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."
Any old God can do speciation. But a TRULY awesome God? He automates it.
THL phish sticks
"Creationism" does not have ANY place in a scientific textbook. These people MUST be told to go soak their heads for 40 days and 40 nights under peer review.
Education in sciences isn't up for a debate along the lines of "everything we're teaching has an equally plausible antithesis, if you're raised religious."
This is bullshit taught to children with tax dollars in a secular environment. Kill it with fire.
How do you know that you weren't created 10 minutes ago, with your knowledge already in place?
Well it is, but should be better considered as methodological thinking.
If you want creationism in science, Then give us something we can test and verify to prove it. Otherwise we will stick to what the evidence shows us.
If it is wrong, then we are wrong, however there isn't evidence to show that yet.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I'm okay with any theory being in a science textbook as long as there is some kind of scientific backing.
Evolution has some scientific backing. It should be in a science textbook. It's science, after all.
If someone can find some real scientific support for creationism, that's great. You can put that into the science textbook, too.
Until then, whether you believe in creationism, intelligent design, evolution, some kind of mixture of that, or something else entirely, you have to accept that only science should be in a science textbook.
You don't have to agree with the science. It is just a way of understanding the world, after all, but a science book should have science in it, and not have non-science.
As an analogy, it probably doesn't make a lot of sense to drop the teachings of Hinduism into a new revised copy of the Koran. The Koran is an Islamic text; the Hindu teachings really don't have much of a place there. Doesn't matter which one you believe to be correct, if any. It's just information existing in its proper context.
So please, Texas education people, it doesn't matter what you believe. It's all about putting things where they belong. You can believe whatever you want, I really don't care (unless you want to kill me or something, then there's a problem), but don't put non-science into a science book. It just doesn't belong.
Love sees no species.
.. just like the Christians renamed 'creation' to Intelligent Design, maybe it is time to rename 'evolution' to something else.
Note - that just like the Christians renamed their's to 'sound' more scientific, we have to rename Evolution to sound more 'religious'.
Maybe "God and Nature's Excellent Adventure" or something.
Suggestions anyone ?
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
They also have double-standards when they say "teach creationism" because they want THEIR version of creationism taught and not an American Indian, Norse, Greek, Islamic, Wiccan, or any other creation myth.
Is a pair of double-standards called quadruple standards?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
For those with the inclination to read it, The Universe in a Single Atom is a great book about where science and faith meet, how they can learn from each other, and how they're really not at odds. One of the more interesting books I've read in a long time.
Love sees no species.
"Is a pair of double-standards called quadruple standards?"
If you can't make Creationism a science, then make it a standard. AIG should go to ISO instead of the Texas school board.
ISO-6000BC, here we come!
Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
If you start with assumptions about the outcome you don't have science.
It is a philosophy not a science.
The article should mention that the concerned reviewer is an idiot. I'm so tired of the media pretending that "superstitious yahoo" is a point of view, and the truth lies half-way between our best understanding of the world and right-wing religious derp.
Why did you reply "So True" to something deeply stupid said by an anonymous creationist nutjob?
"Evolutionist" makes about as much sense as "round-earthist." It's just derp from religious nuts who can't deal with reality. There is no scientific conspiracy to pretend that gods don't exist. It's just that zero gods have presented themselves, so we're pretty sure that they're imaginary just like the rest of the supernatural.
Creationist is not a system of scientific thought. Neither is "intelligent design". The whole concept of a scientific system is that it makes no assumptions, beyond being able to attain accurate and true measurements. Teaching "intelligent design" is a gross intellectual dishonesty because it IS an excuse to teach religion. Once you "presuppose" a specific world view, you've negated any concept of science.
I have faith, I even believe in God. Yet I'm a scientist, and I think I will utterly fail both faith and science if they are ever allowed to meet in my head. Once is a philosophical framework for the world. One is a structure of strict mathematics and logic. They have nothing to do with one another, and every time someone tries to bulldoze scientific education with their narrow-minded unimaginative worldview that does truly derive solely from a n-thousand-year-old book, it makes me cringe.
If I want to teach my kids religion, I'll do it, or I'll send them to temple, or a religious school. Please don't teach them YOUR version of a specific world view in public school.
This is bullshit taught to children with tax dollars in a secular environment. Kill it with fire.
I think you'll find that the sentiment is pretty equally shared by Christians who are willing to actually study and think about their scriptures. After all, it makes it pretty hard to talk to someone about what one finds important (i.e. religion) when you're called by the same name as a vocal group which is (rightly) identified as deniers of reality. Augustine (an early church father and pretty universally acknowledged formalizer of Christian doctrine) wrote in AD 400:
This literal 24 hour reading of Genesis is not a new phenomena, but it will continue because it is natural for people to either lazily read, or to avoid questions which may fundamentally challenge their faith (they would say: better a saved ignoramus than to face the dangers inherent in asking questions). The latter can be recognized as an attitude which is actually strongly criticized by the New Testament writer Paul.
I have no problem addressing theories of divine creation in a humanities class. It's an appropriate topic for religion, philosophy, history, etc.. But it's a problem in a science classroom. There's a limited amount of time, and students in science class should be investigating ideas that are falsifiable, amenable to the scientific method. If we want to do creationism, AWESOME! Let's bust out Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Roger Bacon and the whole fat lot and throw up against Lyell and his gang. It'd be an awesome scrap. But, again, today's public school curricula really give very little time to science, and I'd frankly rather students learn the mechanisms of science in science class. SCIENCE. Which is based, in terms of the history of ideas, in skepticism and materialism--granted, with fat doses of mostly counterproductive hoo-ha metaphysics, but SCIENCE!!! (The last two instances of all-caps should be performed in the voice of Thomas Dolby.)
Well, characterizing AGW using words like you do ("weak evidence collected over a few decades, and it is still being hotly debated") does show a lack of critical thinking and understanding of the best-evidence-available scientific consensus on AGW. The scientists researching these topics overwhelmingly agree that the evidence is strong, not weak, for global warming (significantly outside natural cycles) due to anthropogenic effects. The "hotly debated" stuff is in the finer details --- exactly what feedback mechanisms contribute, and how much; etc. Just as you can find some token PhD-holding academics who will *still* deny evolution and push creationism, you can find a few eccentrics who outright reject the basics of AGW; but this is no more "hotly debated" in the field than creationism versus evolution is "hotly debated" in evolutionary biology labs. AGW is not "gospel," but portraying it in the opposite side --- as a "weakly supported" hypothesis in contentious debate --- marks you as an ignorant shill.
Why is this still a problem. Why can't the publisher's do a special run of their text books for Texas that includes whatever rubbish Texas wants, and then provide decent text books for everyone else?
Because its cheaper to just create a book that includes all the rubbish Texas wants and force everyone else to buy it, too.
I'm sorry, quoting a page from fringe shill sources ("Principia Scientifica International") doesn't demonstrate scientific understanding of the issues. What you're doing is like "disproving" evolution by showing that it's hotly debated on Creationist websites. The scientific community who study this stuff --- just like the scientific community that favors evolution over Creationism for describing the development of life on earth --- is not "hotly debating" the stream of unpublished, unscientific, flakey propaganda shit that you're hooked on. A tiny handful of fringe wackos does not counterbalance the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists about the broad validity of AGW.
On the other, you have the undeniable fact that most science is ... essentially no different than assuming the existence of gods
When I get on a comfortable modern airplane to visit my family across the continent, I'm happy in the knowledge that science and technology will get me there in one piece. Now you strap a couple of two-by-fours to a firecracker and leap off a cliff happy in the knowledge that your god will save your life. Go on, try it.
Science makes falsifiable, testable predictions. After a scientific theory has survived thousands of such falsifiable predictions, I'm willing to trust it with my life by getting into an airplane.
Religion can spout whatever unprovable nonsense it wants with no justification whatsoever. See the difference? That is "essentially different" from the scientific method, contrary to your claim.
A poster above also posits the "10 minutes ago theory," which is likewise non-testable (what is there to prevent an all powerful being from planting memories in every brain; old photos in every album, and ancient dinosaur bones in the rocks?)
Science is about testable theories; in fact I would argue the word "theory" implies testability, so we'll call the non-testable ones "explanations". I'm not sure where to classify the non-testable explanations, philosophy is a reasonable guess. Perhaps the main point to be made with non-testable explanations is that they are so easy to invent.
In any case, the science classroom is the place for discussing methods for testing testable theories, with perhaps a quick glance at several non-testable explanations to see how non-testability operates.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Wow. I mean, first, many textbooks DO talk about alternative explanations over the years - be they Lamarck's theories or creationism or whatever, and I've never heard of biologists making any kind of fuss.
But, more directly, if Creationism were introduced in these texts as "the old theory that evolution replaces", it's not the biologists that would be screaming. If they're complaining, it's because the accepted theory is being presented as being on par with the old ones.
Or maybe your other science textbooks do that too? Maybe your science textbook said "we don't know whether the Sun orbits the Earth or the Earth orbits the sun, but here's some reckoning people have done over the years on both sides". Is that what your science textbook says? Or does it say "here's how it is, and here's what people used to think?" And you really, legitimately think it's biologists that would be crying foul if that's how biology textbooks presented creationism vs. evolution?
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Terence McKenna should have taken less psilocybin and more science classes. Like his brother Dennis. And I'm speaking as someone who loves psilocybin.
This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant.
We have evidence of lots of things springing from nothing in a single instance. They're called quantum vacuum fluctuations. Particles of matter and antimatter spring into existance in the vacuum all the time, only to annihilate each other an instant later. The part that's difficult to explain about the universe is why it hasn't annihilated itself, not why it sprang into existence.
Also, the entire universe didn't spring into existence in one instant. The universe as we know it, meaning mostly comprised of atoms, took 380,000 years to form. This is preceeded by at least 5 different epochs when the universe was dominated by different forms of matter. To be fair, most of these epochs occured within the first second after the big bang. But in quantum terms that's a long time. Plank time is only about 5^-44s.
The rest of this quote is just argument from incredulity. Worthless.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
There is no such thing as 6000BC. The world was created on January 1, 1970 at midnight, a little more than 1385424985 seconds ago.
Poe's law? I'm not sure whether the parent is serious or not. (I'm not.)
As an example of how this institution has varied, consider that in the mid nineteenth century in England it was considered legal for a man to try to sell his wife.
At another sale in September 1815, at Staines market, "only three shillings and four pence were offered for the lot, no one choosing to contend with the bidder, for the fair object, whose merits could only be appreciated by those who knew them. This the purchaser could boast, from a long and intimate acquaintance."
Ye gods, what a way to describe someone! So you don't like your wife, you lead her to some public place in a halter, the halter being considered particularly important to the legality of the affair, and sell her at auction to any bidder. This was considered legal by many judges; women couldn't own property, and were owned themselves -- and some Englishmen even told themselves that this arrangement was out of some sort of protective benevolence. Anyway, it was held that a man could do what he wished with his property, at least until the practice began to be seen as vulgar, at which point the legal argument became, "Uh...hey! You can't do that!"
All it would take to revive the custom in America today would be if it made a good TV show.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Because Texas, unlike other states, purchases books for the entire state. Because Texas is the 2nd most populous state in the union. Because this means that publishers will frequently write their books for the Texas market and hope they are adopted elsewhere. Because that means that the textbook your local school uses is heavily influenced by Texas. Oh, and there's that trivial matter of not wanting Texas schoolkids to have a third rate education just because of where they live.
Because this is not news - I knew this at least 15 years ago.