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.
7. "Sigh." (Non-Protestant-Fundamentalist Christian groups who maintain any less-than-fully-metaphorical creation story but recognize that the proposal described is, in fact, nuts.)
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
everyone else's textbooks. Texas is such a big state that they serve as a de facto standard for textbook companies. If you don't ask your local school board, books written for Texas are likely to show up in your system. How many at Slashdot have ever asked their local school system how, or even if, science in taught in their school system?
How about they teach Evolution and just leave out the part about how the amino acids and the first cellular life arrived.
I mean, scientists still can't give a definitive answer on how the first cells were formed, only some scifi-esque ideas. That question won't be solved until scientists actually create cellular life or observe it form from nutrient soups.
Since student's really don't need to know the details about the planted seed life vs magic combinations of nutrients theories, the curriculum should just omit that part.
Best part is, maybe both parties will stop arguing about the whole issue.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Take oil companies. Finding oil is a very important and high-stakes issue for them. Literally hundreds of billions of dollars are riding on it. When the chips are down and they need to find the most likely spots to drill - what kind of geology do they use? Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plants and dinosaurs, but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?
Why don't fundamentalists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why don't they do this?
(It turns out some people actually are doing this - or, at least, claiming too. But it appears that deeply-held beliefs are easier to exploit than deeply-held oil reserves.)
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
To a certain extent. But Newton's theory is not wrong, not by a long shot. It's just not right on the atomic scale. Newton built his theory on evidence, just as evolutionary theory is built on evidence. Academia held to Newton's theory because it's STILL RIGHT. They still teach Newtonian Mechanics in colleges for a reason. I suppose that's a great comparison, actually... there's so much evidence that evolution is right that the details are all that's left to sort out.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Yes, but *where* is that "better theory"? So far none has emerged, or at least there was none the last time I took a look. Darwinian evolution may be a matter of conjecture, but that does not make the (so far) feeble attempts at science by proposers of ID/creationism any better. Nor does it justify raising doubts in the style of "hey, kids, there is no positive proof of evolution, so how about reading the book of Genesis today and pretending that it's way better than that dull British nonsense?"
Ezekiel 23:20
Less and less humans each year get born without growing wisdom teeth. But I guess that is God's plan. The facts are there if you look. A book written by men that hear voices is not fact.
Evolution is compatible with your believes because you are inconsistent in them, and you choose to randomly accept or reject parts of "The Book" so as to not challenge "your believes". According to the Bible god himself created all animals at once, and presented them to Adam so that he would name them. That implies that all animals were there when the first human walked on earth, and implies that animals are separate creations. And this is only a sample of the incompatibilities...
Except for the fact that this is really just an excuse to teach Intelligent Design (read: NOT SCIENCE) in science class. ID belongs in theology/philosophy classes, NOT biology.
BS. No one in real scientific circles maintains that evolution is inviolate, only that *real* scientific method based critiques are allowed in a science class. If tomorrow a new Einstein emerges in biological sciences and produces a theory that shatters current thinking on Evolution, the science world would be bound to accept it IF it were experimentally tested and proven to be a good working model through the rigorous application of the SCIENTIFIC method. These idiots are not doing this, not by a long shot. By the way it is not a bad thing that it takes some time for new theories to become accepted by the scientific community.
6. "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
So let me get this straight, you think we should entertain the idea of replacing the theory of evolution with the theory that the earth is only 10,000 years old and life came about in it's current form by way of a "magic man"?
How do you go about testing the "magic man" theory?
(I'm not saying you support the "magic man" theory in any way, I somewhat get your point. It's just that they don't want to replace the theory of evolution with a better theory, they want to replace it with "magic".)
Here's a vote for #5 and how about not re-defining words or procedures just because some morons feel like it?
Now, Evolution is a law of nature, not a theory. Natural Selection is a theory. I have no problem with people coming up with theories that fit the scientific method, because THATS HOW YOU FUCKING PLAY THE GAME CALLED SCIENCE.
If someone wants to come up with their own words and rules and whatever, fine, go do it. If they call it science, I'm going to have a major problem with it and the people doing it.
i don't know why this was modded down.
hyperbole it may or may not be -- but these are the idiots who are ok with science as long as it helps them.
for the IDers, it's not about science, or even being right -- it's about control. it's about establishment of their fundamentalist religious views in the classroom. they are facing the continued irrelevance of their religion, and this is their response. if they can't get people to come to church and believe as they do, then they'll try to force it in school.
this is why it's a big deal, not because of a who is right or wrong -- rather that they want to force this sort of indoctrination of children.
anyone who thinks that scientists fighting this are doing so to protect "Darwinism" with the same fervor as the fundamentalists they oppose fails to see the long-term ramifications of anti-intellectualism and anti-science attitudes.
"If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
I think this is more fundamental. There are huge tracks of people who are abandoning the traditional GOP and starting to think for themselves again. Are the republicans going away? Nope, but there is a huge civil war going on within their ranks and I am hoping that true conservatives with actual reasonable counter policies start to win out over the wing nut social conservatives. The social conservatives have shown themselves to be a failed ideology with policies like this evolution one and they are desperate as seen by trying to push this in Texas.
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.
Obviously true, in the same way that finding out that mommy and daddy bought all those presents for you does not, ipso facto, rule out the possibilty of Santa Claus. However at that point if you really want to hang onto your fantasies then Ockham sharpening his razor becomes the stuff of nightmares. Best not to let it get that far.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
"It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods, that I first heard God's spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose -- his purpose." -- Barack Obama
Evolution is compatible with your believes because you are inconsistent in them, and you choose to randomly accept or reject parts of "The Book" so as to not challenge "your believes".
That's the same argument that fundamentalists use against anyone who does not view the Bible or whatever scripture as the literal word of $GOD.
I highly doubt that he "randomly" accepts/rejects parts of the Bible. Rather, he probably uses some sense, and, e.g., rejects parts that conflict with modern science, since, you know, modern science didn't exist until the last few centuries, and the Bible was written well before that. That's hardly random.
You also ignore the fact that all reading involves interpretation, and even so-called literalists interpret various parts of the Bible metaphorically.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
The theory of evolution has roughly the same amount of "proof" (a word entirely inconsistent with the very notion of a "theory") as GRAVITY. I hope you hold your breath every time you jump.
In Canada, we have Science class.. and we have Theology classes.. pick which one you'd like to attend, or attend both.. up to you.
----------------------------
Esobofh - Currently drinking fresh mango juice.
Evidence for creationism:
Evidence for evolution:
Me? I say teach all theories on an equal footing, including the Viking, Roman, Mayan, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Middle Earth, and, yes, the Christian.
But... I have a feeling they'll be just as much against my teaching method as they are against the teaching of evolution.
No sig today...
Texas was an independent nation when it was annexed by the United States. Texans had already fought and won their independence from Mexico. The United States did not provide any overt help to the Texans in their War for Independence; many Americans did come to join the cause of Freedom in Texas, however. It is still an open question as to whether the annexation of Texas was a constitutional act.
The United States then went to war with Mexico because the Mexicans believed that the border with Texas was a few hundred miles North of where the border actually was based on the treaty that ended the Texas War for Independence, and kept crossing over it. The United States kicked the hell out of Mexico and took everything from Texas out to the Pacific.
You might be thinking of how Cuba became a United States territory. We were pissed at the Spanish and one of our ships mysteriously blew up just off the Cuban coast. So we went to war with Spain and took Cuba, the Phillipines, and a lot of other oceanic territory from them. We gave both of those nations back their sovereignty in fairly short order.
They only respect Popes that are anti-gay and against abortion. the last two have been very conservative so they are willing to ally with Catholics on those issues, but most hardcore evangelicals are actually anti-catholic at heart. My dad could tell you lots of stories about that, especially what members of his church said during the election of 1960.
One must first understand the story of Noah is based heavily in Sumarian lore. When civilization was first spawning it's first resou...er cities they choose to stick them in places rather convenient for growing large amounts of food and such.
One of these was near Ur and Lagash and such which just happened to be where the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers come together. Oh! By the way did you know that land there, well that land there, is a low land and in the past was prone to massive flooding.
So yes, to early civilization as the stories and tales spread out from the epicenter of humanity, the entire world DID indeed flood.
--- I do not moderate.
You're right that we can never know a theory to be "right", but it isn't for the reason you describe.
Falsifiability only requires that it be possible in principle (i.e. counterfactually) to produce a counterexample. If a theory were somehow known to be actually true, it would still be falsifiable in the relevant sense so long as it were possible to imagine a test such that if, contrary to fact, the theory was false we could make a test to figure it out.
The real reason we can never know a theory to be correct is because empirical data undetermine theory choice; that is, any set of empirical data is compatible with the truth of more than one theory.
caritj.org
Of course evolution is not exempt from challenges and falsification, but Intelligent Design (creationism) does not qualify. It is not even science.
There is no such thing as macroevolution. It is a term used by creationists and anti-evolutionist either out of ignorance, or an attempt to underhandedly lure others away from science and observation. All evolution takes place at the "micro" level. Speciation is simply the result of many small changes (micro) over a long period of time.
It generally comes down to this. Young-earthers are, probably without exception, biblical literalists. They base their entire belief system on one "truth" - that the bible is the inerrant, indisputable, and irreplaceable "word of god". For them, evolution strikes at the very heart of their beliefs. Their argument, while ludicrous, actually follows a fairly logical progression.
According to Genesis, the world was "good" until Adam and Eve ate the magic fruit at the behest of a talking snake. This introduced "Sin" into god's perfect creation. And you see, god hates sin. It doesn't matter if your sin is mass murder, child molestation, theft, or gawking at a lingerie ad, he'll gladly send you to Hell for all eternity (merciful and all-loving god he is) if you have the scent of "sin" on you after you die.
Now, Jesus, rebellious offspring that he was, thought that this kind of sucked, and allowed himself to be executed as a political dissident so that he could go to hell, kick Lucifer in the nads, and pay off all of our sin debt to the old man. So now, we can continue with the murder, molestation, theft, and lingerie gawking, we just need to make sure that we "accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior" afterwords. And Christians worldwide have thought this was a pretty good deal for the past 2000 years.
So here's the problem. If you accept Genesis as an "allegory", and not a literal truth, there is no event that causes sin to be introduced into the world. Without sin, there's no reason or need for Christ to "die for us". And without the need for Christ, there's really no compelling need for Christianity. And if you don't need Christianity, you turn into a godless, heathen atheist like me.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
I don't mind him having religious beliefs. It's when his religious beliefs lead him to cut funding for and speak out against good science that I have a problem with him.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
there are precious few christians who have even heard of the documentary hypothesis or the two source hypothesis. most christians remind me instead of children who know how quickly every car on the market does 0-60 but don't know how an internal combustion engine works.
Hmm - nice strawman. The question was "do you believe" (which is shorthand for "do you think it is true") not "do you believe in" (which is generally reserved for the supernatural/faith/ and other unsciency thinks). I believe the earth orbits the sun - meaning I think it is true even though I will never be in a position to observe this directly - but the evidence supports it. However I don't "believe in" the earth orbiting the sun. I think this is a case where the overloaded meaning of believe is tripping us up.
A much bigger percentage than the number of Brazilians that actually won the World Cup, I'm pretty sure.
Like it or not your beliefs take precedence to science you blindly believe that you evolved from sub lifeforms... I believe in God there is empirical evidence for both however my beliefs account for such evidence whereas yours cannot explain God.
Darwin didn't collect any empirical data regarding evolution afaik
you are however right that he wasn't a psychologist my bad ... I guess I was remembering the studies he did on children etc
moding me as troll.. thats abit harsh
Did I ever say the scientific method should not be followed? I just happen to believe that certain events namely creation encompass the entire world of science in such a way as to invalidate certain theories not that I believe they are entirely useless ie I don't believe the universe originated as a singularity trillions of years ago but rather was created with that appearance so the physics that can be learned from studies involving such theories could prove usefull
you sure races are fundamentally different? IQ tests measure nothing more than a very limited scope of cognition. I have a much higher IQ than one of our family friends, but he can do more mechanics than I could hope to. In fact, most IQ tests simply measure how much you have learned by a certain age, not your capacity to learn. In fact, Ramanujan would have been a far lower scorer in an IQ test at most ages compared to a far less capable white person. Until IQ tests find a way to correct for access to education, it is not a valid way of measuring groups (unless you can point to a study that corrects for these factors adn still finds statistically significant differences in score).
There are almost no black long distance runners in the Americas and no black sprinters in Africa (at the top levels). In fact, blacks in Africa are far slower than white sprinters or Asian sprinters at the top levels.
I"m not saying there may not be significant genetic differences between the races. But your comments ignore rigorous scientific study to the same extent that your "democrat" does.