Slashdot Mirror
Mixed Outcome of Texas Textbook Vote
The Texas Board of Education — as discussed here last week — has voted on the guidelines for textbooks in that state, which represents a large enough market to have influence nationwide. The good news is that the board dropped a 20-year-old requirement that both "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories be taught; score one for the teaching of evolution. The not-so-good news is that in a "compromise," the board also voted to require that students "in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations ... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student." Score one for the Discovery Institute. A Republican board member explained that the words "strengths and weaknesses" have become "code for creationism and [the similar theory of] intelligent design. So by being more clear in the language and using words that aren't seen as code words, we were able to get all of the 15 board members to agree that this is how we'll teach all sides of scientific explanation, using scientific evidence." Reporting on the Texas vote is all over the map, as a US Today blog summarizes. Some reports claim that an amendment was passed that preserves a
requirement that students study the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of common ancestry and natural selection. Other reports claim that the board also adopted language that would have students study the "different views on the existence of global warming."
There is no gravity. Texans suck.
Putting theological doctrine to the test is all well and good when it is theologians that are involved in weighing the voodoo to see what fits and what doesn't.
Fixed that for ya.
Seriously, since when has religion been about evidence?
Faith is not sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la-la-la" so you don't hear thing that challenge your beliefs. If you want to cling to a literal interpretation of a document written by a primitive group of humans that wouldn't have understood even if God HAD tried to show them exactly how he made everything, go right ahead. Meanwhile, I'll be over here thinking of evolution as how I was created.
My sig can beat up your sig.
I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation.
Did anyone else see the recent breakthrough announced by gay scientist research group Pink Tiger, with their discover of the Christian gene? Fabulous send-up...
Gay Scientists Isolate Christianity Gene
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Name one case where a scientist has seriously demanded that any church give equal time to preaching evolution!
Moreover, judges are not supposed to "take side". This means they must only "know" what they are told in the courtroom. If the other side does not challenge the creationist definition of science, the judge takes this "science" as a fact. Of course, a smart judge will poke holes at the kooky definition to make it un-credible, but hey!
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
Next time, try praying your post onto slashdot instead of using your computer to do it. I believe then you'll notice the difference. Oh, and make sure you pray to all the gods, even the ones you don't believe in so you know what us godless people feel like.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
I live in Texas and I have to tell you that the news that makes national and world headlines from this state is never good... outside that one press release on the invention of breast augmentation.,/p>
Not so good. The flat-chested girls were the only ones who would date geeks.
Shush now, grownups are talking.
I stopped reading at this point: "Scientists not only have been unable to find a single undisputed link that clearly connects two of the hundreds of major family groups"
I really don't think we'll ever find the crocoduck, but that's not a weakness in evolutionary theory. It is a weakness in the thinking processes of creationists though.
> Religion will only end with the dying breath of the second-to-last human.
More like, "The final thing the second-to-last human hears will be 'Die, unbeliever!'"
Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
The difference is that your HMO does not require a referral for the human sacrifice.
The monarchy is hardly in the same league as fanatical Christianity.
They both have really cool hats.