"NY Bio Teacher Accused of Downplaying Science and Deriding 'True Evolutionists' ”

[Skwim]

.

STUPID WRIT LARGE.........STUPID TEACHER WRIT EVEN LARGER​

"It’s amazing we still have to have conversations about science teachers who reject or downplay evolution, but it’s still a problem. The latest incident comes from Holland Patent Central School District in New York, where biology teacher Phil Lucason allegedly taught a lesson on January 14th in which he told students there were doubts about the theory but they needed to “play the evolution game” if they wanted to do well on standardized tests.

​

Word got back to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which sent a letter to the District last week.

The teacher reportedly told students that “evolution only goes so far,” and that when they take the Regents Exam they have to “play the evolution game where evolution is the answer to everything.” He then went on to say that “they have never been able to find when something becomes something else.”

The teacher also reportedly derided “true evolutionists” and told students to ask them “where has the proof ever been shown and where does it say in science that it can become something else. There’s nothing.” To sum up his teardown of evolution he ended,

“So what that means is you have to play the evolutionary game because the people writing this are married to that idea despite the new proofs and new science coming out. What that means is anything is really fair game, whether it’s the belief that aliens came down and created us as like a project, God created us and everything else, whatever god that might be, that you subscribe to …”
​

To their credit, the District took swift action, responding to FFRF with a letter saying they’ve “addressed these [Constitutional] requirements” with the teacher. There’s no mention of a punishment, but there doesn’t need to be. No one’s looking for him to get fired. Certainly not FFRF. They just want to right the wrong, and that’s what’s happening.

Lucason himself responded to a local newspaper, the Observer-Dispatch, with a statement attempting to defend his actions.

“I recently taught a 42-minute lesson on the science of evolution,” the statement reads. “Having taught about evolution for 20 years, I know that our students hear various theories on the origins of species. I enumerated some of them by way of example. My mention of those other theories led to the concerns that have been articulated. In the future, I will not refer to other, non-scientific explanations and will clearly teach the science and theory of evolution as the explanation for the development of life on earth as provided by the New York State standards.”
​

That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of reality. It’s more like a Creationist who wants to keep his public school job. But as long as he’s not misleading students with the myth of Christianity, it doesn’t really matter what he believes. What’s concerning is that someone who’s been teaching “about evolution for 20 years” only got caught now. How many years did he downplay the topic before now?"
source
​

OR, isn't he that stupid after all?

.​

 

[Revoltingest]

There's no evidence for calculus in the Bible, but I
learned to go along with it just to pass the tests.

 

[Twilight Hue]

.

STUPID WRIT LARGE.........STUPID TEACHER WRIT EVEN LARGER​

"It’s amazing we still have to have conversations about science teachers who reject or downplay evolution, but it’s still a problem. The latest incident comes from Holland Patent Central School District in New York, where biology teacher Phil Lucason allegedly taught a lesson on January 14th in which he told students there were doubts about the theory but they needed to “play the evolution game” if they wanted to do well on standardized tests.

View attachment 37525​

Word got back to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which sent a letter to the District last week.

The teacher reportedly told students that “evolution only goes so far,” and that when they take the Regents Exam they have to “play the evolution game where evolution is the answer to everything.” He then went on to say that “they have never been able to find when something becomes something else.”

The teacher also reportedly derided “true evolutionists” and told students to ask them “where has the proof ever been shown and where does it say in science that it can become something else. There’s nothing.” To sum up his teardown of evolution he ended,

“So what that means is you have to play the evolutionary game because the people writing this are married to that idea despite the new proofs and new science coming out. What that means is anything is really fair game, whether it’s the belief that aliens came down and created us as like a project, God created us and everything else, whatever god that might be, that you subscribe to …”
​

To their credit, the District took swift action, responding to FFRF with a letter saying they’ve “addressed these [Constitutional] requirements” with the teacher. There’s no mention of a punishment, but there doesn’t need to be. No one’s looking for him to get fired. Certainly not FFRF. They just want to right the wrong, and that’s what’s happening.

Lucason himself responded to a local newspaper, the Observer-Dispatch, with a statement attempting to defend his actions.

“I recently taught a 42-minute lesson on the science of evolution,” the statement reads. “Having taught about evolution for 20 years, I know that our students hear various theories on the origins of species. I enumerated some of them by way of example. My mention of those other theories led to the concerns that have been articulated. In the future, I will not refer to other, non-scientific explanations and will clearly teach the science and theory of evolution as the explanation for the development of life on earth as provided by the New York State standards.”
​

That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of reality. It’s more like a Creationist who wants to keep his public school job. But as long as he’s not misleading students with the myth of Christianity, it doesn’t really matter what he believes. What’s concerning is that someone who’s been teaching “about evolution for 20 years” only got caught now. How many years did he downplay the topic before now?"
source​

OR, isn't he that stupid after all?

.​

That teacher won't lose the position either. At worst, a slap on the wrist.

New York teachers lobby unions will see to that.

It's why we have so many scientifically illiterate science teachers here in the state.

 

[Father Heathen]

That teacher won't lose the position either. At worst, a slap on the wrist.

New York teachers lobby unions will see to that.

It's why we have so many scientifically illiterate science teachers here in the state.

It's a good thing that red states are such staunch strongholds for scientific literacy.

Oh, wait.

 

[Thief]

.

STUPID WRIT LARGE.........STUPID TEACHER WRIT EVEN LARGER​

"It’s amazing we still have to have conversations about science teachers who reject or downplay evolution, but it’s still a problem. The latest incident comes from Holland Patent Central School District in New York, where biology teacher Phil Lucason allegedly taught a lesson on January 14th in which he told students there were doubts about the theory but they needed to “play the evolution game” if they wanted to do well on standardized tests.

View attachment 37525​

Word got back to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which sent a letter to the District last week.

The teacher reportedly told students that “evolution only goes so far,” and that when they take the Regents Exam they have to “play the evolution game where evolution is the answer to everything.” He then went on to say that “they have never been able to find when something becomes something else.”

The teacher also reportedly derided “true evolutionists” and told students to ask them “where has the proof ever been shown and where does it say in science that it can become something else. There’s nothing.” To sum up his teardown of evolution he ended,

“So what that means is you have to play the evolutionary game because the people writing this are married to that idea despite the new proofs and new science coming out. What that means is anything is really fair game, whether it’s the belief that aliens came down and created us as like a project, God created us and everything else, whatever god that might be, that you subscribe to …”
​

To their credit, the District took swift action, responding to FFRF with a letter saying they’ve “addressed these [Constitutional] requirements” with the teacher. There’s no mention of a punishment, but there doesn’t need to be. No one’s looking for him to get fired. Certainly not FFRF. They just want to right the wrong, and that’s what’s happening.

Lucason himself responded to a local newspaper, the Observer-Dispatch, with a statement attempting to defend his actions.

“I recently taught a 42-minute lesson on the science of evolution,” the statement reads. “Having taught about evolution for 20 years, I know that our students hear various theories on the origins of species. I enumerated some of them by way of example. My mention of those other theories led to the concerns that have been articulated. In the future, I will not refer to other, non-scientific explanations and will clearly teach the science and theory of evolution as the explanation for the development of life on earth as provided by the New York State standards.”
​

That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of reality. It’s more like a Creationist who wants to keep his public school job. But as long as he’s not misleading students with the myth of Christianity, it doesn’t really matter what he believes. What’s concerning is that someone who’s been teaching “about evolution for 20 years” only got caught now. How many years did he downplay the topic before now?"
source​

OR, isn't he that stupid after all?

.​

I say.....teachers should have FULL protection under freedom of speech

that the status quo has been questioned should be accepted
that your children have been given cause to seek all answers is the actual goal

do not fret that someone has raised a doubt

 

[ecco]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Reminds me of my AP Bio teacher. Hopefully, like her, this clown won't be around very long. It's sad though, as even 20 years later is still a problem.

I say.....teachers should have FULL protection under freedom of speech

Teachers have a job to do. Public school teachers are bound to Constitutional law. They can speak as they will, but, like so many others, it can only go so far. In this case it fails to do one job and fails in their responsibilities and duties towards the students. A science teacher is there to teach science, and science does not accept these "doubts" be this nonsense "controversy."

 

[Father Heathen]

I say.....teachers should have FULL protection under freedom of speech

Uh, nope! Not when you're on the job. You do what you're paid to do or you find another job.

 

[exchemist]

I say.....teachers should have FULL protection under freedom of speech

that the status quo has been questioned should be accepted
that your children have been given cause to seek all answers is the actual goal

do not fret that someone has raised a doubt

What this teacher is doing is "teaching the controversy". This is a dishonest tactic used by some creationists, notably the "Intelligent Design" crowd, to suggest there is a scientific controversy about evolution where there is none. This is mis-teaching science. The "controversy" concerning evolution, such as it is, a religious/political one that is almost exclusively confined to the USA.

A teacher that uses "freedom of speech" to mis-teach the subject he is paid to teach deserves to be disciplined.

 

[Thief]

I believe in evolution
and I believe in God

as for someone teaching what they believe......
I have no quarrel for that

and as long as the book in class is dealt
and the test
and the answers to the test
are as required

no quarrel there either

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's a good thing that red states are such staunch strongholds for scientific literacy......

It certainly is a good thing....


How Massachusetts Became The Best State In Education

 

[Father Heathen]

It certainly is a good thing....


How Massachusetts Became The Best State In Education

Massachusetts is a red state?

 

[Skwim]

Massachusetts is a red state?

.​

 

[exchemist]

Whatever it was, there are teaching standards and tests that students will then take. Teachers cannot teach students as they want because there are curriculums. I wrote a paper with https://writix.co.uk/lab-reports-writing-service on how curriculums are created. And the fact that they are standard - it makes sense, otherwise, students simply will not be able to apply to college later if their knowledge does not correspond to a certain standard.

You are not Michael 345. I know him from another forum.

You are misrepresenting yourself as him here, in order to promote a service enabling academic cheating. This is despicable. I have reported you and hope to see you banned.

 

[leroy]

What this teacher is doing is "teaching the controversy". This is a dishonest tactic used by some creationists, notably the "Intelligent Design" crowd, to suggest there is a scientific controversy about evolution where there is none. This is mis-teaching science. The "controversy" concerning evolution, such as it is, a religious/political one that is almost exclusively confined to the USA.

A teacher that uses "freedom of speech" to mis-teach the subject he is paid to teach deserves to be disciplined.

It all depends on how you define “evolution”

That simple “stuff” evolved in to complex stuff mainly through a process of random variation and natural selection is controversial, and I see no problem in “teaching the controvery”

 

[Bear Wild]

It all depends on how you define “evolution”

That simple “stuff” evolved in to complex stuff mainly through a process of random variation and natural selection is controversial, and I see no problem in “teaching the controvery”

There is no problem in bringing up controversy but represent things correctly. Evolution is a mixture of random and not so random processes. As the genetic code become more complex less random things developed in determining phenotypic expression. Different pathways of genetic material were molded into similar patterns from environmental and later social pressures of organisms. Let us also be honest about the alternative and its controversy. Imaginary beings with not scientific evidence of any kind.
Simple to complex is explainable
Complex from nothing is not.

 

[exchemist]

It all depends on how you define “evolution”

That simple “stuff” evolved in to complex stuff mainly through a process of random variation and natural selection is controversial, and I see no problem in “teaching the controvery”

Haha, I notice you introduce the creationists’ favourite word “random”, to try to engineer controversy into it.

Evolution involves natural selection of inherited variations. There are numerous ways these variations arise. Just calling them “random” does not do justice to what we know about these processes.

But you know that , of course. Your purpose here is to misrepresent evolution to make out there is controversy about whether it happens or not. There isn’t.

 

[leroy]

Haha, I notice you introduce the creationists’ favourite word “random”, to try to engineer controversy into it.

Evolution involves natural selection of inherited variations. There are numerous ways these variations arise. Just calling them “random” does not do justice to what we know about these processes.

But you know that , of course. Your purpose here is to misrepresent evolution to make out there is controversy about whether it happens or not. There isn’t.

Random is a “creationists word?” that is news to me ,

All I am saying is that the claim that mutations that cause evolution are mainly random is controversial, therefore one shouldn’t assert it as fact…….agree?

this is what I mean by random

Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Mutations are random.

We don’t have to start a 100+ pages conversation; if you are not asserting that evolution is caused mainly by random mutations and natural selection then we can simply agree and end this conversation

 

[exchemist]

Random is a “creationists word?” that is news to me ,

All I am saying is that the claim that mutations that cause evolution are mainly random is controversial, therefore one shouldn’t assert it as fact…….agree?

this is what I mean by random

We don’t have to start a 100+ pages conversation; if you are not asserting that evolution is caused mainly by random mutations and natural selection then we can simply agree and end this conversation

Look, I’ve lost count of the instances I’ve seen in which creationists insert , and then focus on, the term “random” , in their rhetoric about evolution. They like it because, to them, it is synonymous with “godless” and because it makes evolution seem improbable, to a determinedly ignorant person - tornadoes in junkyards and all that garbage.

Nobody says creationists invented the word random. Being deliberately obtuse does not help your reputation.

We know a lot about the processes that cause variation. They follow patterns and rules, just as the chemical reactions of sodium do. We don’t call the chemistry of sodium “random”.

 

[leroy]

We know a lot about the processes that cause variation. They follow patterns and rules, just as the chemical reactions of sodium do. We don’t call the chemistry of sodium “random”.

Well that's why I provided a definition of random and a source

Based on the definition that I provided, would you claim that organisms evolve mainly by a process of random mutations and natural selection?

Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Mutations are random