Slashdot Mirror
Texas Board of Education Supports Evolution
somanyrobots writes with this excerpt from the Dallas News:
"In a major defeat for social conservatives, a sharply divided State Board of Education voted Thursday to abandon a longtime state requirement that high school science teachers cover what some critics consider to be 'weaknesses' in the theory of evolution. Under the science curriculum standards recommended by a panel of science educators and tentatively adopted by the board, biology teachers and biology textbooks would no longer have to cover the 'strengths and weaknesses' of Charles Darwin's theory that man evolved from lower forms of life. Texas is particularly influential to textbook publishers because of the size of its market, so this could have a ripple effect on textbooks used in other states as well."
Evolution is not the only theory taught in school. Gravity is another theory. I suppose that Texas schools should teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of the Theory of Gravity, too.
Official policy really has very little to do with what gets taught in the classroom. Even in Biology, which is the only place that evolution gets mentioned, the textbooks have been very evolution-friendly for years. Of course in that, they have been focused on lots of aspects of evolution that have been disproven, like human fetuses having gills and other similar things. And of course, the real control over this content lies with the teachers, who for the most part teach science and the scientific method, which really doesn't support most of the conclusions that evolution-science come to since they aren't based on observation. Whether or not intelligent design is discussed officially in the textbooks makes no difference in the end, but science does get taught properly in most classrooms.
Yet for some reason Darwin's theory of evolution gets picked out so that teachers must highlight its weaknesses. Why might this be?
The TFA said the scientific community widely accepts Darwin's theory, while biblical proponents reject the theory. Thus, the state board forced teachers to teach pros and cons in the 1980s.
I guess the debate was so serious that the state board had to compromise to satisfy the creationism parties (who can be rich and powerful).
I guess evolution is a really thorny part of religion (specifically, blind belief). If students understand that humans are developed from fish and apes, then creationists have a harder time pushing their own agenda to these students.
Any idea whether churches in Texas in the 1980s actually had to report their income, pay taxes, and donate the proceedings to poor people and worthy causes?
I think it would be valuable if schools taught methods and logic. Not just knowledge, but also the way of how knowledge can be arrived at. Teach people what is and what isn't a conclusive argument, point out the factors that complicate deriving valid conclusions from one's observations, and show that how experiments can be set up to minimize those factors. Preferably also teach statistics, so that people can calculate the probability of two things being corerlated vs. the probability that an observation is due to other factors.
All these are valuable skills, not specifically in the evolution debate, but in every aspect of life.
As for my stance on religious issues...I am convinced that we have no conclusive evidence one way or the other on most of them, and I would say that, until we do (which I think will never happen) everyone should be free to believe as they do. Nothing gives me the right to force my beliefs on you, and the same applies in the other direction.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Evolutionary biology has changed quite a bit since Darwin. Many specific things Darwin said are wrong. But his fundamental idea is still right.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
It's not like a high school freshman is going to be scarred for life by hearing two sides of an argument. "These people believe this for this reason. These other people believe this for this other reason."
They might not be scarred for life, but they won't learn much science. Scientific debate isn't about valuing everybody's opinion - its about objectivity, logic and evidence.
This isn't even about a debate between science and faith: its a debate between science and bogus pseudo-scientific FUD which attempts to dress religious fundamentalism up as science. Even mainstream religion thinks the debate is absurd.
There are almost certainly gaps and weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution. However, it still explains more than any other theory on offer, and you don't throw it out because it fails to dot a few "i"s - at least not until you have a new, better theory.
When Newton's theory of gravitation failed to accurately predict the orbit of Mercury, the scientific community didn't throw Principia on the fire and go back to crystal spheres and epicycles - it went on to make good use of the understanding given by what Newton's theories did predict, until that smart guy with the bad hair came up with a better theory which someone then went out and proved. That's how science is supposed to work.
PS: I'm all for books on evolution having a label in them which points out that its a theory with which some people disagree provided that, in return, every copy of the Bible is required to have a preface by Richard Dawkins. Fair's fair, eh? :-)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Children are impressionable. They are (usually) unable to weigh the pros and cons of arguments and instead defer to authority figures. There are some theories which are not legitimately challenged in today's scientific world.
Maybe in grade school - but I don't think I've ever met a high schooler (myself included when I was in HS) so impressionable.
The whole DHMO thing is really an unfair example, as it involves misleading scare tactics (100% of people who consume it die, for example). That's not presenting an opposing idea and letting people come to their own conclusion, but rather intentionally presenting well-known facts in extremely misleading and overcomplicated ways in an attempt to trick them - it's more of a trivia test and social experiment than anything else. While I don't support teaching creationism or intelligent design in schools by any means, they're not really leveraging those tactics in order to make people believe in them (aside from the whole "do as I say lest you burn in hell for all eternity" thing, anyways).
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Has anybody thought about the fact that this is an intrinsically (north)american problem?
The evolution versus superstition issue is only one symptom of a much bigger problem in our schools, which is that they are rewarded for failure. Unlike the European system, where schools have to compete for students, in the USA children are simply assigned to schools geographically or politically. This has been going on long enough, that far too few Americans are capable of critical thinking. This is good for politicians who want docile followers, but very bad for the people.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think they are headed the wrong direction with this.
Evolutionary theory is vastly unimportant compared to a lack of Scientific Method. I see the requirement of showing weaknesses in Darwinian Evolution as forcing the employment of Scientific Method on difficult, emotion laden, and controversial issues. Beating the method into young impressionable skulls is far more important than whether they believe in creation by amoeba or creation by God. Teach them to think, don't tell them what to believe.
Just IMO.
-D
well, you might be right there. With all these battles about what to teach, there is probably no room for teaching critical/logical thinking. There are quite some ex-teachers that claim that the basic purpose of the school system is not to bring out the best in each student, but to deliver working and middle class drones. As few as possible top student should be delivered, as this favours the ruling elite that can afford to sent their kids to better private schools...
Not that I think that the people on this board are actively planning that, but if their main feature is what party they represent, I assume them not to be very educated in educational science.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Not that I have anything against Texas but the reason these people make (subtle) anti-science and greenie bashing a political platform could be due to either power/money/ignorance, regardless of which one it is, ignorance amoungst their followers is the sole reason they get away with it.
The situation is the same as practically everything else in this world - the people in charge are either trying to not look like complete fucking idiots, or are trying to milk you out of all your money. If you have taken up an indefensible position, you can either admit that you're a tard, or you can defend it unto death. A lot of people will assume that means you're right, or at least have a point, even when this is the farthest thing from the truth.
IMHO Dawkins and Sagan are correct in that science is taught as a "dictonary of facts", the philosophy of science is largely ignored by the education system and consequently misunderstood/ignored by the public at large.
That isn't really a problem, though. The idea that we all should receive and/or need the same level of education is pretty silly - and what I'm saying is that some people could stop after, say, Junior High school, and I only really want them to go there if we can reinstitute home ec, woodshop, metal shop, auto shop etc for kids of that age.
To my mind, the problem is really twofold: the people who want the education can't get it, and the people who want to educate them aren't allowed to. They aren't permitted to educate by the system which defines the bullshit curriculum (anyone else here learn about columbus "discovering" america in elementary school?) and they aren't permitted to give the most education to the kids who will benefit the most because of standardized testing. That shit has been going on for ages, but the No Child Left Behind act is a particularly egregious little piece of unfunded mandate.
Due to the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence I can no longer belive a politician can (legitimately) keep using ignorance as an excuse to poo-poo global warming and/or evolution. Therefore the root cause of the cherry-picked "science" found in the opinion columns of the mass-media and subsequently regurgitated by a million ignorant bloggers - must be money and/or power.
Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding. Coal and oil are "killing the planet" (read: rendering it unsuitable for our habitation.) But they sure are profitable.
Premptive Al Gore reply: I'm not from the US, I haven't seen his film. I had already read the IPCC reports and didn't see the point, from the reviews of Gore's film by IPCC scientists, (and later their answers to critics), I would have to conclude his slide show was an accurate representation of the reports. OTOH: Just because the doco is accurate does not mean Gore's motivations for presenting it are intellectually honest.
Well, people who are acquainted with things like physics can do the math themselves and see that the CO2 is going to poison the oceans. That's the kind of thing that makes me wonder how many different reasons to stop spewing various pollutants and undesirable gases we're going to need. To see the blooms in cancer rates downwind (and in the general area of) refineries, smelters, power plants, and so on, and then not make the connection that we need to fix this problem (we can find out-of-regulation smokestacks as fast as we can find money to send people up them in this country, no joke) takes a whole different kind of lack.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There are quite some ex-teachers that claim that the basic purpose of the school system is not to bring out the best in each student, but to deliver working and middle class drones.
I know personally (though not well) a current teacher who straight tells his students that they had better listen because they are being prepared to go into prison or the military, and if they want a chance to escape that fate, they are going to need some tools.
Unfortunately there is definitely no time to teach these kids what they actually need to know. The curriculum requirements due to the No Child Left Behind shit leave the instructors at the school where he teaches with negative fifteen minutes in the day to teach other material, assuming that calling roll, getting students seated and on topic et cetera takes zero minutes. That is obviously not enough...
The problem is compounded by the fact that (the majority of) teenagers are biologically incapable of functioning at full capacity before about 10 or 11 am, and they rarely start school later than 8:15. I know that I myself regularly had mathematics in the first period... but anecdotes aren't really all that useful. Still, I am mathematically challenged today, a serious impediment for a nerd.
Add to that the culture of violence (little Lord of the Flies bastards) in the school that causes everyone to need to toe the line in order to be permitted to exist without physical abuse, let alone the continual emotional abuse, peer pressure, et cetera and it's a wonder anyone ever learns anything in public school. What is less amazing is that for the most part, people come out of school very much fit into a traditional mold. We are taught that our success will be measured by our fiscal accomplishments. Then they teach us to sit in rows and do as we are told. The system was originally designed to produce factory workers, and it works very well. Too bad we exported all our manufacturing jobs and convinced ourselves we were the smartest people on the planet who would surely find a way to pull money out of thin fucking air.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is the part that bothers me most when I hear Creationist attacks--often they're attacking the original theory, not how it is now. Like you said, the theory of evolution has, um, evolved quite a bit. And the most exciting discoveries are happening right now.
"The idea that we all should receive and/or need the same level of education is pretty silly"
I wouldn't advocate that either, except for the basics of reading/writing. What I am suggesting is that skeptical think should be part of the basics as it ENABLES you to learn. Skeptical thinking is a skill, it doesn't tell you what to learn, it tells you how to learn and can be taught in a short amount of time (less than what it takes to memorise multiplication tables). The difficult part is getting people to be skeptical of their own "common sense" (in particular many of the teachers).
Interesting you bring up Columbus. Captain Cook is the Aussie equivalent. My history lessons comprised 10yrs worth of Captin cook, McArthur and his damm sheep, no mention of WW2 that my parents generation had endured. History is prologue but what I encountered in school was propoganda. Yes Australian history is important in Australia but leaving out the natives, the rest of the world, and the events of the 20th century is a tad over the top and totally useless to anyone except a scholar of the first half of Australian settlement, (who would know it's mostly crap anyway).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.