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."

Comments

not-so-good?

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

How is this not-so-good news?

Re:not-so-good?

[scdeimos]

I agree with the "how is this not-go-good news?"

Good Science is all about putting science theory and practice under scrutiny and peer review. This promotes proper investigation and revision and kills-off Bad Science through attrition.

Re:not-so-good?

[jc42]

Does the Texas law include a legal definition of "scientific evidence"? If not, then the creationists can quite easily claim to be doing "science" under their definition of the term. And it's probably going to be hard to find a Texas judge whose legal training included techniques for deciding scientific issues.

Re:not-so-good?

[JoshuaZ]

The problem is that many teachers aren't going to use that to engage in genuine critical thinking. They will use this as an excuse to bring up every single tired creationist saw which have been debunked hundreds of times over. Many teachers would likely do that anyways but this way they can do it in an approved fashion as long as they are a) minimally clever enough to disguise the creationist roots and b) intimidate children and parents into not complaining too much.

Re:not-so-good?

[Cassius Corodes]

Judges are not supposed to know everything - they only need to know who to ask.

Re:not-so-good?

[belmolis]

No, its exactly the other way around. In the evolution controversy, we have theologians (or, rather, most of the time, preachers) trying to make scientific decisions.

Re:not-so-good?

[GospelHead821]

I agree with you wholeheartedly and I'm a Christian. I believe in some variant of intelligent design (I mean, if you're going to choose to believe both the Bible AND science, you kind of have to), but the only reason it should ever be mentioned in a science class would be as part of a lesson on spotting BAD SCIENCE.

Re:not-so-good?

[Cassius Corodes]

Again school is not the place for this. I am all for teaching children the scientific method, and to question everything - but this is not where this is going.

Re:not-so-good?

[sjames]

Nobody is trying to silence the evangelical movement. Nobody has tried to pass a law that their bible must have a sticker saying Genesis is an opinion. Nobody has demanded that they hand out Darwin tracts along with their usual ones. Nobody expects the preacher to give equal time to Darwin on Sunday.

Re:not-so-good?

[Walkingshark]

I agree but having a litmus test to see who is qualified to talk about what subject isn't a good idea. While I think the evangelical movement is disturbing I don't think their views should be silenced. It is by argumentation and refutation that the public's understanding of scientific and philosophical matters is expanded.

This isn't about discussion between rational adults. This is about what we teach children. Children will believe something if the teacher says it, to the point where if one of the other students attempts to correct the teacher when they are wrong, the other children will shout that person down. I'm sure many of you have seen or experienced this directly.

This is a primary vector that allows mythology memes like Christianity to survive: indoctrinating children.

The religious memes wish to use the school vectors that they see having such massive effectiveness to spread themselves. Of course, I'm anthromorphizing a bit, but please allow me some poetic license, the metaphor holds.

These conflicts are entirely about preventing the government from indoctrinating children with false beliefs while at the same time creating mental structures that make them resistant to being educated with actual facts and reality based thought constructs.

The fact that people feel the need to lie, repeatedly and often, shows that they know, deep down, that their mythology is not true. If they truly believed their supernatural being of choice was omnipotent and all knowing, they would not feel the need to lie to further the belief and worship of it.

But of course, the whole point of evangelism for most (if not all) of these people, and the whole point of public proclamations of faith, is to desperately prove to one self that one really, truly believes.

Of course, the sad part is that the only ones who really, truly believe are the mentally damaged and insane. The rest of them are all faking it, because they know that if they stop the people who are still faking it will shun them from the herd. The cycle continues until enough people loudly proclaim their disbelief. This is why athiests are considered enemy number one to all religions.

Maybe we'll get lucky. Maybe athiests will finally reach critical mass and blow this mind cancer/meme virus out of the minds of humanity once and for all.

Looking at the sheer number of infected, though, I often doubt it.

Its sad. Humans could be something really special.

Re:not-so-good?

[Walkingshark]

Are you being intentionally dense or do you really not understand what you're talking about? Do you really think elementary school students, in general, have the mental deveolopment and intellectual context to perform a rigorous scientific debate? Yes, kids are more clever than many people give them credit for but no, this does not mean that we can turn the Tevatron over to a bunch of 3rd graders.

Explaining the scientific method to these kids is the right thing to do. Letting their teachers stand at the front of the room and use rhetorical tricks honed over years by propagandists to brainwash those children is morally repugnant and puts the lie to everything these relgious people claim to believe in.

If you have to lie and decieve to spread the "gospel" of your religion, then it ISN'T THE RIGHT RELIGION. No omnipotent, omniescient being needs a bunch of sychophantic simpering weasels to slip pamphlets about its awesomeness into the lunch boxes of little kids. If it does, then it doesn't deserve to be worshipped.

Re:not-so-good?

[Walkingshark]

I think we both know this, but lets get it out in the open. People like the one you replied to perfectly understand that the arguments they are making are bullshit. They are aware of this. Now, their conscious mind might inhibit thinking about this as much as possible, but their overall consensus mind knows the truth.

In order to defy this voice in their head that is whispering, "This is a bunch of horse shit," these people feel compelled to perform acts demonstrating their faith. This helps bolster their internal argument, and also helps with their herd status. This is common behavior in any herd and most of us do something similar, though in the case of religious beliefs it often leads people to do irrational things like give money to child molesters or have unprotected sex.

Yes, it is idiotic. Yes, they know better, but part of the problem is that they think that they're defective. They think they're different, that everyone else beleives truly and deeply (after all, you can tell everyone else believes because look at how virtuous they are) and they think that their lack of belief, their doubting voice, is an abberation. Of course, they often also know that this is not true, but there is never a way to prove it, and they fear the backlash of the tribe.

So what do you do if you're a cloest athiest, suspect everyone else is a cloest athiest, but everyone you know is really good at pretending and part of you is convinced that they all believe and that you're defective, and all of you is worried that if you come out and say, "You know, this is bullshit," that all your friends and family will shun you? You perform public acts of faith. The more shakey your belief system and the more insecure you are, the more radical your actions will be. This is why you see the people like all those Republican Senators who talk about family values and then cheat on their wives (sometimes doing so in extreme circumstances, like having homosexual trysts in airport bathrooms). This is also why you see votes like this. It is all a big smoke and mirrors act to desperately try and convince everyone (including the possibly watching and angry superbeing in the sky) that hey, they really are faithful!

As for the people who are harmed by this demonstration of faith... well, fuck those guys. Relieving the stress of fear is more important.

Some people relieve that stress in less showy ways, by doing things like coming to slashdot and copypasting tired discredited arguments from places like the discovery institute.

I guess the really sad part is, for a lot of these people their fears are justified. If they came out as athiests or even talked about their doubts, they would be socially shunned and attacked by those they care the most about, all because for their friends and family maintaining the illusion of faith and going through the motions of being a faithful person is more important than the happiness of the people they claim to love.

As a funny side note, all of this happens because the human brain was never designed to try and do the things we ask of it. It wasn't "designed" at all. It does perform many functions that serve the purpose of helping create conditions where sperms and eggs can meet and then the resulting life form can survive to breeding age though. Social things. Like going to church.

Thats right kids. God exists so that people will fuck.

Re:not-so-good?

[khayman80]

How is the scientific any different than a religious ritual? Both are performed by anointed individuals according to prescribed methods.

How is a ritualistic human sacrifice any different than open heart surgery? Both are performed by anointed individuals according to prescribed methods...

Re:not-so-good?

[im_thatoneguy]

Name one church that has ever argued that they're entitled to $5000-$7000 a year per school child by governmental force.

Actually seeing as churches are tax exempt for property taxes and income taxes and often sit on prime real-estate while pocketing millions of dollars I would say that they do quite well for themselves.

And I would hardly say that a single class can be held accountable for the entire school year budget. Or is it morally outrageous that the religious must spend $5k for secular transport as well?

I am happy for schools to teach creationism. But I want equal time given to the wiccan beliefs. And I want witches to oversee the wiccan corriculum.

Re:not-so-good?

[radio4fan]

Except your 'answer' does not explain these contradictions.

In fact, your link says:

"Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam."

So it appears to me to be saying "because these accounts are contradictory, it proves that they are not contradictory."

Of course, this is slashdot, and anything pro religion is wrong, anything anti-religion is right.

Maybe everything pro-religion should be right? Vishnu has ten avatars, Xenu destroyed the slave races in a volcano, God chose to give the book of Mormon to a 14 year-old boy on a set of gold plates which later conveniently disappeared.

But I'm guessing you're an atheist about everyone else's religion, just not the one you happen to be have been indoctrinated into.

Maybe I'm wrong and you converted as an adult from Zoroastrianism.

Pardon but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon me, but I fail to see how not teaching the weakness of a theory, whether it be evolution or gravity or special relativity, is a win for anyone?

Go Texas!

[AtomicDevice]

I think we should teach how gravity might not exist. After all, it's still just a "Theory" we havn't actually found the particles (or whatever) that cause it. I for one don't believe in gravity.

Score for who?

[DaveV1.0]

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.

No, score one for science. If one examines all sides of scientific evidence for those scientific explanations, then creationism and ID are left out in the cold because they are not based on science, are not scientific explanations, and thus can not be discussed.

Further, if the goal is to encourage critical thinking, then ID and creationism are in trouble because they do not stand up to critical examination.

Re:Score for who?

[bh_doc]

You're assuming that both the students and the teachers have the competence, knowledge and understanding of the science in order to properly evaluate it, and that the teachers guiding such student evaluation do so in an honest and unbiased fashion.

Good luck with that.

Re:Score for who?

[interiot]

The problem is that "critique scientific explanations" means different things to different people. To a good science teacher, it means valid scientific critiques, and yes, that's very good. To a bad science teacher though, that means critiques that sound like science to the uneducated ear, but are really nothing of the sort. Surf some of the anti-evolution videos on YouTube for a few minutes to see just how good some people can be at blurring the line between science and hogwash.

Re:Score for who?

[SetupWeasel]

I find that many scientists have neither the competence, the knowledge, the understanding, nor the integrity to evaluate their own field. I agree with scientific criticism and wish it were taught more.

the reason

[digibud]

The reason it's not such great news is that phrasing, however subtle, is still meant to appease the fundies. The perception, I believe, is that it still allows for a principal or school board to put pressure on the teaching of evolution by pushing teachers to "examine all sides". The desire is to get ID and/or young earth creationism in here one way or the other. There is nothing wrong with teaching a theory and the evidence to support it - as long as that theory is a valid scientific theory with evidence that is widely accepted by the scientific community as such. ID isn't science (read the Dover transcripts if you are STILL confused on that point) but "examining all sides" is all about trying to get ID snuck into a science curriculum. Scientists are not against teaching weaknesses in any theory. Examining weaknesses is what science is all about. What scientists do NOT want done to "examine" those weaknesses by contrasting observations and facts that led to a theory (evolution) with observations that fit a pre-set fairy tale (creationism in whatever form you want to call it) and then pretend that both are valid science. The language used (above) is vague enough that it will provide the grist for many subsequent arguments between teachers and parents and schools and districts and I'm sure, many others. Nice job. Not.

Start calling a spade a spade

[drDugan]

It is so sad that people even allow "creationism" as a debate still. Get a real
spine and tell these people to shut up and leave the room.

Here, these words will help:
"Collective, viral mental illness"
"Collective, viral mental illness"
"Collective, viral mental illness"

(keep repeating it...)

They need treatment and counseling to address their illness. There was
no virgin birth. There was no loaves and fishes feeding thousands. There
was no man who came back to life. There was no garden of Eden. It is
grossly ridiculous to discuss the world as 6000 years old. They are stories!
There was no placement of fossils to test our "faith". And most of all, we
have zero observations to support the story of a sentient creator. Personally,
I don't know if there is a God, but collectively teaching blatant falsehoods
should be completely unacceptable and called as such every single time.

Loudly.

Men wrote the bible. It was written long after the historical figure "Jesus
of Nazareth" died. Men created the church, every church. There is absolutely
no space for discussion with "creation scientists". Those with a straight face
who "teach" such extreme views, (see for example here (if you can stomach it
without vomiting): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_CLIGJW6Ic ) are
*mentally ill* and should be offered treatment.

Even if a large group of people are deluded, they are still deluded.

I learned about religion in school...

[MasaMuneCyrus]

In 7th grade, I learned about Christianity and creationism, as well as Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hindu, and touched briefly on some others. It was quite informative and I'd recommend it to everyone.

This was, of course, done where it belonged -- in Social Studies class, not Science. Perhaps if the people of the school boards of Texas would just agree to teach it similarly, there wouldn't be a big stink about it.