Slashdot Mirror
Getting Evolution In Science Textbooks For Texas Schools
First time accepted submitter windwalker13th writes "Recently the New York Times ran an article highlighting the pull that a State Board in Texas holds over that state and rest of the Nation. Because of the unique way in which Texas picks school textbooks (purchasing large volumes of textbooks at once to be used for the next decade) publishers pander to this board to get their books approved. The board currently holds several members (6 of 28 who are known to reject evolution) who hold creationist views and actively work to ensure that the science textbooks do not use as strong language or must include "critical thinking" about possible alternate explanations for evolution."
To be fair, science is effectively a belief system, in the same way that Catholicism is effectively violent and/or judgmental (Jesus says don't do that, but Catholics say "JUDGE AND MURDER ALL THE UNBELIEVERS!!"). People have taken not simply that there is some rational thinking and a process of exploration; but that everything that offends the senses and bears no proof is immediately "superstitious yahoo" territory. This leads to several forms of hilarity.
On one end, you have the obvious rejection of anything that people quickly judge as hokey, which leads to conflicts with actual science. For example, people reject meditation entirely because it's internally associated with some spiritual-religious-whatever stuff: the projection of the mind into the spiritual realm, the attuning of spiritual energy to the body, and so on. At the same time, science has shown that meditation can reduce anxiety and paranoia, improve sleep, and increase the ability to apply rational thinking by calming the mind. We even have technological meditation, something called "biofeedback" whereby people train themselves to consciously lower their heart rate and blood pressure by directly addressing their body's reaction to stress. And of course martial arts is mainly about training the mind to accept the body's limits--those limits being set somewhere, but typically well beyond what the mind normally wants to accept. All based on sound neuroscience, psychology, or "We don't know, but we've done experiments and studies and we've noticed a real pattern" (which is statistics and experimental design).
On the other, you have the undeniable fact that most science is ... essentially no different than assuming the existence of gods. You basically make up a bunch of shit that loosely fits in with your observations and current knowledge. The difference is we test all that stuff in science and try to break it; whereas in religion we try to protect our views. "Don't question our god! Our god will be angry! This will result in famine and dead births!" Science is more like "does this make sense? We've found a flaw. Can we adjust the theory for this? Oh, our theory was actually bullshit; here's a new one we just made up that seems to work better." It's still essentially the same, though: we're assuming a theory is correct. Just, for the moment.
Then you have stuff like Buddhism, where they focus on spirituality and growth, and pursue enlightenment: any suggestion that their views are incorrect is met with study, discernment, and acceptance or rejection based on their best judgment. Science really can't prove them wrong; and in fact much of what is discovered in such religions can't be said to be essentially wrong. Buddhists believe we should approach all situations with an open mind, that we should not bring harm upon people when we don't strictly need to, that we should try to help those in need, etc. Sikh are also big on that "don't go around beating people up and robbing them" thing. Although sociology tells us people are combative and group psychology tells us they don't strictly function that way, it's also true that spreading beliefs like this does induce shifts in mass social behavior. Our society might be more stable, less crime ridden, and more wealthy if we followed such beliefs. Or not. But you can't really say "It would benefit you and all around you if you didn't act like a dickhead..." is an essentially wrong belief; you can only cite the prisoner's dilemma and some other byzantine problems.
World is a strange place. The truth doesn't lie "half-way" between anything; it just involves a lot of information, and you cannot understand the truth without understanding things that are not the truth and why they are not the truth.
Support my political activism on Patreon.