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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
Bzzzt. Sorry. Theories are built by facts. They are frameworks for facts. If a theory is discarded in favor of another, it is because new facts have arisen that the original theory does not account for.
"Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
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.