Getting Evolution In Science Textbooks For Texas Schools 710
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."
News for Nerds... (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this news? We've all known about this for a very long time.
Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Science isn't critical thinking... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Double standards... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:I'm Okay With This (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you really want to teach a religious creation myth in a public school, put it in a World History, Comparative Religions, or Philosophy class - preferably alongside some other creation myths so you can compare and contrast.
Re:News for Nerds... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Texas Board of Education on Friday delayed final approval of a widely used biology textbook because of concerns raised by one reviewer that it presents evolution as fact rather than theory.
That's how: it's a recent development. Would have been nice if the summary mentioned this though, I agree. The article also mentioned that the board didn't attempt to do anything shady about censoring climate change from the books. Newsworthy given the low standards that are set for Texas education.
Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (Score:2, Insightful)
" Creationism is system of scientific thought that presupposes a specific world view that can not be proven or disproved. "
IE, religious bullshit, and not science as one would expect in a SCIENTIFIC TEXTBOOK, durr. So you're the liar, really.
Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you start with assumptions about the outcome you don't have science.
It is a philosophy not a science.
Re:News for Nerds... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Double standards... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not. Creationism is a system of anti-scientific thought (which is what concerning itself with something that cannot be proven or disproven means). It is not science, and therefore has no place in a science textbook.
Re:Science isn't critical thinking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, it's not because you can't run an experiment in a lab that you can't verify a theory. There is a colossal body of work around the study of genetics and the relationships between species (including extinct ones thanks to paleontology). If you think that all of this work isn't enough verification, then you probably don't think anything science has ever done is verified, either. The truth of the matter is that evolution is one of the most verified theories we've ever conceived and the only reason it's still disputed to this day is because it contradicts a book of parables written thousands of years ago.
Re:Double standards... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm Okay With This (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you define "science"? The scientific method demands that a theory be testable and reproducible in the laboratory. Macroevolution isn't testable and reproducible. It is arguably more like a theory of HISTORY.
There is no requirement for testability _in the laboratory_. Starting with Galileo, who didn't stay in a lab but climbed up the tower of Pisa. Speed of light measurements involving Jupiter's moons. And so on. This sounds like a typical creatonist argument again. So superficially convincing and utterly wrong.
Re:Science isn't critical thinking... (Score:0, Insightful)
Nonsense. Macroevolution has never been observed. Many so-called "scientists" make silly claims like that to get funding, but they can't answer questions about irreducible complexity from the true Intelligent Design scientists. So they "publish" their silly stories in pal-reviewed "journals" and laugh all the way to the bank.
Re:The irony is that. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:ya know... (Score:4, Insightful)
The truth is, we have enough of the old texts that it has been shown that the actual edits in the bible are minor. They do exist, but the core of it is there.
The biggest problem with the Bible? It is like Wikipedia without proper citations, it is a self-referencing work that doesn't provide any evidence for anything within other than itself.
No one would accept such a source for anything else today, but for some reason the Bible is accepted as fact.
Re:ya know... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Lord Almighty, in his infinite wisdom, decided that instead of creating two separate humans, the first marriage would instead be between incestuous genetic twins.
Re:The irony is that. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:News for Nerds... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:ya know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then God was pleased, for he could cast the sinning Eve as the first human that the kind and loving God tossed into the lake of fire, to be tortured forever and ever, Amen.
Except that God isn't "tossing" people into the lake of fire. Christian theology seems to suggest that people who willingly reject God are going to hell by their own hands.
And those who never heard of God are likewise going to be in hell. As well as people who believe in other religions.. Even amongst the Christians, the Catholics are going to Hell, as well as the Baptists. I grew up in a strict Catholic family, with strict Baptist Grandparents. Oh, the fun I had as a child.
It's not hard to sum it up. This God demands that you worship him. If you do, when you die, you will go to another place, where you will continue to worship him. If you do not worship him, you will be tortured forever.
Pretty much sum it up?
I always wondered what he would do if you decided not to worship him when you got to heaven. Or what if you lost a husband or wife in life, then got remarried, then re-met the original in heaven. Or divorce? Is sex not allowed in heaven? If it's for procreation only, then I guess it isn't. Or if it is, is the procreation bit waived? Or do some children get a free heaven pass by being born to people already in heaven? Do these children have no free will, or does that tie back to my question about him casting you out of heaven once you entered if you decided not to worship him any more? And is it adultery if you have sex with your original wife whom you lost through accident or misadventure? Or if not, that means that bigamy is okay in heaven?