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?

[Cassius Corodes]

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

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]

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.

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]

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?

[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.

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.

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.