After reading this section in Ballenger’s book, I realized how much work was ahead of me in revising my drafts. Before reading this, I assumed that no further research was necessary in my revision and not a whole lot of moving stuff around. However, my draft still has a long ways to go. More research needs to be done, sentences need to be removed, paragraphs need to be revised, and the paper as a whole needs to be more focused all around.
I thought that Ballenger’s simile comparing a research paper to a relationship with another person to be clever. That’s exactly how I felt before reading this section, that my essay is good as it is and that nothing needs to be changed in it. Exercise 5.1 looked like it could be really helpful for initially realizing what needs to be changed in my paper. I have a feeling that much of my writing are just facts and other people’s ideas, and little of it is analysis and my own ideas.
Another exercise that will probably aid me in my revision process is the cut in paste. Many of my paragraphs will probably go under the “irrelevant” section and will need to be changed drastically. Also, the overall direction of my paper will probably need to be realigned to better point in the direction of my thesis statement. His sample questions pertaining to what pile my different paragraphs should be placed in will most likely also be helpful in the process.
Lastly, the website Ballenger gave out will probably help in finding some of the statistics I still need to include. Overall, this was a very efficient reading that will hopefully make my revision process a little easier.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Revision Re-thought
John Bonner
English 102
November 18, 2009
Reading Response
The final week of this paper is going to be solely revision. This is going to be difficult because like Ballenger said we all form a relationship with our papers and nobody will want to change. I know that I will look upon my paper with perfection, due to all the hard work I put in, but the reality is that I know that it is not perfect and that it is just simply a first draft. What will I do to get over this hump, I know lets do some exercises.
Now, I know that I may have had a mocking tone but I truly believe that this revision and the exercises will prove its worth to me. Like I said I am going to be stubborn and I need a way to look through my paper and see it with a fresh pair of eyes. Which is one of the processes I will chose to employ. There are certain people I know that I trust their opinion and they happen to be great at English, lucky for me they haven’t read a single word that I have wrote, so truly my paper will be looked upon by a fresh pair of eyes.
Along with the second look around there are some things that I learned from this reading that will benefit me, for instance the highlighting and the cut paste exercise. I believe that the cut and paste is what we will be doing on Wednesday, but I’ll wait and see. I know that if we do not perform this exercise I will do it for my own benefit.
The other point that I learned from this reading is how to physically re-write the paper, not change the stance but rather just take a step back and think to myself it my stance coming across clear and who is going to care about this subject. I know that I will learn a lot from this revision process, and hopefully make a great paper that I can look back on.
English 102
November 18, 2009
Reading Response
The final week of this paper is going to be solely revision. This is going to be difficult because like Ballenger said we all form a relationship with our papers and nobody will want to change. I know that I will look upon my paper with perfection, due to all the hard work I put in, but the reality is that I know that it is not perfect and that it is just simply a first draft. What will I do to get over this hump, I know lets do some exercises.
Now, I know that I may have had a mocking tone but I truly believe that this revision and the exercises will prove its worth to me. Like I said I am going to be stubborn and I need a way to look through my paper and see it with a fresh pair of eyes. Which is one of the processes I will chose to employ. There are certain people I know that I trust their opinion and they happen to be great at English, lucky for me they haven’t read a single word that I have wrote, so truly my paper will be looked upon by a fresh pair of eyes.
Along with the second look around there are some things that I learned from this reading that will benefit me, for instance the highlighting and the cut paste exercise. I believe that the cut and paste is what we will be doing on Wednesday, but I’ll wait and see. I know that if we do not perform this exercise I will do it for my own benefit.
The other point that I learned from this reading is how to physically re-write the paper, not change the stance but rather just take a step back and think to myself it my stance coming across clear and who is going to care about this subject. I know that I will learn a lot from this revision process, and hopefully make a great paper that I can look back on.
Revision. As I read this section from Ballenger, he pegged me in the first page. I have frequently felt that attachment to my draft that I worked so hard for, resentful of the expectation that I would re-write any of it. I have been heard to cry out "I wrote it how I wanted it the first time!"
With time, and much effort, I have gotten better about this. It is still not something I look forward to, but for different reasons -they mostly being the sheer ammount fo work my papers need. I know my drafts have weaknesses. Probably a lot of them as I do most of my writing late at night, after work. Having just been returned my argument paper, I heard the comment echoed in the reading "sound's more like a report."
I think my struggle with this could be coming from two main places. One; that I am not sure how much background information to provide, and I want to use all of the sources that I worked for, so I used it all. Two; that I had trouble, between lack of sleep and the large amount of time between my opportunities to write, finding and keeping my focus. In my ethnography, it developed as I wrote it, and I'm sure it's still a bit vague. In my argument, I'm not sure it surfaced at all.
But these are opportunities for me to improve the drafts. I feel like I'm standing on the threshold of actually looking forward to revising. I've gone from resisting making changes to the work I slaved over, to being proud that I can improve it and make it even better.
With time, and much effort, I have gotten better about this. It is still not something I look forward to, but for different reasons -they mostly being the sheer ammount fo work my papers need. I know my drafts have weaknesses. Probably a lot of them as I do most of my writing late at night, after work. Having just been returned my argument paper, I heard the comment echoed in the reading "sound's more like a report."
I think my struggle with this could be coming from two main places. One; that I am not sure how much background information to provide, and I want to use all of the sources that I worked for, so I used it all. Two; that I had trouble, between lack of sleep and the large amount of time between my opportunities to write, finding and keeping my focus. In my ethnography, it developed as I wrote it, and I'm sure it's still a bit vague. In my argument, I'm not sure it surfaced at all.
But these are opportunities for me to improve the drafts. I feel like I'm standing on the threshold of actually looking forward to revising. I've gone from resisting making changes to the work I slaved over, to being proud that I can improve it and make it even better.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Revising the Draft
After reading Chapter 5 in Bruce Ballenger's Curious Reader , the information provided me with a few thoughts on the process of revising my drafts for the final portfolio. First, I printed a copy of my ethnographic essay to execute the dirty deed of marking all over it with 2 highlighters. With trembling fingers I inched them towards the page to disfigure its pristine whiteness with bright yellow slashes. The marker tumbled from my finger tips towards the carpeted floor, as I stared at the untouched paper before my eyes. How could I do such a thing to something that took endless hours of thought and labored fingers upon the computer keyboard? I had cultivated the tight relationship to my essay which Bruce had mentioned in the beginning of Chapter 5.
Then the idea of cutting the precious essay into fragmented parts to hopefully resemble a cohesive article was definitely not on option in my mind. So, I convened at the keyboard restating and fixing the points that our professor, Christy Vance , had suggested in the margins of the supposed final draft. I carried my endeavors with me to work and asked fellow co-workers to mark upon its pure pages with the dreaded red pen. Now,the pages are passes from person to person receiving opinions to hopefully expand my work to perfection.
In the beginning, I thought to myself, how hard can it be to revise and fix the errors. It was more difficult than it appeared. After a couple of minutes of contemplating the changes from my colleagues, my fingers flew across the computer keys bringing out new views and language to improve the clarity of my ethnogrphic composition. Bruce was correct, this is challenging, but worth the endeavor into the revising excursion of my essay.
Then the idea of cutting the precious essay into fragmented parts to hopefully resemble a cohesive article was definitely not on option in my mind. So, I convened at the keyboard restating and fixing the points that our professor, Christy Vance , had suggested in the margins of the supposed final draft. I carried my endeavors with me to work and asked fellow co-workers to mark upon its pure pages with the dreaded red pen. Now,the pages are passes from person to person receiving opinions to hopefully expand my work to perfection.
In the beginning, I thought to myself, how hard can it be to revise and fix the errors. It was more difficult than it appeared. After a couple of minutes of contemplating the changes from my colleagues, my fingers flew across the computer keys bringing out new views and language to improve the clarity of my ethnogrphic composition. Bruce was correct, this is challenging, but worth the endeavor into the revising excursion of my essay.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Exotic Invaders
Although nobody is sure how or when, African Clawed Frogs have managed to take control of Lily Pond in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. The frogs are extremely tough and rather large. By this time they have eaten nearly every other thing that used to live in or near the pond; the menu including native fish, turtles, other frogs and even birds. Not just preying on them, the frogs have completely obliterated the other species' populations in the pond. Not to be deterred, once the clawed frogs were the only things left, they began preying on each other. So far as anyone can tell, they haven't migrated out of the pond yet. And aside from trapping and removing some of the frogs, little has been done about them. Much like an experiment in a laboratory, the pond is isolated, its environment relatively stable, and no new elements were introduced. It illustrates how a single species, once kept as a pet, can invade an environment that it is not native to and completely destroy it.
Here in Idaho, those same African Clawed Frogs can be purchased for your aquarium. There is nothing between the states that regulates the sale and trade of pets. What is illegal in one state can be purchased in a store one state away. Although it is illegal, many pets that are banned in a given location are simply purchased elsewhere and transported back. Species that have already invaded and caused irreparable harm in certain natural systems continue to be sold unrestricted and right next to other species that have not caused a problem yet, but bear equal ability to. Clearly the system is flawed and suffers from a lack of cohesion and enforcement.
It was written by a law student, Robert Brown, in 2006 that there are two potential ways to address this problem. One way involves amending the Lacy Act again to use a “clean list” approach rather than a so-called “dirty list.” What this means is; instead of what we currently have (a list of species known to be harmful) which tends to be functional after the fact, adopt a method by which importers would have to prove first that a species won't be harmful before it could be imported into and potentially harm the U.S. This would then have to be followed by the individual states adopting uniform regulations on the subject of what species are banned and how they should be handled. The other method would be to pass a single federal law that regulates pet trade and allows the system to be made uniform all at once. The latter solution Brown favored in his note, stating that it was the easiest path and could further be improved by also adopting the “clean list” approach to imports and by creating a national permit system. (Similar to Florida's system by which individual's must obtain a permit to possess one of three classes of animals.)
Three years later, we have HR669. This, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, seems to be birthed right out of Brown's solution. It proposes to create a “risk assessment process” for importing wildlife. Unlike in Brown's ideal solution, it would utilize more of a dual list approach, creating both a “clean” and a “dirty” list -or in this case “approved” and “unapproved.” It takes the responsibility for deciding what species should be owned as pets from the individual state and places it in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior. He, then, would decide which species are approved, and therefore legal to import and possess, and which are unapproved. The unapproved species are, naturally, illegal to import or own and would carry heavy fines and jail time for violators of the ban.
There are two major flaws in the plan. One; the proposal is not just directed at imported animals, as it seems to imply, but rather will apply to any species not native to the United States prior to the arrival of Columbus. This means species that are not imported at all, but are bred here in the U.S. could become banned. In which case, such creatures would have to be rounded up and “destroyed” being as how there is no turning away at the customs checkpoint for them. Two; they forgot the nationwide permit system. Simply banning a species all over the States takes away the fairness. The only part of the state-level system that does make sense is that individual states' laws are customized for their environments and their residents. People living in a state where their pet cannot survive in the wild should be able to have that pet, given that they will not take it to a state where it could cause a problem. This is where a national permit and licensing system would shine. Certain permits could be denied in states where the animal in question would be problematic. This would allow us to have our freedom of choice in pets, so long as we are willing to go through the steps of obtaining a permit and licensing our pets.
Here in Idaho, those same African Clawed Frogs can be purchased for your aquarium. There is nothing between the states that regulates the sale and trade of pets. What is illegal in one state can be purchased in a store one state away. Although it is illegal, many pets that are banned in a given location are simply purchased elsewhere and transported back. Species that have already invaded and caused irreparable harm in certain natural systems continue to be sold unrestricted and right next to other species that have not caused a problem yet, but bear equal ability to. Clearly the system is flawed and suffers from a lack of cohesion and enforcement.
It was written by a law student, Robert Brown, in 2006 that there are two potential ways to address this problem. One way involves amending the Lacy Act again to use a “clean list” approach rather than a so-called “dirty list.” What this means is; instead of what we currently have (a list of species known to be harmful) which tends to be functional after the fact, adopt a method by which importers would have to prove first that a species won't be harmful before it could be imported into and potentially harm the U.S. This would then have to be followed by the individual states adopting uniform regulations on the subject of what species are banned and how they should be handled. The other method would be to pass a single federal law that regulates pet trade and allows the system to be made uniform all at once. The latter solution Brown favored in his note, stating that it was the easiest path and could further be improved by also adopting the “clean list” approach to imports and by creating a national permit system. (Similar to Florida's system by which individual's must obtain a permit to possess one of three classes of animals.)
Three years later, we have HR669. This, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, seems to be birthed right out of Brown's solution. It proposes to create a “risk assessment process” for importing wildlife. Unlike in Brown's ideal solution, it would utilize more of a dual list approach, creating both a “clean” and a “dirty” list -or in this case “approved” and “unapproved.” It takes the responsibility for deciding what species should be owned as pets from the individual state and places it in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior. He, then, would decide which species are approved, and therefore legal to import and possess, and which are unapproved. The unapproved species are, naturally, illegal to import or own and would carry heavy fines and jail time for violators of the ban.
There are two major flaws in the plan. One; the proposal is not just directed at imported animals, as it seems to imply, but rather will apply to any species not native to the United States prior to the arrival of Columbus. This means species that are not imported at all, but are bred here in the U.S. could become banned. In which case, such creatures would have to be rounded up and “destroyed” being as how there is no turning away at the customs checkpoint for them. Two; they forgot the nationwide permit system. Simply banning a species all over the States takes away the fairness. The only part of the state-level system that does make sense is that individual states' laws are customized for their environments and their residents. People living in a state where their pet cannot survive in the wild should be able to have that pet, given that they will not take it to a state where it could cause a problem. This is where a national permit and licensing system would shine. Certain permits could be denied in states where the animal in question would be problematic. This would allow us to have our freedom of choice in pets, so long as we are willing to go through the steps of obtaining a permit and licensing our pets.
Is Religion Necessary?
In the past, many countries across the world thought it was an act of lunacy to declare no religious affiliation. Everyone it seemed believed in some sort of God and also a place of absolute paradise when entering the afterlife. Many people these days still believe this is true, that a society would turn to chaos and become filled with immoral people. However, the percentage of Americans who declare themselves Christians is quickly decreasing, and the number of Americans claiming to be nonreligious has doubled in the passed twenty years. Jon Meacham believes that the religious foundations that our country was built on appear to be crumbling under our feet as we know it, and this has me wondering, why is religion now starting to disappear in today’s society? Is it even necessary for humanity to function?
William Donahue, who is President of the Catholic League, believes that individualism is a main reason why religion today appears to be fading. In America’s past, most people conformed to popular beliefs. Going against the norm of society would often lead to rejection of peers an even family members. Times are now changing in America, and people are starting to do what they want to do and believe in whatever they feel is right to believe in, regardless of other’s views of that belief.
Don’t get me wrong. Religion can be an extremely positive aspect in some societies. According to Phil Zuckerman, churches can strengthen bonds within the community, and families who attend church claim to have higher life satisfaction, better family life, and fewer cases of depression.
However, there is no correlation between believing in God and having a strong moral sense. Some of the most religious areas in the world are also the most violent and dangerous. In fact, some statistics prove that some nonreligious countries actually have happier, safer lives some religious communities. Zuckerman proved this by traveling to Denmark, a country known for its almost nonexistent belief in God. Surveys have shown that Scandinavia, the area that includes Denmark, is one of the most peaceful places on Earth, home to “one of the lowest crime and corruption rates in the world.”
William Donahue, who is President of the Catholic League, believes that individualism is a main reason why religion today appears to be fading. In America’s past, most people conformed to popular beliefs. Going against the norm of society would often lead to rejection of peers an even family members. Times are now changing in America, and people are starting to do what they want to do and believe in whatever they feel is right to believe in, regardless of other’s views of that belief.
Don’t get me wrong. Religion can be an extremely positive aspect in some societies. According to Phil Zuckerman, churches can strengthen bonds within the community, and families who attend church claim to have higher life satisfaction, better family life, and fewer cases of depression.
However, there is no correlation between believing in God and having a strong moral sense. Some of the most religious areas in the world are also the most violent and dangerous. In fact, some statistics prove that some nonreligious countries actually have happier, safer lives some religious communities. Zuckerman proved this by traveling to Denmark, a country known for its almost nonexistent belief in God. Surveys have shown that Scandinavia, the area that includes Denmark, is one of the most peaceful places on Earth, home to “one of the lowest crime and corruption rates in the world.”
THE EGO
Why do people always feel the need to be defensive about every little thing? I mean you say something to someone, any little thing and they automatically pick it apart. Everyone does this. To feel defensive is just human nature, right? I disagree. These feelings of pointless aggressiveness and defensiveness are main functions controlled by the section of your personality titled: "the ego".
Everyone has an ego. Although some peoples egos are more prominent then others, the ego is there. It is important to recognize it because, the ego really isn't you. Yes, that's right, there is something living inside of you, that can control the way you react to and feel about certain situations. There is really no importance to the ego, in fact, it is actually a very negative thing. in fact some psychologists call it "the enemy inside of you".
The ego is not you, although it is hard to distinguish the difference. That little voice in your head is not you. Like when you first see someone, there is a voice in your head that automatically judges them based on their physical appearance. Or, have you ever noticed how your mental image of yourself isn't quite how you really look? I mean, it still looks like you, but all those stupid tiny imperfections you hate are just gone? That image in your head is not you, but your egos mental manifestation.
When you say 'I' in a sentence, who exactly are you referring to? Yourself in the physical sense of the word, or your mental image of yourself?
It is necessary to rid yourself of your ego. Not only because it will help you lead a happier and more conflict-free life, but also because the ego creates real enemies. They start off as fake enemies, someone says something that you take wrong and get offended, even though they didn't really mean any offense. But then they turn real, as in, an argument starts, and then maybe a fight breaks out, and then maybe you get stabbed in the jugular by a broken bottle. this is extreme, but the point is, letting your ego take control isn't just dangerous for your mind, it is also dangerous for your physical body.
In ancient religions the ego was known as the devil, which is funny, because the ego created the devil so you would have someone else to blame.
The ego is smart and manipulative, and will do whatever it can to get what it deems as necessary for its survival. Don't be a victim. Dissolve your ego today!
Everyone has an ego. Although some peoples egos are more prominent then others, the ego is there. It is important to recognize it because, the ego really isn't you. Yes, that's right, there is something living inside of you, that can control the way you react to and feel about certain situations. There is really no importance to the ego, in fact, it is actually a very negative thing. in fact some psychologists call it "the enemy inside of you".
The ego is not you, although it is hard to distinguish the difference. That little voice in your head is not you. Like when you first see someone, there is a voice in your head that automatically judges them based on their physical appearance. Or, have you ever noticed how your mental image of yourself isn't quite how you really look? I mean, it still looks like you, but all those stupid tiny imperfections you hate are just gone? That image in your head is not you, but your egos mental manifestation.
When you say 'I' in a sentence, who exactly are you referring to? Yourself in the physical sense of the word, or your mental image of yourself?
It is necessary to rid yourself of your ego. Not only because it will help you lead a happier and more conflict-free life, but also because the ego creates real enemies. They start off as fake enemies, someone says something that you take wrong and get offended, even though they didn't really mean any offense. But then they turn real, as in, an argument starts, and then maybe a fight breaks out, and then maybe you get stabbed in the jugular by a broken bottle. this is extreme, but the point is, letting your ego take control isn't just dangerous for your mind, it is also dangerous for your physical body.
In ancient religions the ego was known as the devil, which is funny, because the ego created the devil so you would have someone else to blame.
The ego is smart and manipulative, and will do whatever it can to get what it deems as necessary for its survival. Don't be a victim. Dissolve your ego today!
OP ED Rough Draft
Saundra Johnson
Christy Vance
English 102
12 November 2009
Is Winning Most Important”
In today’s competitive world of organized youth sports too much emphasis and pressures have been placed upon children to excel and produce winning results. Todd Roberts, coach and father to a gymnast, believes “We compete to take first place, or we don’t compete at all.” This has strongly influenced his daughter’s aggressive thinking even towards her fellow teammate whom she perceives to be a threat to her place on the podium.
PhD. Michael Kanters states a child’s development and socialization are mainly influenced by their parents. Studies have been done to demonstrate that young athletes imitate the attitude and actions of their parents. Many parents feel they are aiding their child to implement their dreams, but is it the child’s or the parent’s dream?
Sally White, journalist for medicine and science in sports wrote: parents, who make different attributions and hold different beliefs regarding the relative importance of effort versus outcome, may communicate those beliefs to their children, thereby influencing their children’s achievement-related cognition and subsequent behavior. In other words, as parents of athletes, we have some bearing on their behaviors and attitudes when it comes to participation and sportsmanship in their sport.
With the strong, competitive nature of sports, parents can unintentionally be overly aggressive without realizing their approach because they desire what is paramount for their competitor. Often, this creates a negative experience for their child. I agree winning is gratifying, but there has to be an improved method for encouraging our athletes to achieve their gifted abilities without crushing their spirits. Ann Michelle Davis wrote “Developing the appropriate atmosphere could certainly make a positive vehicle for youth development with cooperation skills are taught in the sports environment of the competitive arena.” This illustrates the idea of encouraging and fostering good sportsmanship while being competitive with other participants.
Author T. Orlick, composed “people playing with one another rather than against another, they play to overcome challenges, not to overcome people, and they are freed by the very structure of the game to enjoy the play experience itself” This philosophy enables the young athlete to view their participation as a learning prospect to advance their skills and appreciate the talent of their rivals to enhance their abilities.
If coaches and parents utilized the cooperation style in the mindset of their players, then teammates would view the individual efforts of each other as being important as the skill of each member. This would foster encouragement among players to conquer challenges, not conquer people. Therefore, each team member would put forth their best endeavors and skill in order to help the team attain its objective of being the finest.
I agree that effort does produce results, but young athletes need to be taught good sportsmanship qualities in a positive reinforced setting. Pressures need to be reduced on our young participates; so they can take pleasure in the activity of their sport. Parents have the ability to mold the minds of their young competitors through example.
Christy Vance
English 102
12 November 2009
Is Winning Most Important”
In today’s competitive world of organized youth sports too much emphasis and pressures have been placed upon children to excel and produce winning results. Todd Roberts, coach and father to a gymnast, believes “We compete to take first place, or we don’t compete at all.” This has strongly influenced his daughter’s aggressive thinking even towards her fellow teammate whom she perceives to be a threat to her place on the podium.
PhD. Michael Kanters states a child’s development and socialization are mainly influenced by their parents. Studies have been done to demonstrate that young athletes imitate the attitude and actions of their parents. Many parents feel they are aiding their child to implement their dreams, but is it the child’s or the parent’s dream?
Sally White, journalist for medicine and science in sports wrote: parents, who make different attributions and hold different beliefs regarding the relative importance of effort versus outcome, may communicate those beliefs to their children, thereby influencing their children’s achievement-related cognition and subsequent behavior. In other words, as parents of athletes, we have some bearing on their behaviors and attitudes when it comes to participation and sportsmanship in their sport.
With the strong, competitive nature of sports, parents can unintentionally be overly aggressive without realizing their approach because they desire what is paramount for their competitor. Often, this creates a negative experience for their child. I agree winning is gratifying, but there has to be an improved method for encouraging our athletes to achieve their gifted abilities without crushing their spirits. Ann Michelle Davis wrote “Developing the appropriate atmosphere could certainly make a positive vehicle for youth development with cooperation skills are taught in the sports environment of the competitive arena.” This illustrates the idea of encouraging and fostering good sportsmanship while being competitive with other participants.
Author T. Orlick, composed “people playing with one another rather than against another, they play to overcome challenges, not to overcome people, and they are freed by the very structure of the game to enjoy the play experience itself” This philosophy enables the young athlete to view their participation as a learning prospect to advance their skills and appreciate the talent of their rivals to enhance their abilities.
If coaches and parents utilized the cooperation style in the mindset of their players, then teammates would view the individual efforts of each other as being important as the skill of each member. This would foster encouragement among players to conquer challenges, not conquer people. Therefore, each team member would put forth their best endeavors and skill in order to help the team attain its objective of being the finest.
I agree that effort does produce results, but young athletes need to be taught good sportsmanship qualities in a positive reinforced setting. Pressures need to be reduced on our young participates; so they can take pleasure in the activity of their sport. Parents have the ability to mold the minds of their young competitors through example.
Give Them Choice and Controversy
John Bonner
English 102-009
Christy Vance
11/12/09
Now why is it that in all public schools we do not teach both sides of the argument of Evolution vs. Creationism? I want to begin in saying that I understand the usefulness of teaching Evolution and I am in no way going to argue that we should not teach it. The lessons that can be learned from Evolutionism are essential to our educational growth.
Evolutionist, and myself included, have had a lot of reasons for fighting against the teaching of Creationism. Just to get the obvious out of the way, the Bible or the myths that followed have almost no scientific base and are almost completely irrational, so thus they shouldn’t be taught on that reason alone. What I want to look at is the underlying facts of creationism. To look at a system that solely teaches Creationism can be found in church youth groups.
In an article by Bradi Noriega, she described how to make your youth group better or more effective. As I read this article I started noticing strange similarities with how warrior based cultures transformed the youth. I have personally experienced this gathering and can say, with remorse, that after words I immediately regretted attending. In Noriega’s article she explained the teaching template, first you gather all the local children of the same faith. Secondly you get them to play games that build camaraderie with one another. Then after these children have bonded, you stop the game, gather them in a circle, and teach them your interpretation of the Bible. Along with the lesson of the Bible they, unfortunately, also teach who to dislike.
Compare this template to that of the Romans around 40 BC. I have just recently read a novel by Conn Iggulden that told of the life of Julius Gaius Cesar, most notably is his childhood. During his childhood he would venture to Rome with his father and while there he would take part in an important tradition. He would gather with all the local children and wrestle and race their horses, afterwards they would be taught lessons in fighting, war, and theology. So like youth groups, you build camaraderie and teach them biased interpretations.
If John Locke, a 19th century philosopher, is correct in thinking that we are all born with blank slates, and that whatever we are taught we come to believe is fact. No matter what is taught, whether it is that all Carthaginians are evil or that God created everything. If we in fact are born with blank slates then it is more than important that what we take in should be considered valuable and recommended.
In defense of teaching creationism, one should look at the morality factor. In other words I believe that teaching creationism would give lessons in morality to those who can’t justify moral actions on their own. Hence to a rational person you just don’t steal and murder, for it is wrong, but to some they need to be told that it is a sin to murder and steal.
There really is no conclusion to this question of what and how you should teach, all I can do is present the facts and let you decide for yourself. With that you should also consider a resolution that was passed by the United Nations. It was called the Rights of Children under Article 14, it stated that children be allowed the freedom of religion. With that freedom of religion come freedom of choice, so let us give it to them. If we give the children an unbiased teaching atmosphere they are more likely to form their own opinions.
English 102-009
Christy Vance
11/12/09
Give Them Choice and Controversy
When it comes to teaching students, it has always seemed to me that you need controversy to form personal opinion. First you start with the foundation of both arguments, as to build the background, and then you have to pose a question in regards to the foundation you just taught. This process creates questions and with any luck an answer or opinion is formed.Now why is it that in all public schools we do not teach both sides of the argument of Evolution vs. Creationism? I want to begin in saying that I understand the usefulness of teaching Evolution and I am in no way going to argue that we should not teach it. The lessons that can be learned from Evolutionism are essential to our educational growth.
Evolutionist, and myself included, have had a lot of reasons for fighting against the teaching of Creationism. Just to get the obvious out of the way, the Bible or the myths that followed have almost no scientific base and are almost completely irrational, so thus they shouldn’t be taught on that reason alone. What I want to look at is the underlying facts of creationism. To look at a system that solely teaches Creationism can be found in church youth groups.
In an article by Bradi Noriega, she described how to make your youth group better or more effective. As I read this article I started noticing strange similarities with how warrior based cultures transformed the youth. I have personally experienced this gathering and can say, with remorse, that after words I immediately regretted attending. In Noriega’s article she explained the teaching template, first you gather all the local children of the same faith. Secondly you get them to play games that build camaraderie with one another. Then after these children have bonded, you stop the game, gather them in a circle, and teach them your interpretation of the Bible. Along with the lesson of the Bible they, unfortunately, also teach who to dislike.
Compare this template to that of the Romans around 40 BC. I have just recently read a novel by Conn Iggulden that told of the life of Julius Gaius Cesar, most notably is his childhood. During his childhood he would venture to Rome with his father and while there he would take part in an important tradition. He would gather with all the local children and wrestle and race their horses, afterwards they would be taught lessons in fighting, war, and theology. So like youth groups, you build camaraderie and teach them biased interpretations.
If John Locke, a 19th century philosopher, is correct in thinking that we are all born with blank slates, and that whatever we are taught we come to believe is fact. No matter what is taught, whether it is that all Carthaginians are evil or that God created everything. If we in fact are born with blank slates then it is more than important that what we take in should be considered valuable and recommended.
In defense of teaching creationism, one should look at the morality factor. In other words I believe that teaching creationism would give lessons in morality to those who can’t justify moral actions on their own. Hence to a rational person you just don’t steal and murder, for it is wrong, but to some they need to be told that it is a sin to murder and steal.
There really is no conclusion to this question of what and how you should teach, all I can do is present the facts and let you decide for yourself. With that you should also consider a resolution that was passed by the United Nations. It was called the Rights of Children under Article 14, it stated that children be allowed the freedom of religion. With that freedom of religion come freedom of choice, so let us give it to them. If we give the children an unbiased teaching atmosphere they are more likely to form their own opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)