Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mixed Outcome of Texas Textbook Vote

Posted by kdawson on from the compromising-on-established-mainstream-science dept.

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."

35 of 646 comments (clear)

  1. not-so-good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:not-so-good? by scdeimos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:not-so-good? by jc42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    3. Re:not-so-good? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:not-so-good? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    5. Re:not-so-good? by belmolis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:not-so-good? by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      BING BING BING -- we have a winner. The wording was changed just enough to stop argument and allow further plundering of science education by those who 'claim' to meet the criteria for course material via 'scientific evidence'....

      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. When it comes to science and the law, most people here are not really in the slot of sharp knives in the flatware drawer.

      Think about it clearly: the simple fact that this is an ongoing news-making argument means that they just don't get it and will have left a back door for ID and creationism to creep it's way into school curriculum, either directly or through the school's 'emphasis' on what is said in class.

      I can tell you that I'm fully frustrated that this is even being discussed. Religion belongs in some other class, not science class. The bible is not evidence. If it was then clips like this would be banned, and not as funny as this really is.

      The whole argument about creation in the science class is disgusting. Disgusting as anything I can think of. Fscking morons.

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    7. Re:not-so-good? by GospelHead821 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
      Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
    8. Re:not-so-good? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hi,

      Thanks for your reply.

      As I have mentioned, Wikipedia already has all the answers in way better wording then I would ever come up with. In fact there is an entire article just dedicated to that question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye.

      Your third paragraph "magically decides that it needs to see when it has no concept of sight" seems to say that you don't understand how evolution works at all. There is no causal factor involved here. Perhaps you were just being dramatic. If you still feel confused after reading the article let me know - I work in this field (evo in general) and am happy to explain any of the details involved in evolution.

      If the biblical account is confused as you say, why mention it at all. There are better sources to look to then the confused writings of people who lived a long time ago.

      I know plenty of people who are Christians as well as scientists - however the great majority see it as some vague metaphor rather than a how to guide for understanding the universe.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    9. Re:not-so-good? by sjames · · Score: 4, Funny

      Name one case where a scientist has seriously demanded that any church give equal time to preaching evolution!

    10. Re:not-so-good? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    11. Re:not-so-good? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:not-so-good? by Walkingshark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    13. Re:not-so-good? by khayman80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      With the theory of evolution, you have scientists trying to make theological decisions.

      Cute, but nonsensical. The person you were responding to was right- fundamentalists are trying hard to convince everyone that evolutionary science and creationism are on the same level. They've invented talking points like "intelligent design" and "strengths and weaknesses" to confuse the general public into agreeing with your statement.

      But they're wrong. Evolution is falsifiable science, and has nothing to do with theology. For example, many Christians accept the theory of evolution. In 1996, Pope John Paul II said "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis."

      Evolution is theologically neutral. Anyone who feels that their faith is threatened by evolution either doesn't understand evolution, or doesn't understand that science is about verifying falsifiable, naturalistic models of reality. Science doesn't attempt to reveal "truth" in a religious sense, it's simply trying to describe the most phenomena with the fewest postulates.

    14. Re:not-so-good? by Walkingshark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    15. Re:not-so-good? by Walkingshark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    16. Re:not-so-good? by khayman80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

    17. Re:not-so-good? by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    18. Re:not-so-good? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    19. Re:not-so-good? by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here is a page for the weaknesses of evolution according to some people that want to play both sides. http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Weaknesses/essential_weaknesses.htm

      Hmmm... just looking at that page. I think they are a bit behind on the times. First, I will link to this paper:

      On the Origins of Cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells by William Martin and Michael J Russell. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 29 January 2003 vol. 358 no. 1429 59-85 (PDF of the full textlink is on the right side of the page)

      Now, to address the abiogenesis points from the page you linked to:

      - The extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems.

      From the origin of the Earth as a solid surfaced planet covered with water to the first fossil evidence of biochemistry is a time span of a few hundred MILLION years, with an additional few hundred MILLION years to the first free living single celled organisms. After that, we have a couple BILLION years before we see more complex life forms. On those time scales, questions of probability seem moot, given the conditions on earth.

      - The high probability of breakdown by hydrolysis of amino acid chains if they were to form in the first place.

      Given the right conditions and enough time, this seems probable. The paper I just linked to has a very compelling hypothesis for how to keep new biomolecules in high enough concentrations for biochemistry to begin.

      - No known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in RNA and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems.

      - All natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules.

      Again, the paper I linked to has excellent, well-supported hypotheses about how the chiralities of biomolecules was selected.

      - Photo dissociation of water vapor has been a source of oxygen since the Earth formed, and there is substantial geologic evidence that a significant amount of oxygen existed in the atmosphere prior to the advent of photosynthesis. Oxygen breaks down amino acids and sugars that are postulated to have formed!

      The most likely origin of life is not at the surface, where Oxygen would be an issue, but at deep sea thermal vents. This hypothesis gives the best bet for a continuous energy source and influx of raw materials.

      - There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.

      No one argues that these processes are random. They are well within the laws of physics and chemistry, and, in being constrained by those laws of the natural universe, are not random.

      Hmmm... I could keep going, but I don't have the time right now. Basically, a lot of those supposed weaknesses have been addressed and addressed very well by biochemists and molecular biologists studying the idea of abiogenesis and evolutionary biologists, ecologists, etc. studying other aspects of biology. The theory of Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories mankind has come up with so far. The theory of abiogenesis is certainly gaining ground, and to date seems the most likely case (read the paper I linked for a lot of reasonable hypotheses as well as compelling evidence that supports them).

      --
      "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    20. Re:not-so-good? by atraintocry · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd like to point out that believing in a creator or designer (that is responsible for evolution) is not the same as believing in intelligent design. Intelligent Design was a movement aimed at presenting Creationism in a new light, and avoid precedent that may have been set by courts ruling against Creationism.

      "Ken Miller on Intelligent Design" (he's Catholic but he testified on the side of scientists in Kitzmiller v. Dover)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

      Actually the ruling in that case is very instructive on this whole thing, for what I mentioned the relevant quote is "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism." Part of the evidence was the comparisons of different revisions of _Of Pandas and People_, where they essentially used a find+replace to switch Creationism to ID.

      I guess what I am trying to say is that Intelligent Design is sort of like a trademark...it has a specific meaning and purpose which is separate from what the actual words in the phrase would lead you to think (gee, I wonder why) and by calling what I have to assume is a combination of belief in God and acknowledgment of evolution "a variant of ID" you are doing yourself a disservice and might give people the wrong impression.

    21. Re:not-so-good? by renoX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      [[ How can arguably the world's number 1 science and technology leader simultaneously be so utterly backwards when it comes to teaching science compared to much of the rest of the world? ]]

      Well, the US is also a very religious country so this part is quite easy to understand..
      One area where the US "leads" the way also is the belief in 'little green men', I've read that 50% of the US population believe in those..

      Now, each country has its 'stupidity': as you're English I would point out that having a Queen/King is a *very* stupid system!

      I'm French and among our many stupidities, there are:
      - we treat our elected president like a King (still much better than having a monarchy but hardly ideal)
      - many believe in 'graphologie': in many case you have to take a graphologie test before being hired!!

    22. Re:not-so-good? by radio4fan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    23. Re:not-so-good? by Alsee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So, where do you suppose the "Earth as a solid surfaced planet covered with water" came from?

      There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter.

      Notice that the field of science you are fundamentally attacking there is chemistry, not biology.

      Most people accept God and science.
      This anti-evolution nonsense is fundamentally anti-science. It's impossible to "just" deny evolution and/or the age of the earth. Virtually every field of science from geology to chemistry to radioactivity to physics to genetics and on and on, it all ties in and they all confirm that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution is accurate. They "just" want to deny evolution, and oh by the way they have to deny carbon dating, and deny all radioactive dating, and oh by the way ALL of geology is completely wrong, and oh gee erosion is all wrong, and oh yeah lets toss chemistry on the trash heap too because chemical weathering and other slow chemistry doesn't work either, and the global record of billions of years of meteor impacts, and the geomagnetic record, and hell all of astronomy is wrong too because there's all sorts of 10,000+ year and 100,000+ year astronomical cycles recorded in the earth, just throw out Relativity and Quantum Mechanics when they too show a billions-year old earth and they confirm the sequence and timeline of biological evolution.

      It's really simple. The activists on one side is deceiving people with misinformation.

      The National Academy of Science for virtually every major nation on earth has a public position statement affirming evolution and that there is indeed overwhelming evidence conclusively supporting it. Every national or international science body with a public statement on evolution says the same thing. Out of about a half million degreed biologists, 100% agree evolution is established by the evidence. If you want to go to decimal points, it's 99.9%. Out of a half million biologists, there are about 700 denialists. 99.9% vs 0.1%. In absolutely any field, you can find at least 0.1% who are just plain crackpots.

      Most people accept God and accept science.

      This whole thing is just a replay of the Church-vs-Galileo fiasco. Some people decided they knew how God did things, and they had the dogmatic hubris to tell God how He was and was not permitted to run His universe. Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30, and more all say "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved" and more, and in their presumption of self-perfection in religion and in their understanding of the Bible and their knowledge of God, they forbid God to have made a moving earth. They declared Galileo equal to atheism. They declared Darwin equal to atheism.

      Psalm 19
      The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
      Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
      There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
      Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

      The heavens and the earth uttereth speech and sheweth knowledge. All the earth is writ old, and all the evidence testifies to evolution. Galileo was right, the earth moves. Darwin was right, life evolved.

      A spinning moving earth is the "how" for creating day and night and the seasons. The science of optics is the "how" for creating rainbows. And evolution is the how" for the diversity of life. God does not need to manually insert rainbows, He does not need to hand-craft each snowflake.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  2. Pardon but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  3. Go Texas! by AtomicDevice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Go Texas! by mattjb0010 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation.

  4. Score for who? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    1. Re:Score for who? by bh_doc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Score for who? by interiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Score for who? by SetupWeasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  5. Re:Sorry, but they're absolutely right by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  6. the reason by digibud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Start calling a spade a spade by drDugan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. I learned about religion in school... by MasaMuneCyrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.