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."
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?
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?
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.
Ze Atomic Device! It iz Ztolen!
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.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
You are wrong. Maybe you shouldn't get your science from your preacher there, dumbass.
The Theory of Evolution makes predictions about the kinds of fossils that should be found, and guess what, we keep finding them. It has been tested and proven itself quite well.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I can almost hear the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn supporters in Texas gearing up for the campaigns to pressure the school systems into teaching their alternative "scientific" explanations of evolution, cosmology, etc. It should be fun to watch.
And how about the people who think that the mathematicians have make pi far too difficult for kids, and want their favorite alternative value taught in the schools. Wouldn't it be fun to contemplate a world in which engineers could build things using the exact (and rational!) value of pi that was taught to them when they were young ...
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Everyone knows that scientific theory is not scientific fact. A better theory may come along and frequently does in the the sciences. Especially if this criticism examines scientific evidence as the amendment requests and not "biblical evidence" which a lot of creationism is based upon. (Lots of circular arguements that basically end with the bible said so and it's correct because it's the word of god, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.)
Hopefully it would be interpreted that way and not just be a vehicle to introduce creationism. Afterall, scientific dogma is still dogma.
The wording as described in the summary sounds fine in the abstract; I suspect the problem will come in the implementation.
As I see it, the problem with creationism and ID isn't that it's wrong, it's that it's untestable. Anything taught in the science classroom should be testable. There is a place for testable but wrong theories -- I remember learning about the aether, for example -- but things that make no testable predictions have no place. A discussion of how a popular theory (like the Ptolomeic theory of the solar system) gets disproved is quite valuable; if such a discussion was possible about creationism or ID it would have a place in the science classroom. But, as it makes no testable predictions, putting it in the same category as Aristotelean physics or Ptolomean astronomy is wrong.
Requiring students to evaluate every scientific explanation in light of the evidence that supports it will be a monumental waste of time. From the theory of gravity to the theory of the atom, spending time discussing the basis of scientific consensus will prevent students from getting very deep into any topic. I'm just glad that the most likely effect for students outside Texas is that science textbooks will be distributed in two volumes: the part Texas students are able to get through while critiquing the evidence and the rest of the curriculum all other high schools will be able to get to.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
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.
Seriously, does he not notice how much he's effectively tabloidizing Slashdot?
Seriously, I was concerned I may have been missing something(since the summary's "bad thing" didn't sound all that bad) until I saw "by kdawson".
Theory of Evolution was proven? I clearly need to get out more. I didn't know that it is Theorem of Evolution now.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
"Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world"
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."
Superficially, the decision sounds fine - of course we want students to analyze the scientific evidence! The problem is that the creationists are going to come back with a novel definition of 'scientific' evidence that treats Intelligent Design as a scientific hypothesis, and they're going to demand textbooks that include a treatment of all kinds of nonsensical 'theories'. ID is not scientific. It has no evidence in its favor (pointing out that we lack intermediate fossils showing the evolution of the lesser red-necked Argentinian swamp leech is not evidence that it was designed). But the Discovery Institute does have another bad textbook waiting in the wings for the next round of textbook-buying decisions in Texas.
For more details, see here.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
the one major sticking point for evolution is the problem of abiogenesis-- disregard the domain name for a minute and read this: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html
very valid -scientific- evidence against evolution from abiogenesis
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.
The best class I took at the University of Chicago was one focused at dissecting a number of the scientific papers that were most "worshipped" - they were written by the best and the brightest and were highly referenced in the field. When we read them critically, we found that often (always in the set of papers we looked at) the claims of these papers simply could not be substantiated by the content. Sometimes, it was just not supportable - sometimes even the opposite result from the claim was demonstrated. Critical reading and thinking is hugely important. I have no problem with this. That is what real science is all about. As long as these kids also have the ability and opportunity to question the bullshit that is in these textbooks, then everything will be just fine.
The Theory of Evolution makes predictions about the kinds of fossils that should be found, and guess what, we keep finding them. It has been tested and proven itself quite well.
Technically, those are quasi-experiments (approximately, relying on the experiments already done by nature rather than setting up your own experiment) and they are rightly seen as of somewhat lesser value than controlled experiments -- the reason being that there's a strong temptation to be so selective about what data gets considered that you'll never allow a negative result. Say you were a mad scientist who believed dogs evolved from elephants. So you predict there'll be an almost-dog-almost-elephant fossil out there. You haven't found it? "Well, there's a lot of places to look," you say as you toss the 999,999th almost-dog-almost-wolf fossil away because it doesn't match what you're looking for so you didn't consider it in the study.
Yes I've read their jokes they (and YOU) think are science. They amount to proof by lack of example. They essentially boil down to "2 is not the square root of nine, therefore 9 has no square root". Some fool said some things cannot evolve because he can't think of a useful intermediate step. This is hilarious for two reasons. First, because basically all creationists are putting absolute faith in this persons godlike infallibility. And second, because nothing MAKES mutations that survive and propagate be beneficial. Consider Vitamin C. You may know it from orange juice. People can't make it. Primates in general can't make it! Cats can, those smug little bastards. But, people are more advanced, so we should have everything a cat does, right? Wrong! In general anyways, but not in this case, because humans, like all primates, DO have the gene to create vitmain C right here inside our very own bodies. But a random mutation broke that gene. You can see the gene sitting right there, just like it does in cats. But its all broked. It's weird, right? DIVINE EVOLUTION should not have allowed it to break, since its a beneficial gene to have! Only nothing makes stuff happen, it just happens. Primates eat fucking FRUIT all day. Not a single primate got sick when some weird mutant monkey started spreading his broken vitamin C gene around, because they all got plenty from Bananans and berries and such! In fact, maybe their kidneys were happy about it. A creationists favorite example is the mouse trap. They like to parrot their infallible and omnipotent leader (he must be since the whole argument is that since he can't think of a way, no way can exist). He says a modern mouse trap cannot have evolved from a more simple version. As I've said, no rule says that every evolutionary step must be an improvement. Steps backwards are even allowed, if they are not completely fatal prior to breeding age. Even using his stupid rules of only improvements allowed, you can in fact evolve a modern mouse trap from a primitive cartoon mousetrap consisting of a box with cheese in it, held up by a stick with a string tied to it. Step 1. Stick stick to cheese. No string needed anymore, and its now automated. Step 2, but it on a base with lips so the box can't move once closed (harder to escape now). Step 3, hinge the box and base, so the box always lands square. Step 4. Replace the stick directly holding the box up, with a stick holding a latch. That way the stick is more easily disturbed, since it doesn't have a weight on it. Step 5, replace the stick with a pressure plate, so the mouse is more likely to pull the latch free when eating. Step 6, put a spring in the hinge so the box closes much faster. Step 7, replace the box with a single plank that squishes the mouse dead. Step 7, replace the plank with a wire hammer, so all the force is applied to a much smaller surface area of the mouse. Ta da!
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Uh, yeah. So the "we have no evidence that life could have spontaneously arisen, so it must not have" crowd is somehow more right than the "we have no evidence for how it happened, but we think life spontaneous arose" crowd?
I'm not sure that argument really even is that relevant in the discussion of evolution. I never considered evolution to really define where the original cell came from, but more to define how that one cell became us. I find it absolutely astonishing that so much evidence of evolution exists, particularly in the fossil record.
I mean, think about how big the earth is, the constant turmoil from erosion, volcanism, plate tectonics, etc. that afflicts the earth's crust. Now imagine a squishy flesh-and-bone creature (let alone a bacteria or plankton, or whatever) dying, being preserved in whole or part, and being found hundreds of millions of years later, many times purely by chance by some construction worker or farmer digging a hole.
So, for some whiny creationist to come along and say there are holes in the fossil record really just pisses me off. If you want to believe in miracles, think about finding a preserved brain from a hundred+ million year old fossil. To me, that's a f*cking miracle. (Sorry, that's probably somewhat tangent in the context of this reply, but not in the context of the overall discussion.)
And please, the "God put it there to test us" argument is just an embarrassment.
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.
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.
You're assuming that the compromise wording is still code for "excuse to attack science."
It's not particularly hard to find un-biased judges in Texas.
It is, I admit, easy to find biased judges, as well, but that's not a peculiar problem to Texas.
The specific issue here is perhaps the nature of the biases you find.
But the question you're driving at is, without a legal definition of "scientific evidence", you must rely on common law, and common law in a particularly place tends to reflect the common sensibilities of that place.
Being one who believes in that government should be by the voice of the people, even when the people are not perfectly correct, I don't see this as something to be fought on terms of the kinds of us vs. them arguments prevailing in this thread. Us vs. them is wrong, even when "we" believe in "the truth", whether the truth is "science" or "religion".
Unfortunately, much though it might be uncomfortable to you and me as geeks, the best solutions to social problems tend to be social, and this is primarily a social problem.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Technically, those are quasi-experiments (approximately, relying on the experiments already done by nature rather than setting up your own experiment) and they are rightly seen as of somewhat lesser value than controlled experiments
You have to be careful here. Controlled experiments can also give unexpected results because of a conscious or unconscious bias somewhere. Confounding factors abound.
The classic recent example is HRT. Controlled experiments showed that HRT reduced heart disease. It's now accepted that HRT has a net negative health benefit in the population at large (but that doesn't mean that it's not a benefit for some). There was a selectional bias in the controlled studies even though the researchers took every care to try to avoid any bias.
Another example: cycling helmets. There's an infamous paper by TRT showing that cycle helmets prevent 88% of head injuries. (You'll find that figure quoted all over the place). Unfortunately, using _exactly_ the same data you find that cycle helmets also prevent >80% of knee injuries. The fundamental problem with the paper was that it was really considering the injury risk between white middle class children riding in parks (who predominantly wore helmets) against black poor children riding in the street (who didn't wear helmets).
Every single country that has brought in a mandatory cycle helmet law (and enforced it) has seen the head injury risk _increase_ (most saw a net decrease in injuries but a much larger decrease in the numbers of cyclists post law) and head injury rates are _positively_ correlated with helmet wearing rates.
There's been no good research (to my knowledge) to explain why helmeted cyclists are more at risk. There are numerous hypotheses, from increased risk of rotational injury due to the increased size of the head to risk compensation. I only know of one tiny study (researcher in Bath, UK) who has attempted any measurements at all. His study is much too small (and he was the primary subject) to draw any robust conclusions but he found that cars passed a helmeted cyclist several inches closer than an unhelmeted one. That would imply that if it is risk compensation then it's not all down to the cyclist taking more risks with a helmet and so cannot be (completely) allowed for by the cyclist regardless of what a cyclist might claim.
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Shush now, grownups are talking.
Fine by me. I mean, it's only been in the last few years that the age of the universe has had a decimal point (I remember being absolutely amazed when WMAP returned a figure of 13.7 billion, when previous estimates had been of the '12 to 15 billion, ish' character). We still don't know what most of the dark matter is, we haven't a clue what the dark energy is. There's no reason that we shouldn't at least explain about the three different Friedmann models, the history of the cosmological constant (from Einstein's greatest mistake, to its current central importance in the accelerating universe), and the history of Big Bang versus Steady State. As for the age of the earth, one could mention the late nineteenth-century quarrel between astronomers and geologists, between those who said the Sun could be no older than a few tens of millions of years and those who said life on Earth had existed for orders of magnitude longer than that.
Similarly there's no reason why the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives to Darwinian evolution should not be discussed. There's Lamarckianism, for instance. And Lysenkoism, and a cautionary tale of its dire practical consequences for the Soviet Union.
Even the fundamental Newtonian physics could be handled in this way. Newton's theories contradict our instinctive ideas of how things work, which are closer to Aristotelian mechanics - or physics according to Wile E. Coyote. The point of it all is to develop an understanding of how science is actually done, how theories compete and how we judge between them, and why we now think this to be true, when once many people reasonably thought this instead: an understanding of science as a process by which we improve our understanding of the universe, not a list of facts that must be memorised.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
You may believe that the proponents of this language are using it to get falsehoods taught, but the wording calls for teaching critical thinking. Apparently a lot of people posting on slashdot don't believe that the theory of evolution will stand up to critical thinking.
Oh, please. You really think this reaction is because we're secretly thinking "Oh no, if third-graders really apply critical thinking to some of our greatest scientific theories, they will realize all the flaws and won't believe in it"? Evolution has stood up to an awful lot of critical thinking over quite a long time (as scientific fields go).
There are excellent ways to teach critical thinking via evolution. For example, you could start with early understanding of natural selection, and show how the idea of "slow and steady progress" was replaced with punctuated equilibrium because a variety of observations and theoretical models showed that was more accurate. Or look at other ideas that have been gradually refined, and show the evidence that was used to reach the current understanding.
If, on the other hand, you're going to stand in front of a bunch of little kids and teach them established fallacies to trick them into thinking that the current understanding is not really supported by the evidence, then that is a bad thing. No one here is worried about actual, genuine, evidence-based critical thinking. The problem is that what IDers call "critical thinking" is just "repeating falsehoods that the hearers are too young / inexperienced / uneducated to recognize".
I am the man with no sig!
90% of the people who "believe in evolution" (/.ers are included in this) have never actually read anything about the arguments against or for evolution, aside from what they were told in their 6th grade science class.
And 76% of statistics are made up on the spot. You put the phrase "believe in evolution" in quotes, as though it's something a scientist (or /.er) would say. It's not. Science isn't about belief, and I no more believe in evolution than I believe in my computer, or believe in rocket ships. We say evolution is the best theory because it makes predictions, and so far, those predictions have been amazingly accurate. To note this requires no sort of belief, any more than I need to believe that my computer works in order to program it.
I've never seen a place that is more egotistical than slashdot. The sad thing is, I could actually give good reasoning behind what I accept or believe, but It wouldn't matter.
Have you ever looked in a mirror? That statement is completely egotistical and arrogant.
This is slashdot and there is no way anyone on slashdot could be wrong, unless they think that science isn't perfect, or they like Microsoft. Those are two things that are always wrong, because right now, as humans, because of science, we OBVIOUSLY know EVERYTHING that is possibly known. Right?
No. However, we know that Intelligent Design is not science, because it doesn't make testable predictions, it expresses no falsifiable theory, and it merely pushes the problem into the unknown. What created the creator? Intelligent design is not useful in any way. Intelligent Design science has not produced any antibiotics, or gene therapies, and the fact is that it cannot, because it is not a useful theory to study the natural world.
I mean, Every time someone says something that isn't pro what we know now "science" they get modded down and someone trolling them gets modded 5 for insightful.
Now I'll have 4 people reply to me saying my math is wrong, 2 telling me I misspelled something, and another 6 telling me I've done something grammatically incorrect.
Intelligent design has no math, so if you're advocating for that, your math is not wrong, just non-existent.
The only math I've seen associated with ID 'science' is math explaining how improbable our existence is, which is terrible reasoning. Using the same logic, I could say that you are impossible.
Your dad had to meet your mother, and have sex with her. Let's say they grew up in a small town, be generous, and set the probability of that at about 1000:1. Next, your father released 500,000,000 sperm into your mom's vagina, only one of which became you, odds against, 500,000,000:1. Your mom starts with about 2 million eggs in her ovaries, only one of them became you, so the odds of that are 2,000,000:1.
Therefore, you are too improbable to exist, because the odds against you are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000:1.
Not on point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Read the first paragraph.
Oh, never mind, I'll copy it for you:
"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time."
I don't have to read the fucking website and I don't have to post as an AC