 |
|
Daylife/AP Photo by Matt Slocum
|
| Proponents of an old-fashioned Texas-style education |
The latest round in a long-running battle over how evolution should be taught in Texas schools began in earnest Wednesday as the State Board of Education heard impassioned testimony from scientists and social conservatives on revising the science curriculum.
The debate here has far-reaching consequences; Texas is one of the nation’s biggest buyers of textbooks, and publishers are reluctant to produce different versions of the same material.
Many biologists and teachers said they feared that the board would force textbook publishers to include what skeptics see as weaknesses in Darwin’s theory to sow doubt about science and support the Biblical version of creation.
“These weaknesses that they bring forward are decades old, and they have been refuted many, many times over,” Kevin Fisher, a past president of the Science Teachers Association of Texas, said after testifying. “It’s an attempt to bring false weaknesses into the classroom in an attempt to get students to reject evolution.”
Even as federal courts have banned the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in biology courses, social conservatives have gained 7 of 15 seats on the Texas board in recent years, and they enjoy the strong support of Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican.
The chairman of the board, Dr. Don McLeroy, a dentist, pushed in 2003 for a more skeptical version of evolution to be presented in the state’s textbooks, but could not get a majority to vote with him. Dr. McLeroy has said he does not believe in Darwin’s theory and thinks that Earth’s appearance is a recent geologic event, thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion as scientists contend.
Business leaders, meanwhile, said Texas would have trouble attracting highly educated workers and their families if the state’s science programs were seen as a laughingstock among biologists.
Some might say that being a laughingstock in Texas – is not limited to biology.
# 59 Hugh Ripper said, “More like the same way many observed your posts and came to the conclusion that you’re trolling.”
Ah yes, ad hominem. The last resort of the brutally owned. LOL
#62 Paddy
Actually, in your blind haste to troll my post, you chose an unfortunate example. Now I wasn’t going to feed the troll as it is a futile and time consuming process, and only encourages the buggers, but I now feel that my honor has been sullied. Allow me to retort, sir troll.
Once upon a time here was a chap called Copernicus. Now this chap, through his observations, came to the conclusion that the earth was not the center of the universe, and that it was in fact the earth that revolved around the sun, and that the sun was the center of the universe.
Copernicus published a book about his observations, which came to the attention of the Catholic Church. It seems that it was the view of the church that his ideas were “false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture”, and essentially banned the book and the ideas it contained. This position was not reversed until the around 1850.
Does this sound at all familiar?
# 63 Hugh Ripper said, “Actually, in your blind haste…”
Actually, it was Aristrachus in the 3rd century BC that discovered this and was ridiculed by Ptolemy and his contemporaries who formed a consensus (much like the Global warming cabal of today) that the Earth did not move and was the center of the universe.
But, lacking a real education, you didn’t know that…
Sorry, brutally owned again…
#64 Paddy-O
Your non sequitur is noted, but if you keep “owning” yourself like this you may go blind.
Were we taking about who what first to discover what? Having just scanned the posts, I see no such argument, so clearly you have imagined it.
Your trolling skills need some work, sir. Is way to easy to unravel your obfuscations.
#60:
#49 is a legend in his own mind.
PADDY O = evidence that evolution does not always succeed.
Paddy-o said – “I haven’t seen any testable proof to back up your statement”.
YOU haven’t backed up anything you have stated, provided no evidence for your claims, consistently been proven wrong, ignored requests by other users for proof of things you have said, engage in childish point scoring attacks, and shown us all that you are a waste of time and effort.
None of us have seen proof for any of your arguements, you just lift information straight from other peoples websites and plant it here in an attempt to seem smarter than eveyone.
I think you’d be more at home here
http://www.gamingsucks.com/blog – maturity not required.
BRUTALLY OWNED, TROLL
# 15 roland said, in part:
“Everything has to be explained including nature.”
I’m not so sure it’s important to explain _everything_.
For example: why do we park on the driveway and drive on the parkway?
Some things are just too dumb to bother with, except when they are the chairman of your state board of education, I suppose.
Texas is definitely trying to catch “down” to Mississippi…
Here’s a Texas story for you — the friend who told it to me swears it’s true: the bright young student decided to study Greek and Hebrew to read the ancient texts of the Bible, but the student’s pastor was livid! “If English was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for you!” he explained.
Here’s another, or, rather, just the punch line: “Might as well; can’t dance.”
There are many, many learned, highly intelligent, charming, open-minded people in Texas, yet people like # 52 4theBible seem to be the majority of the voters in the state’s 254 counties.
# 67 jimbo said,
Hey! You’re back. How’d your ECT session go today?
about as well as your credibility stands up to the face of questions.
not well
#68 Most Bible colleges teach Greek and Hebrew. Don’t know how the guy became a preacher without going to class for it. To display that little knowledge of the Bible is alarming in a preacher.
#71–Benji==trying to leave an impression that preachers are steeped in study huh? haw,haaaaaw! I’m surprised when I meet a preacher that can read english outside of bible passages. Most appear to be some kind of catholic.
BTW–yes, in all practical application, religion and science are competing inconsistent idealogies/mindsets regarding most issues of import. For various reasons, this great divide is covered up with rhetoric.
#72, Bobbo,
Good point.
The religious like to call science a religion because it competes for minds. Almost all religions claim they are the true way and their text is divinely inspired.
Yup. Good point.
Two people observe something interesting that they have never seen before and have no explaination for:
Non-creationist: Did you see that? What was it? Where did it come from? What does it mean?
Creationist: God did it! Coming to get a beer?