of all global warming related news and research and it also has a section called "How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic," which reads sort of like TalkOrigins but for global warming.
Great! Thanks a lot for the links!
An example of how debate is used correctly in teaching: Experts inspire next scientific generation
That's how it is done.
"Why do global warming deniers also have to be IDiots? I thought the two might be independent; apparently they are not. I guess goddunnit is a common thread running between the two."
Sigh--just check out the Focus on the Family stance on such things. Dobson has said that the work of such Evangelicals like Richard Cizik, who is trying to organize Christians to form a united front to work against global climate change, is work that undermines capitalism (tha's a paraphrase, not a direct quote). From what I have seen of those Christians who are anti-global warming, their cause is the almighty buck, which is wholly outside of what their cause should be as Christians, but that's another issue.
In general, the people who deride the evidence of GCC tend to do so for political and economic reasons, not scientific reasons. At least, that's the only argument I have seen coming from that side so far...it's the whole "if we do something about it, and it isn't true, we'll have ruined our economy for nothing" (forgetting that we will have also freed ourselves from the Middle East's influence, and cleaned up our environment--costs that affect our economy, but which are ignored since we don't see them at the pump).
For the record, I don't think it was wrong for 6th graders to debate such things. I do, however, wonder what kinds of "facts" they were actually presented with to fuel and support their stance. The fact that one side won only means those kids were able to present their side more clearly and convincingly than the other. Debates are often more about argumentative skill, not about actual truth.
I've got to say, that tossing off terms like "denialist" really bugs the shit out of me. It trivializes the holocaust, and demonizes those who haven't come to the same conclusion as the person throwing the epithet.
I'm satisfied that the data show a rise in temperatures in the recent past. What I'm not convinced of is the role of CO2, and whether it's a cause or an effect. I go and look up what information I can find on CO2 and find that it's currently about .035% of the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from 1 to 4 percent. I also find indications that CO2 concentrations have been as much as three times as high as they are currently.
Now, *if* the planet is getting warmer due to human activity, and *if* we need to strangle the economy of the third world to prevent them from adding to CO2 concentrations, and *if* all of the claims made by Al Gore are in fact correct, then vilifiying people like Lindzen DOES NOT HELP. Let's see arguments backed by data, not attempts to pretend that *every* scientist agrees. Comparing people to nazis and creationists is not part of the scientific method.
PZ, the fact that you're convinced of anthropogenic warming carries a lot of weight with me, even though you are not a climatologist. I think I know enough about you that if you had any serious doubts, you'd say so. Nevertheless, Lindzen is a climatologist, and he's not the only climatologist who disagrees with the majority.
-jcr
Not to be an asshole but just to add to the discussion:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467&q=global+…
"According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.
We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming."
The friend who sent me this also gave me this link:
http://hallolinden-db.de/baseportal?htx=/hallolinden-db.de/Klima/Klima
I've always found classroom or other school debates to be mixed bags. They do develop important skills, such as convincing others of a view point, public speaking and so forth. But if structured the wrong way it seems that they turn into "win at any cost" situations and an understanding that all viewpoints are equally correct and that what to believe or accept is merely a matter of more vociferous argumentation. (The "courtroom fallacy" shows up in many places.)
MattXIV: Indeed, global warming and related issues clearly illustrate the grave problem we face in many areas - our problems are very complicated, and it is quite possible the average person cannot be brought to understand them correctly. The teacher and democrat (small d, please, I'm not a Democrat) in me despairs over this possibility, but it is genuine, and I don't know what to do about it. That said, massive improvements in science education are still possible.
Hey Ken Poppe: they are sure having some fun over at gregladen.com blogging about what YOUR PROPHECY based in your quote in regards to selling your books: "I think I'll sell a bunch, especially with my newly acquired martyr status."
Wow, if only Jesus had the foresight that you do! He coulda changed the world a million dolars at a time....then again, he didn't have that foresight, nor the abilities, to use his PHD to teach sixth graders;-), so maybe you are smarter than him--or maybe you also have foresight...or is it foreskin?!
http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=557#comment-10895
I live in Longmont and my children go to the public schools in the district. Unfortunately, all too many of our "teachers" are biased and have no scientific support for their ideas. Our district will tolerate this from one teacher in one school, yet another school shows Mr. Gore's movie in their class. How about some consistency in applying the "guidelines"? Surely, if this teacher believed that kissing frogs turned them into princes, he wouldn't be allowed to teach that...what is the difference? My children went to school with this teacher's kids for a few years, and I can tell you that his time would have been better spent helping his own children learn how to conduct themselves in a classroom appropriately and getting them some academic assistance so that they can learn alongside their peers, rather than blazing his own trail teaching absurdities to other people's children!
Re #43
Just because YOU don't know the answer to some things doesn't mean nobody does. To wit, H2O is present in the atmosphere in greater amounts than CO2, but H2O is removed fairly quickly (on the order of weeks to months) through the water cycle. CO2 remains in the atmosphere much longer (on the order of decades to centuries). Consequently, CO2, although being present in lower quantities than H2O, will build up and not be readily removed.
Again, it is true that CO2 levels have been higher in the ancient past than they are now. 400-600 million years ago, the atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Link
The earth was very different then. Link
Just because you haven't bothered to find out the answers to your questions doesn't mean others haven't.
Uninformed skepticism is not a virtue.
RE #44
fans of the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' might like to know that it was produced by a well-known Trotsykite in England.
http://www.badscience.net/?p=383
The guy (Martin Durkin)is something of a stranger to the Trust - and has been shown to have faked the graphs that were used in the programme.
http://www.badscience.net/?p=386
Rather shows that 'vacuity' of the denilaist argument don't you think?
er..
'stranger to the truth' (not trust)...
To the poster who wrote: "I pity the children of Longmont, Colorado, saddled with creationist incompetent for a science teacher."
My child goes to school where Mr Poppe teaches...pity the children who WON'T get to be his students in future years. If most of you had read the recent articles from the newspapers, he inspires students to look at alternative explanations. I pity the children of the future not being given all the information...which is what most of you are basing your disgusting comments on.
Lies=Information in this case.
Sure let's teach our kids as many lies as possible.
Skepticism is good.
This ain't it.
THEY'RE SIXTH GRADERS!!
They haven't even entered puberty yet...and from the looks of these comments...they're going to be afraid to!
Bet NONE of you even know Dr. Poppe or have been to the school he teaches at or listened to him lecture. He's not as narrow minded as you all think he is.
Poster #54...Not giving children all the information is lying to them. Just like you don't know all the information in Dr Poppe's case...you are basing your comments on misinformation and essentially posting lies yourself.
THEY'RE SIXTH GRADERS!!
They haven't even entered puberty yet...and from the looks of these comments...they're going to be afraid to!
Bet NONE of you even know Dr. Poppe or have been to the school he teaches at or listened to him lecture. He's not as narrow minded as you all think he is.
Not giving children all the information is lying to them. Just like you don't know all the information in Dr Poppe's case...you are basing your comments on misinformation and essentially posting lies yourself.
We're not here abusing 6th graders. Poppe is.
Just because you don't understand what evolution is doesn't mean he gets off the hook.
We want your kids to succeed in science and in life.
Poppe is creating more hurdles for your kids... not less.
I know what Poppe has written, and I know how wrong it is. That's something of an absolute for me -- teachers should not teach known falsehoods to their students. Not even under the guise of being "open-minded".
If you had read the newspaper articles...he IS NOT being allowed to teach what he has written. He KNOWS there is more to what people believe, but because he has had to follow the restrictions of a public school environment, he can only give kids the opportunity of possibly thinking that there are other options.
By the way...I do understand evolution...just not as absolute as you do.
Is the earth round? Does it revolve around the sun?
How absolute are your understanding of that?
Mom in Longmont wrote: Not giving children all the information is lying to them.
Um....please specify "all the information". On almost any subject, there's waaaay too much "information" to fit into a school year (and much of it is above their heads at any given grade level -- there's a reason it takes 13 years for a basic education AND that colleges/universities exist to take it anywhere from three to 10 years further.)
But more to the point: on this subject, the only significant information over and above the standard curriculum would be: "....and there's a bunch of religious cranks and charlatans who like to tell fibs about this subject". Poppe, unfortunately, is among that number.
Must proofread.
Must proofread.
Must proofread.
How absolute IS...
uhg.
I am genuinely curious how you know this. I think we both agree on a fundamental principle, that it is a parent's job to protect a child from predatory lies, even lies wrapped up in pleasing language.
So I would be very interested to understand how you are so certain that Poppe is not just couching his lies in terms that you find pleasant in order to get them past you. I am certain that he is lying, either on purpose or inadvertently, for just one reason out of many because rendering the picture on the cover of his book as DNA would get your child laughed out of any biological science job he or she tried to apply for. And it's not like the structure of the DNA double helix is either new or controversial; that's the kind of elementary mistake that ought to embarrass anyone who claims to speak of biology. To cripple a child's future educational and professional/vocational prospects by promoting misinformation that blatantly unknowing and/or uncaring is clearly harm, in my opinion. Yet you defend him.
So how are you so certain in the face of that that he is not lying, and how do you tell the difference between truths, and lies couched in pleasing language? I am genuinely curious in understanding how you protect your children against those kinds of predators.
Now I know why Dr Poppe is retiring from teaching...he doesn't have a chance of teaching kids if he can't tell them in a classroom setting that not all people believe entirely in the theory of evolution.
AGAIN...have you read the two newspaper articles about him??? Forget the book he wrote...he can't teach from that...read the articles and I dare you then to call him a predator. Can you make an argument without personal attacks and name calling? Not all people who disagree with you are ignorant.
Read these!
http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=15357
and
http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=15426
Not all people who disagree with you are ignorant.
indeed, often they just lie. Kind of why we get so pissed off at them.
It really isn't about disagreement.
True--as Ichthyic said, often they just lie. And I'm still genuinely curious how you distinguish the difference, quite a relevant topic, given the track record creationism and intelligent design have on that score.
Ah, yes, the classic "who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes" argument.
The book is part of his track record, and as such, is a relevant consideration. It is a purveyor of misinformation from the cover on, and on that basis it is harmful.
I did--here's a representative quote:
Because, of course, none of those things ever existed before Darwin lived in the mid-19th century. *cough*Cain and Abel*cough*
In perfect seriousness, doesn't any of that ping your bullshit detector even just a little bit?
Has it occurred to anyone that the person posting messages under "Dr. Kenneth Poppe" might not actually be Dr. Kenneth Poppe?
Yes. The possibility has been raised.
However, it seems possible that a creationist could come up with something as mind-bogglingly inane as this:
But who knows? As we have seen over and over again, the line between creationist rhetoric and creationist parody is very fine indeed.
Another bad teacher? My daughter was in his 6th grade class in 2005. She would come home daily and tell me of the stupid things this teacher would say. He told the class, "Did you know that you can drop out of school when you are sixteen?...If I would have known that back when I was that age, I would have dropped out" What was he thinking telling sixth graders this? He also would belittle them daily. I confronted him at a parent/teacher confrence,with another teacher present. He appolized and said,"He wasn't thinking, because he was used to teaching high school students." Give me a break! Like it is okay to tell high schooler. There were more than three incidents that he was accountable for. That is all he could come up with. My daughter was humiliated by his actions. Two weeks later I took my child out of Trail Ridge Middle school. I've never heard of a teacher saying the things he did. It is outrageous! Glad he is retiring...couldn't come soon enough.
my name doesn't matter, but i am a student in Mr. Poppes class he is a great and funny teacher with his own point of view on many things he may be saying things about darwinism but thats his feelings and beliefs and who are you to say they are wrong and its not going to cahnge any thing by swearing at him and his on a webpage that some atheis nutjob made up.
Good question. The answer is: we are the people with the evidence on our side, instead of just beliefs and feelings.
He's not a great teacher if you've learned that beliefs are more important than actual evidence.
"he lets his beliefs get in the way of showing both sides of an argument"
Exactly Jacob, and Richard Dawkins does the same thing. He lets his 'belief' in evolution get in the way of showing both sides of an argument. I watched "The Genius of Charles Darwin" recently on BBC Knowledge and Dawkins did a masterful job of deceiving some poor high school kids rolling out his usual lame examples of finch beaks, etc. I actually feel sorry for him.
Evolution is as much a 'belief' as Christianity is. Evolution as science? I think not. And the pejorative statements on this page directed at Dr Poppe are proof that once you corner an evolutionist, the best they can do is insult you.
Problems of School Teachers Print, Read and Circulate
New methods of teaching imposed by politicians are good for traumatised pupils but cannot be used with pupils having high self esteem.
Theory of play /bridging the gap in pedagogy leads to chaotic situation in many classrooms
Group work in the classroom not adapted to individual evaluation of pupils at exams level. Group work also leads to copying and later gang formation.
Noise from pupils in the classroom on teacher’s mental health .
No psychological unit to help in teacher’s mental health
In some schools teachers must buy white board markers from their salary
No remuneration for Classroom Pedagogical Work done at home (correction of exercise books, preparation of teaching aids, daily lessons notes, research work, etc ).
No distance allowance for teachers who always work far from their home while some always works in schools around their houses
With the concept of performance management those teachers who works around their houses are deemed to be more performant than those who works far from their houses, what about those teachers who works with difficult hyperactive pupils
In some schools teachers are not allowed to use school computers to type continuous evaluation questionnaires and to do research work.
Indiscipline of pupils in the classroom (The problem No 1 of Education which many deny)
Verbal abuse, insults from pupils, parents, Assaults from pupils and parents on teachers.
Teachers are blamed for misbehaviour of pupils (some say bad classroom management)???
Teachers are blamed for bad exams result.
Teachers should be provided with Mobile Camera Phone to gather evidence of some pupil’s misbehaviour before confrontation with parents who never blame their kids.
Teachers are blamed as having bad classroom management after reporting indiscipline pupils.
Teachers can also be sued for damage by parents if they report indiscipline pupils at school without evidence (same for CPE exams Invigilation).
Absence of Legal Support for teachers from Ministry of Education in police case.
Refusal of vacation leave for teachers due to exigencies of service.
High Teacher / Pupil ratio and no assistant teacher like in other countries despite a similar pedagogy imposed by politicians.
Internal fight with colleagues to get upper primary classrooms to benefit private tuition in Mauritius.
Abuse from hierarchy on young teachers to help in cognate duties which are never recorded in the young teacher’s file.
Though remunerated civil servants Teachers in Mauritius must give private tuition using cramming pedagogy methods to get good exams result. Why not allow the same cramming method used in private tuition in formal school hours??
Music in schools will create discotheques addicts in the future .
Teachers are still using Corporal Punishment and Shouting (verbal abuse) for the intellectual benefit of pupils despite severe laws. Are they Fools??? why are they jeopardising their career for kids.
The Ministry of Education of Mauritius wants teachers to work as professionals, So let us all teachers work like the over qualify professionals teachers of America, Europe, etc and so whatever be the RESULT on EXAMS and on society.
Teachers and Parent Teachers Association must Beg for sponsors in order to please the imposed activities of the Ministry of Education new pedagogy.
Note in many countries despite their full time psychological help in school, their school are in a chaotic situation, may be politicians want the same .
From Mr Christian Yow Sang and others
A primary school teacher since 1991 with
Addr 105 Ligne Berthaud Vacoas Mauritius Island mob 230 7543073 230 7756330
E-Mail cyowsang@gmail.com
The new pedagogy wants your child to become Hyperactive and later you become dependant on psychologists
TYPE ‘’christian yow sang’’ and search on the Internet PRINT , READ and CIRCULATE
Pls send above in all Internet Links
Education is the only field where despite more money is put in yearly, there is a downfall in the result obtained and noone wants to see the solution which is the use of the stick on pupils and the use of old methods of teachings
Jacob,
1. My condolences. Perhaps you'll overcome this handicap, one day.
2. There is indeed variation in species, and you believe what's evident. That's rational.
3. There is indeed change in species, and you don't believe what's evident. That's irrational.
4. Sentence fragment.
--
Darryl,
Well, you got something right! ;)