Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Texas Board of Education Supports Evolution

Posted by Soulskill on from the reasons-to-say-the-word-texas-in-a-dubious-voice dept.

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."

19 of 344 comments (clear)

  1. Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses by Szentigrade · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm all for teaching evolution but would someone please explain to me what the issue was with teaching the strengths and weaknesses? If science teaches us anything it is that we should always continue to question and refine our studies, not idly stand by and accept them as fact. No one is saying we have to introduce creationism or try to make evolution appear only as a theory (which some might argue it still is), but there is no reason we need to teach our students to blindly accept it as fact, without doubt or admission of weakness. This is not the spirit of science and frankly not in the best interest for those who probably already don't care that much about it. Whats gives?

    --
    When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up... reading.-Henny Youngman
    1. Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm all for teaching evolution but would someone please explain to me what the issue was with teaching the strengths and weaknesses?

      I would guess that they singled out evolution for this. They didn't demand that they teach the strengths and weaknesses of Newton's theory of gravity, or Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, or Dalton's atomic theory of matter. Yet for some reason Darwin's theory of evolution gets picked out so that teachers must highlight its weaknesses. Why might this be?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're absolutely right in principle, but in practice, the specific "weaknesses" that are used by opponents to evolution have been shown to be absolutely wrong. Usually 150 years ago.

      If there are significant weaknesses in Darwin's theory, they should be presented through peer-reviewed mainstream science, not shoved down students' throats by official decree.

      (And before one argues that scientists aren't willing to hear objections to their beloved theory, it's worth pointing out that there *are* some well-accepted biological oddities that add wrinkles to Darwin's theory, such as horizontal gene transfer. But nobody outside the sciences talks about them, because they don't require a supreme being.)

    3. Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses by jrothwell97 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...but any alternative theory to gravity doesn't involve a shiny, beardy sadist living on a cloud creating a massive, yet deeply flawed universe in 144 hours.

      --
      Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    4. Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses by Jens+Egon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hope they do teach the strengths and weaknesses of Newton's theory of gravity. It is after all:

      1. wrong
      2. useful
    5. Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think that we maybe have a stronger case for gravity than for evolution...

      No, we haven't. Newtons theory is just one of many plausible models to explain the physics of the world. It has it's strengths and weaknesses like all the other models.

      The theory of evolution is the only plausible model we have to explain/understand the diversity of life. It's also the most scrutinised scientific theory.

      Unlike gravity, we have yet to find cases where the theory of evolution won't hold.

    6. Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses by jabithew · · Score: 5, Informative

      Newton's theory of gravity is known to be wrong.

      It incorrectly predicts the orbit of Mercury.
      It cannot explain gravitational lensing.
      It assumes that gravity is instantaneous, when we know it must be limited by the speed of light.

      Newton's theory is a very useful shortcut, as it is right most of the time. But it's been proven to be wrong. It's just good-enough wrong.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    7. Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now now, there's no need to bring RMS into this...

    8. Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses by RichardJenkins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm surprised that post hasn't been modded insightful. Newton is 'incorrect' in the sense that using general relativity can make more accurate predictions. It's a wonderful example of how an imperfect model can be a useful.

      At the end of the day I don't care if high school students graduate without knowing their fermions from their bosons. The most valuable thing kids can take from it is that they develop rationality, critical thinking skills and the ability to understand how to reason objectively.

      If someone can do those three things well it won't matter if people try to poison them with religious rhetoric.

      Hmm, apologies - this post turned into something of a rant.

    9. Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But Newtonian physics is not wrong. It's limited in its useful scope. However, that useful scope happens to be vast. Indeed usefulness within a limited, well-defined scope might well serve as a definition of a scientific theory. Here "scope" means a set of phenomena, and "usefulness" means the ability to draw inferences from a set of facts in the scope that will correctly predict other facts within that scope.

      Newton's theory of gravitation's usefulness doesn't extend to the range of phenomena that the modern theories of quantum physics and relativity cover. It should be noted of relativity and quantum physics that as yet, neither works where the other works. So by any definition of the word "wrong" that includes Newtonian physics, all of modern physics would have to be called "wrong" as well.

      Imagine that there was a religious sect based on the propositions of quantum physics. It adherents would surely regard relativity as heresy, and point to many ways that relativity was "false". In fact, they'd have solid, empirical proof that relativity was "wrong".

      What's broken here is the notion that science somehow deals with the truth of theories. This notion is so far off track that it isn't even "wrong"; it's just confused. The very concept of an absolute truth is inherently unscientific. How could you possibly know you had absolute truth? You could unify all the known branches off physics, but that wouldn't prove you know everything there is to know about the subject. In Galileo's time, physics was synonymous with mechanics. Any unified theory of physics in that time would miss entire branches of physics that have been discovered since then.

      We've lost sight of this, but what Newton essentially did was to unify the physics of his day. His three laws of motion summarize a vast amount of that physics, in that the predict phenomena as apparently different as the trajectory of a cannon ball and Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Newton's laws remain "true" for every area of application that existed in his day. That they don't work for things like modern solid state physics or cosmology is undeniable, but thinking this matters misses the point.

      Some years ago, there was a popular recording of humpback whale "songs". It's marvelous, and surprising that humans have an artistic response to whale communication. It's wonderful that that response leads people to be interested in whales, to appreciate their beauty and majesty. But if we lose sight of the fact that the whales communicate for their own reasons, not to entertain us, then the whole human cultural phenomenon becomes a farce.

      So, it is fine and good to find religious inspiration in science, as Baruch Spinoza did. But imposing religious ideas like absolute truth on science misses the thing which makes science science: a focus on empirical usefulness rather than "truth".

        Perhaps we should talk less of a theory's "truth" as a theory's "scope". Completely untrue theories would have an empty scope. All other theories have different scopes of utility.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Yet for some reason Darwin's theory of evolution gets picked out so that teachers must highlight its weaknesses. Why might this be?"

      I agree with the GP's point: Pointing out weakness' in a theory is how it becomes stronger.
      I agree with your caveate: All disagreements must be intellectually honest.

      Evolution is nowhere near as contraversial as when I went to school in the 60's, a time when tectonic plates and black holes were also contraversial, science has convincingly won all three very public arguments over the last 40yrs (150yrs in the case of evolution). Of more immediate concern is the current FUD from global warming psudeo-skeptics (coinidentally they are also particularly strong in Texas). 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.

      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. Evidence for this is not hard to find, just count the number of "climate fools" here on slashdot, they espouse all manner of nerdy sounding but thougoughly debunked scientific red-herrings, not because they are stupid but becuase their lack of understanding as to what "scientific skepticisim" means makes them easy prey for intellectually dishonest politicians and their sponsors.

      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.

      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.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps because the theory of evolution has had a profound impact on Western thought, far more so than any other scientific theory I can think of.

      In what way? And how does this relate to the question?

      And because although scientists can explain how they think evolution might have occurred, the scientific method can't be used to actually directly test the "origin of the species" - it isn't repeatable.

      The scientific method can be used in a variety of ways, from demonstrating the process, to making predictions about evidence that would have to exist, or could not exist, and then looking for that evidence. There are very few scientific theories that require you repeat the entire process that the theory explains in order to know it works. Relativity, for example, can be proven to work in principle, but when you use it to determine why Mercury rotates around the Sun faster than Newtonian physics suggests you're generally not required to build a huge frickin' ball of fire in the middle of space and a giant, Mercury-sized ball of rock to go with it.

      That one's interesting too, actually. The theory of relativity is generally not considered that controversial, but actually it doesn't fully explain why Mercury's orbit around the Sun isn't Newtonian, 'cos it's not entirely consistent with Relativistic physics either. Evolution seems, by and large, to be less controversial within the scientific community than most modern laws of physics, and yet it's the one that's picked on by school boards. Why is that?

      And perhaps also because the theory of evolution depends on the pre-existence of DNA, and there is currently no satisfactory explanation for how it originated.

      Satisfactory to whom? There are a variety of theories as to how RNA and DNA came into being. Nor does the theory of evolution depend upon the "pre-existence" of DNA, on a wider level, DNA is just another successful development, with other proto-"genetic storage systems" failing to survive in the same chemical soup. Had a different genetic storage system developed in the soup, that was developed earlier and was as effective as DNA, some other living being would be having this discussion right now, but that living being would also have evolved and would recognize the theory of evolution as a theory.

      And finally, because many proponents of evolution are every bit as religious about their beliefs as the ID'ers.

      Even if this were true, it's also entirely irrelevant. ID is, regardless of its supporters, not a scientific theory. Evolution, regardless of its supporters, most certainly is.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  2. other "theories" by david+in+brasil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:other "theories" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, gravity is easy to test.

      Theory of evolution is also fairly easy to test, and that was done before. Scientists from around the world used populations of fast-reproduction species (mostly bugs), and placed them in specific conditions. After some time - features useful for living in these new conditions were developed. This looks like definitive proof done in the lab for me.

      On the other hand you just can look into fossilized bones of ancient species, or remains of our own predecessors - go, figure out yourself.

      I understand that a "weakness" of theory of evolution would be a claim that changes in species appear randomly vs. deterministic. But knowing how strong anti-evolution-redneck-lobby is in USA, I would expect something like "it's not the way it's described in the Bible".

      I live in Europe, in *very* conservative an catholic country (90% of populations are catholics), but anyone who would say evolution is bullshit would looked at like he was crazy.

  3. Re:Fracking Halleluja by tannhaus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pshhhh haven't you heard? Gravity is just a theory....

  4. Re:Fracking Halleluja by knutkracker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surprised to find you're reduced to using Slashdot to spread your message. What happened to the clearly more efficient (for you) method of direct revelation?

    Still wondering about why you don't prevent bad things from happening if you are in fact the loving god you claim to be. - Heathens

  5. Re:Evolution vs Creationism by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative

    We are apes!. And it is very likely that a fish, likely to be a Sarcopterygii of some type, was one of our ancestors. The Sarcopterygii includes the lungfishes, which as the name implies, were fish that evolved lungs and whose fins developed into stubby "limbs", allowing them to "walk" on land.

    If the GP had mentioned a specific ape (like a monkey) or a specific fish (like a trout), then yeah, the objection would have been correct for that, but apes are a superfamily, not a specific species, and fish are similarly not a species but an enormous group of centered around, but not including, the tetrapods. Apes did evolve from something that evolved from fish, and our ancestor was another ape, just like us.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  6. Re:Fracking Halleluja by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
        "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
        "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

  7. Re:Fracking Halleluja by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I understand that you believe in evolution and you don't believe in God, and maybe you think the two are mutually exclusive. But would you agree that, if there are weaknesses in the theory, discussion of the weaknesses should be swept under the rug because it's your favorite theory?