 |
|
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.
#21–Myself==forgot to post the link:
http://putourkidsfirst.com/kidsfirst/nat_science.asp
I fell across the above while searching for the USA ranking which is here:
http://sciencecheerleader.com/2008/12/where_do_us_students_rank_in_science_and_should_we_bring_back_corporal_punishment_to_fix_the_situation/
#24, they are referred to cake decorations here and you don’t have to be married to buy cake decorations.
There are a fair share of people in Texas that would like creationism put in textbooks. There are also a lot of liberal hippies, neocons, super rich and super poor folks in this great state. Save your generalizations and false beliefs about this state so you can go look at the places where each of you live. I enjoy not paying state income tax, the low cost of living and the healthier economy in good ol’ Texas… so shut up.
# 30 Zybch said, “Space ISN’T infinite,”
Really? Not saying it is but, I haven’t seen any testable proof to back up your statement.
Does it really make a difference? Seriously think about this. Will it make a difference to the guy inventing a new piece of technology if the earth is 6000 or 6 billion years old? Will it make a difference to a mathematician when he proves the next revolutionary theorem? Will it make the difference to a farmer when he plants a crop? Will it make a difference to a ag geneticist when he makes a new hybrid crop?
No, it won’t. A belief in creation or evolution will not make a difference in their scientific discoveries. It only makes a difference to evolutionist and creationists. An evolutionist would have a hard time writing papers confirming creation and a creationist would not likely be able to write papers on evolutionists.
I write science fiction. Does it make a difference in my writing if I believe in creation or evolution? Not really. My characters do not generally have debates on creation/evolution. When I world build, I select stars that would likely have planets capable of life. An evolutionist might say that the Hertzberg Russel diagram shows stars that would last this many billions of years, but the creation might say that it was merely a way to sort stars by spectral types and certain spectral types are more likely to support life. Both would reach the same conclusion: this is the star system I am using as a setting in my story.
Creationists are just as curious about the universe as evolutionists. The facts are there to be discovered. The disagreement is how the conclusion is reached. A diverse view on how the universe came to be is not going to change science. A creationist scientist or evolutionist scientist will reach the same conclusion on how the inner workings of the universe work.
There will always be some on both side who have an knee jerk reaction. For example I had a friend that doesn’t believe dinosaurs existed but he is sure that space aliens exist.
I believe in dinosaurs. (I saw their bones.) I am reserving judgment on the space aliens until I see one.
My point is that a belief in creationism doesn’t hold back someone from scientific discovery. My dinosaur dis-believing friend was not smart enough to do science even if he had a pet dinosaur. Ninety-nine point nine percent of creationist believe that dinosaurs existed.
#34–Benji==total FAIL. Many people are discouraged from pursuing any interest in science because of the social/family pressure to be religious. Its why our test scores are only “average” against world competitors and why the asians are out performing us. See the links at post #31.
You are right that people that GET a scientific education can ignore a belief in creationism “if” they somehow have one, but what of all the people who choose NOT to get an education because of their creationist type beliefs????
Sorry, but being antagonistic to science does have consequences.
#35, Some could say that being antagonistic towards God could have consequences too! 😉
# 35 bobbo said, “Its why our test scores are only “average” against world competitors and why the asians are out performing us.”
TOTAL fail. States that are highly secular score worse than Texas in science. THUS, no linkage.
On logic, booboo the troll fails again.
#29
Good to see there are still anarchists around! I’m right with you on the sacred symbolisms, I’ve always hated seeing christ on the cross. From what little I could learn about the teachings of christ in the bible (4 books matthew mark luke and john maybe 5% of the bible) it seems to me the men who chose those symbols werent concerned about christ’s values or wishes.
Hello McFly! Anybody home?
It’s been January 18th “Adoration For Obama Cools Abroad” since DU’s posted an Obama target. Did he fall off the planet or something? Or is that the way it’s going to be around here? Then we’ll only have CNN “to keep them honest.”
I have yet to yammer on about Obama on Letterman’s Great Moments in Presidential Speeches yet. (One assumes he would be on that segment.)
“Roberts, apparently working without a copy of the oath handy, started out by reciting a six-word phrase, but Obama broke in halfway through and repeated the first three.
That seemed to throw the chief justice off stride…”
CNN: http://tinyurl.com/dzby58
C’mon, this is good stuff going to waste. The honeymoon is over.
RBG
#36–Steph==not if the god is worth the worship==ie, an all merciful god.
blah, blah, blah.
That was proven 8+ years ago.
It must be the water! or the jean pool…
Eideard said, “Proponents of an old-fashioned Texas-style education”
Apparently, California would do well to model its science program after Texas’.
Pretty interesting…
D’ students in charge of the school system??
trying to make things understandable in a D’ student way..
I can see NOW, that the D’ grade is smart in its own way. They learned the BASICS needed to get into the gov. and control it..as all the C’ and better students KNOW its a hard road and dont want the job, or at least that the private sector PAYS MORE(or it did until B.jr got the job). Those D’ students got the better jobs, as SMARTER idiots were pushing them and telling them WHAT TO DO.
In his Inaugural Address, Obama said: “We will restore science to its rightful place”
Looks like he has his work cut out for him in Texas.
Are we actually agreeing on something Paddy!?!?! 😉
I got the majority of my primary education in California. I did the first two years of elementary and senior year here in Texas. Let me just say that the standards are way higher out here. “D” isn’t passing in Texas like it was in Cali. I honestly can’t do math to save my life and probably because in Cali they had a new pilot math program every year that we were guinea pigs for. Great programs (by Stanford) that didn’t even supply textbooks!
EPIC FAIL to you Bobbo
Religion does not equal antagonism to science. I am religious, yet I pursued and studied science. In fact my religious beliefs made me more inclined to study science.
Our test scores are low because of the inability to read and write. Asians are out-preforming us because they value family and education more. Their parents make sure the children get a good education. If they don’t they get pulled out of school to work at Nike.
I never said anything about ignoring a belief in creation. I just said that creationist come to the same conclusion through a different pathway.
Do you really see creationists not going to school? Not at all. Creationist go to college. They can identify the parts of an electron or proton. They don’t have to give up belief in creation.
Disagreeing with one theory does not make someone antagonistic to science. Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and Einstein all believed in God. They were all scientists.
One might even argue that the Bible recorded examples of science. (Joseph genetically engineering cattle to cheat his uncle. Elijah and the prophets of Bael using the scientific method.)
The more I read about these idiots at the board of education from Texas the more I believe that a cowboy in the Enterprise was nothing but a big joke.
Uh, EFF YOU to any religious bigots out there using the term ‘christian taliban.’ You demonstrate a stunning ignorance of both terms.
That having been said, creationism has NO PLACE in a science class.
But, there are religious bigots in academia, as well as in blog comments, and those bigots who wish to maintain their dogma, status quo & public funds are an enemy of the scientific method.
As I understand it, science is open ended, ever expanding its knowledge base and should be scrutinized. Lord knows that darwinism is full of inconsistencies, errors & outright fraud. And those weaknesses have not been ‘refuted many, many times over’ – they are very much alive & legitimate.
Text books need to contain those facts to present an honest look at the theory.
The religious bigots are assuming the ‘Biblical version of creation’ in classroom B.S. (which any court would strike down in a heartbeat).
Facts & evidence, not dogma & ideology.
@Benjamin
Newton was a great scientist and mathematician but he was also a religious nutter and believed in Alchemy. Nobody is perfect.
Any teachings that use the literal interpretation of an ancient text who’s original meanings have been edited, obfuscated, mistranslated over many centuries are a joke. Its fine to say that evolution is a theory and that many believe that God(TM) made the earth, but to point to the bible as some sort of objective truth is just plain wrong.
I don’t know why people want to say evolution is fact, is science. Evolution has never been proven, it is not factual nor scientific. The laws of genetics, physics, and a host of other sciences all line up against it. It is a religious belief system. If evolution is true, God doesn’t exist. That is the point. If God doesn’t exist, nobody can speak authoritatively about the origen of the universe. If (1) the process of evolution is not real in our present world, and (2) nobody saw it nor could report it because they were not observing the process, then evolution is a hokey theory that is more unproven and against science than creationism.
In science you cannot prove universal negatives. Science can only make declarations about what it observes. Evolution is neither observable now, nor in the past. The “missing link” is not one single example, but a host of links between species that should be equally abundant as the fossil evidences of the present animals. Where are these millions of links? They don’t exist. Science has so many doubts when it tries to support the religion of evolution that it digs itself a deep hole that nobody can get out of.
The bloggers for John Dvorak should stay off the support of the evolution religion because it is not scientific, not true, and it promotes a belief system (against fact or science) that has no place in this blog! It is offensive to see your ignorance at every turn.
@4theBible
Get thee to a mental institution. I don’t think you would know science if it bit you on the bum.
#52 “Evolution is neither observable now, nor in the past”
I think you’ll find that it is observable. Certainly more so than creationism. How do you think that Darwin came to his conclusions. Though observation of course.
http://tinyurl.com/cstsnw
#53–good one!!! I just wish the well represented atheists on this blog wouldn’t waste our time pretending to be a nut case.
OK–we get it, but you are being too heavy handed to be taken seriously.===Seriously. Tone it back to a discussion that “macro-evolution cannot be demonstrated” or something with just a bit of justification?
Good demonstration of what “God in the Gap” types would post like if they really existed as real people.
# 52 If only bill hicks was alive to see that comment …
# 46 Stephanie said, “Are we actually agreeing on something Paddy!?!?!”
That you choose to live in Texas shows that you are more intelligent than most on this board. 😉
# 54 Hugh Ripper said, “I think you’ll find that it is observable. Certainly more so than creationism. How do you think that Darwin came to his conclusions.”
The same way many observed the sky and came to the conclusion that the sun orbited the Earth?
That was TOO easy.
#54 Paddy-O
More like the same way many observed your posts and came to the conclusion that you’re trolling.
Even easier…
#49, 1901,
Lord knows that darwinism is full of inconsistencies, errors & outright fraud. And those weaknesses have not been ‘refuted many, many times over’ – they are very much alive & legitimate.
Ok, fine. Maybe you could enlighten me and explain a few of the inconsistencies, errors & outright fraud they foisted upon my poor little brain.
#13, Olo,
Very good link. I have read that before but lost the link; it’s great to have it back again.