Slashdot Mirror
Texas Vote May Challenge Teaching of Evolution
tboulay writes "The Texas Board of Education will vote this week on a new science curriculum designed to challenge the guiding principle of evolution, a step that could influence what is taught in biology classes across the nation. The proposed curriculum change would prompt teachers to raise doubts that all life on Earth is descended from common ancestry. Texas is such a large textbook market that many publishers write to the state's standards, then market those books nationwide. 'This is the most specific assault I've seen against evolution and modern science,' said Steven Newton, a project director at the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching of evolution." Both sides are saying the issue it too close to call. Three Republicans on the school board who favor the teaching of evolution have come under enormous pressure to reform their ways.
This is not an attempt to falsify the teaching of evolution. These backwards magical-thinking buffoons have no evidence, no tests, nothing to point to a different theory; they have a book. A book they believe trumps the evidence of our own eyes and our most advanced scientific methods. These people aren't asking for ID to be taught because they don't think evolution explains the evidence; they are asking for ID to be taught because they don't think.
I am glad they open the way for my scripture to be taught side by side with christian beliefs once they step on this landmine! Prepare the pasta! We have learnin' to do!
I've never understood why religious folk have such a hard time with evolution. I mean, can't they just say "okay, fine, evolution is the process, and God is the architect". Far as I can see, that kind of solves it.
I do not recall any teacher or textbook saying that evolution proves that God doesn't exist. (For me, bigotted religious zealots did quite a good job of that all on their own).
I know there are those born again types who fervently believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old so they'll never be satisfied until the schools are beginning and ending each lesson with a prayer and throw out all textbooks in favor of bibles, but cummon, there have got to be SOME sane people in Texas.
The Digital Sorceress
OK, I'll bite. First of all, evolutionary theory should always be taught as the best theory that fits the available evidence. And it is the best theory. But as a good biology grad, I'm always interested in hearing about holes - so what, in your opinion are the biggest problems and holes?
To what "problems" or "holes" are you referring? Can you name one?
No. Intelligent design creationism allows for no falsification; evolutionary theory on the other hand most certainly does. That is indeed a part of the point; ID is not science because it makes no testable predictions and is for a lack of a better term: worthless. Evolutionary theory by contrast is as has been described by many others to be the very foundation on which one can understand biology.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Telling kids true things is not indoctrination. I suppose your wishy-washy factual relativism would have us teach math students that SOME people believe that 2+2=4, and SOME believe that 2+2=5, and we must NOT SAY that the fivers are wrong, because their god hates to be contradicted. Idiocy.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
What I wish these extremist nuts would understand is that the theory of evolution does not, ipso facto, rule out the possibility of a supernatural creator. Evolution is simply an ever-refining description of how life unfolded on Earth. No one is staking any claim in the theory concerning who or what (if anyone or anything) might have initiated or guided or overseen the process. There are tens of millions of Christian clergy, theologians, and laity who accept evolution as the process that God used to achieve his purposes. Even among evangelicals, most no longer subscribe to the literality of Genesis -- they understand the "six days" of creation as metaphor. They also understand that the Bible is not meant to be a complete, literal history that can be quantified (a la Bishop Usher) to produce a firm figure for the age of the universe.
So, who are these Christians who are on the anti-evolution bandwagon? Not Christians in general. Not even evangelicals. It's a tiny subset that still insists that evolution "denies God," that the universe was literally created in six days, that species were set and defined at the moment of creation, etc. In other words, a minority of a minority of a minority, if you will. And yet, these vastly outnumbered idjits carry incredible weight and influence, especially in the heartland, and people cower in fear of upsetting them.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
First off, Darwin is only marginally close to what current evolutionary theory holds. Really. Darwin didn't even know about genetics and the work that Mendel was doing while he was busy observing finches. Equating "evolution" with "Darwin" is just plain ignorance.
We don't want this enshrined in sanctioned science curriculum because "the cell is too complex to have evolved!" is not an evidence-based, scientific argument. Using that as curriculum will simply encourage kids to have sloppy thinking patterns and be unable to actually tell good science from bad.
Feel free to re-evaluate all the observations you want. The data and experiments are out there. The problem is that when people HONESTLY look at all the data, evolution is really the only answer. And teaching anything other than that is a disservice to our children.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
A theory should always be accepted as necessarily conjectural, and all efforts should be made to falsify the accepted 'best' theory and replace it with a better theory.
The theory of evolution is just as well established as any other scientific theory that is taught in public schools, and should be treated the same way as the others.
When high school science classes start encouraging kids to question the existence of gravity, or to look for alternative explanations for electricity, then we can talk about casting doubt on evolution as well. But to single evolution out for special treatment because certain idiots feel that it threatens their personal superstitions is to condone ignorance -- which is not what science classes are meant to do.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Well, sure, and it also gave us Molly Ivins.
Still, I wonder.
Think about the places that have lots of oil. Nigeria. Saudi Arabia. Venezuela.
Now, think about how enlightened those places are in comparisons to place that built their economy mostly on the industry and ingenuity of their people. Would you rather live in Switzerland or Nigeria? Denmark or Venezuela?
The thing is, if you want to make a lot of money by digging it out of the ground, once you have enough engineers and accountants and such to fill your needs, an intelligent, educated populace doesn't contribute much to the corporate bottom line. They're a pain in the ass, to be frank. They'll complain about environmental costs you foist on them. They'll ask inconvenient questions about the financial aspects of the government's relationship to the extracting companies, like the details of leases for public lands, waivers, permits and the like.
If you're one of the major benefactors of an extraction based economy, you want your average neighbor to be as idiotic as possible. Since making this happen costs money like anything else in this world, you also want them to stay that way. What's the cheapest way of doing this?
You make them proud. You fill their heads with glorious myths and very few hard facts, until they'll fight like hell to stay ignorant.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Science has nothing to do with "using our own minds". I can't determine the existance or non-existance of the Higgins Bossom and my opinion about it is completely worthless, as well as any conclusions I might reach on my own using my studies, judgement, rational thought, whatever... ... because I'm not a physicist, nor do I work, investigate or experiment in the field.
That's the crux of the problem when creationists say "we want both theories to be taught, so the kid can choose for himself". The kid doesn't have the tools to prove or disprove any theory on scientific grounds, and nor should he... ... ultimately, to the common joe, science requires faith. So what's the difference between science and religion then? Science constantly delivers tangible results (as shown by the existence of cloned sheep and the Nintendo Wii) transparently, and is willing to unfold it's full body of knowledge and possibilities to anyone willing to dedicate to it.
As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
"Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation. A theory should always be accepted as necessarily conjectural, and all efforts should be made to falsify the accepted 'best' theory and replace it with a better theory." -Me
This isn't about attacking evolution as dogma. This isn't about attempting to falsify it. This isn't about fighting those who refuse to challenge it. This isn't about halting science by consensus.
This is about a group of non-biologists, led by a dentist who believes that God created all species as they exist today 10,000 years ago, trying to force biology teachers to teach Creationism. These people aren't even pushing for Intelligent Design — they're explicitly against that as well. They want pure Creationism taught as science.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Of course, the obvious answer to that is that the creator carefully placed all the oil where it would be as if it were the product of ancient plants and dinosaurs; and the same goes with all the rest of the Earth's geological strata, all observable astronomical events, etc. Anything older than 4000BC (or whereever else you put the crucial date) is planted evidence.
In other words: if you believe in Creationism, you believe that God is lying to you.
There's no other conclusion to come to. Everything in the universe hangs together too well for it to be a coincidence. Either it all actually happened the way it looks like it happened, or else Someone has spent a great deal of effort arranging things to make it look that way.
There are a number of interesting aspects to this, not least of which is the idea that if the universe has been carefully faked to look the way it does, would it not be against God's will to reject all that and believe something completely different? Might Creationism actually be blasphemous?
This is, by the way, one reason why most scientists reject Creationism (both young-Earth and old-Earth; the only difference between them is philosphical hair-splitting, anyway). Contrary to popular belief, a lot of scientists are deeply spiritual people who believe strongly in their quest to explore the universe. I can easily imagine whole idea that anyone wants to simply dismiss such a wonderful, exotic, complicated thing as being a lie would be deeply distasteful to them --- it certainly is to me.
"If I have seen farther than others, it is only because I stood on the shoulders of giants"
Yes, it's utilitarian. But it's based very strongly on evidence, which is what science is all about. And we're talking about science EDUCATION, not cutting edge theoretical physics. You have to start somewhere.
BTW, Newton's work is very much true in the appropriate domain. Just as with any science. There is no place for including weak nuclear interaction in calculating the motion of planets, just as there is no place for Newton's equations in calculating the probability of an electron's position in the electron cloud.
Understanding domain is a very important science lesson you seem to have missed.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Creationism is not science. It never has been and it never will be.
Creationism is a dark age religion nonsense that people in the 21st century should abolish. People around the world should also abolish there own primitive religions.
There is one good reason for that, among many others to do this. To make the world a better place.
The human race can do so much, and can have so good live. We don't need a world with poverty, wars and disease. The human race is on the technological point that those things can be abolished all together.
Sadly, some people are more keen to hold on there to there own greed, power and religion bad ideas then to improve the world around them.
For the record. I am an atheist and I want the world to be a better place for everyone.
You didn't RTFA, did you? Two specific proposals on the table:
Depending on what those "specific aspects" are, this could in fact be actual, hard science in these textbooks.
But this claim is bollocks... Yeah, and I don't think a photon could ever be a wave and a particle at the same time, because gosh, that just doesn't fit my preconceptions. It's more a comment that he doesn't want to believe in evolution, than anything resembling evidence.
This chairman is clearly incompetent in science -- not because he disbelieves evolution, but because he can't or won't distinguish a scientific argument from a non-scientific one.
P.S. I'm inclined to think his first category of evidence also boils down to "I don't think this could work" but since TFA lacks details I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Intelligent Design is not science, therefor it doesn't belong in the science books or classroom.
How hard is that to understand.
This isn't special protection of evolution, it's protection of the integrity of science. It just happens to be those trying to violate the integrity of science are specifically targeting evolution.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
You can not take every word in the Bible literally. It was not meant to be a literal factual scientific document. It was written to teach people the Word of God.
If you take every word literally, you will run into a great many problems. Not the least of which is Mark 4:31 which states "It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground." Again, this was written to be understood by the common man.
I am not inconsistent in my beliefs. It is the one who does not understand the purpose of the Bible and takes every word literally who will find himself faced with inconsistencies.
The reason the Bible does not go into detail about the creation of the Earth is obvious once you consider the purpose of the Bible: How the Earth was created simply is not important. All that is important is that the Earth is God's creation. This the Bible says clearly, explicitly, and repetitively.
This is not an attempt to falsify the teaching of evolution.
Get a pen and a paper, draw 10 of gene A organisms, and 1 of gene B. Assume gene B organisms reproduce twice as fast, and ideal conditions. Start drawing the generations. Do that until gene B becomes dominant.
Now, falsify the principle you just proved. Mathematics. Reproduction rate sets an exponential curve, the initial conditions are just the polinomial part of the equation. It's not something you can or can not believe in.
If you increase the chance of reproducing of those with a specific gene, that gene will become dominant.
You cannot falsify evolution any more than you can falsify "1 2", because that's what it really is. If you accept the fact that genes exist (even christians know about dogs I believe), and that living organisms tend to reproduce as much as they can, you're already there. (Oh, one more assumption: random genes can appear. We have evidence of that too, just talk to your doctor about the latest flu variant.)
Most Catholics, if they look to the Church for guidance, are fully aware that evolution is acknowledged by the Church.
I'd actually prefer if the Church didn't weigh in on the subject at all, and admitted it's the provenance of science, not faith.
Asking the Church to promote an anti-creationist viewpoint is one step closer to having the Church's opinion taken seriously on other scientific matters.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Probably because it isn't taught in school. One big problem with science education is that it tends to be taught as THE TRUTH without any nuances that show why scientists regard it as reliable and useful. I understand doing this at young ages, but by the age of 12 or so, I'd think most kids can grasp and might even be interested in WHY science is constructed as it is.
Currently hooked on AMP
You do realize that people like you are the ones singling out evolution and making it "special", right? I've never taken a science class that refers to evolution as anything more than the current scientific theory of how man came to be. In a science class, we deal with the observable. Faith and belief have no place in science. We leave those at the door and pick them up later on the way out. God and his/her actions are not directly observable by men, by design. They are therefore NOT science.
The religious camp could as easily have decided to attack the law of gravity and surface tension because Jesus walked on the water. Or the Theory of Relativity because God is everywhere at once. Both cases would make about as much sense as the freaking out over evolution does.
How about this for a compromise: You teach what you want to in church, or a class on religion/philosophy, and scientists will teach what they want to in science class.
Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation
You can criticize the theory of evolution when you earn the right to do so.
You earn that right in a classroom, not in a church.
Religion demands we blindly accept it, and offers nothing as proof other than your own personal belief that it's true.
Science asks that we accept it, and offers a 600 page book written over two decades exhaustively proving it using clearly observable phenomena and repeatable experimentation.
Please tell me you can see the difference.
Asimov wrote an essay called "The Relativity of Wrong" that addresses this. The thrust of it is that scientists make errors and that perfect, absolute truth may be unattainable, but by and large each generation will come up with ideas and theories that are closer and closer to the truth.
A geocentric model of the solar system that involves orbiting bodies is a tad closer to the truth than "it's all painted on a big dome in the sky", and a heliocentric model is closer still. Explain its mechanics like Newton did and you're getting closer. Find out about Relativity and you're really getting somewhere.
Each one is "wrong", but each is less wrong than the one before it.
Jesus Christ people, you don't use an apostrophe to pluralize a noun. Fucking cut that shit out.
Screw evolution, I'd like to see basic literacy skills make a comeback.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
I have yet to see proof that Evolution explains how life began.
It's not supposed to.
That would be abiogenesis, down the hall to your right.
So much for pretending to have the moral high ground.
You need to brush up on what "theory" and "proof" means in science.
And the same goes for the ones who moderated your post "Insightful".
it's in my head
"Questioning a theory is far from wrong, but until there is substantial proof it should remain quietly in the upper echelons of academia, not taught to grade-school students."
If you're saying there is no proof, it's impossible to "prove" without a time machine. However, there's a tremendous amount of strong, dramatic evidence. Certainly there's far more evidence in favour of evolution than there is evidence supporting creationism/intelligent design. If that's not enough, we'll also have to take all other "theories" out of the classroom, starting with the theory of gravity. After all, we only have a large body of evidence that our model of gravity works.
What else are you willing to sacrifice in favour of trimming out all topics but the completely, irrevocably proven ones? Certainly the biology, chemistry and physics textbooks are completely laden with theories as opposed to proven facts.
Social studies, philosophy, and history have also got to go. They are the very definition of theoretical topics. Every article is written by somebody with a subjective viewpoint, and some events reported in the history books probably never happened.
+1
I remember a few years ago there was a test, can't remember if it was national or in one particular state. The purpose of the test was to gauge scientific literacy. One of the questions asked if the reader believed that the universe was formed in a giant explosion billions of years ago. (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of the question.)
I thought that was a ridiculous way to test scientific literacy. I don't believe in the Big Bang, or evolution, or Newtonian mechanics. I accept that certain theories are supported by the overwhelming majority of evidence, and therefore probably best describe the way the universe works. The moment you start believing in something, you've got religion, not science.
Students should be encouraged to question established theories, to gather evidence and think critically about how things work. Unfortunately, whenever someone asks people to question a particular theory, it's usually because they want to push a particular truth.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Look, people say "Germany invaded France in 1941," "The Brazilians have won the World Cup," "the Japanese like raw fish," "Greeks dislike Turkey" etc. all the time, without batting an eye. But when someone makes a categorical claim that includes you, you have a conniption fit? Sorry, get over it. Unless they say "each and every American, bar none, criticizes fundamentalism in Muslim countries, but.." your complaint is an empty one.
no amount of breeding of dogs has produced a non-dog
But breeding of wolves has produced a non-wolf. It's called a dog.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
How about this for a compromise: You teach what you want to in church, or a class on religion/philosophy, and scientists will teach what they want to in science class.
Sorry, that's just too sensible.
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
Students need to actually learn the theories before questioning them.
Not understanding a theory before questioning it and creating your own only makes you a crank. Especially if you don't have reproducible experimental evidence to back yourself up.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
This reminds me of an old saying - you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Be smart, help people!