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."
I'm Okay With This (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I believe in both. God, and evolution. (Score:4, Interesting)
For those with the inclination to read it, The Universe in a Single Atom [amazon.com] 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.
Re:Rename it.. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Intelligent Metaprogramming"?
side note --- I do object to the overly-broad generalization that "Christians" renamed came up with the "Intelligent Design" name. Pathological lying scum who are a small subset of Christianity came up with the "Intelligent Design" obfuscation. As a Christian, and one with no qualms about calling out intellectually dishonest politically motivated liars for what they are, I don't like getting reflexively lumped in with those frauds.
Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:News for Nerds... (Score:3, Interesting)
But even if none of the information was new, the situation is ongoing. An ongoing struggle to dampen scientific education within the US is most certainly news for Nerds.
Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Double standards... (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Citation please?
No citations are needed, because there are plenty of examples right in this thread. I learned about the "geo-centric" theory of the universe in astronomy class. I learned about "ether" in physics class. In chemistry class, I learned about alchemy and the Greek theory of earth, air, fire, and water. In all of these classes, the modern theory is explained and justified in terms of the old theory that was replaced. Biologists are the only scientists that throw a big hissy fit about having to explain and contrast their theories. This is a real disservice to the students. By forcing students to learn evolution in an intellectual vacuum, they are unprepared to explain why creationism is nonsense when they are challenged by their parents and friends.
Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (Score:2, Interesting)
The creationist mindset can be applied to Superman.Vague evidence in the form of documentation leading to his existence. A city (Metropolis, IL a real place) and the possibility of a man named Clark Kent living in said place. Ergo Superman is real and now you cant disprove it. its an alternate theory vs the one that he doesn't exist. And you cant disprove it. I have handed you more evidence than you have handed me about him not existing.
http://www.cityofmetropolis.com/
In case it wasn't clear I was using the same argumentative logic used by religious apologists or bible thumpers. I myself once employed such tactics. I could go round and round the logic circle until you tire out and walk away and then rationalize in my mind saying...Lex Luthor has brainwashed that poor soul. This absolutist circular "logic" is the problem.
The great part about evolution is that it can be proven. EASILY, selective breeding is a form of evolution. We see it with dogs over a couple generations we live through. But naturally occurring evolution happens MUCH slower. But its clear that it happens. We pretty much have proven it. The so called missing links aren't missing. Just not as well published is all.
Big bang theory? Check its happening. The universe is still expanding. the big bang theory is still happening.
Re:Science isn't critical thinking... (Score:2, Interesting)
The evidence of intelligent design is all around you. The vast complexity of the universe, down to the delicate balance of our solar system and how that makes the earth habitable. The both the internal complexity and external simplicity of life. And the rules of thermodynamics which prove that everything will eventually end which implies that they started at some point in the past (which implies a creator) The existence of religion throughout the ages and almost universally in every culture, even those cultures with no outside contact.
I don't figure your world view will change with the above, but the evidence is real and exists.
Re:ya know... (Score:4, Interesting)
The biggest problem with the bible is that it's not original. Jesus himself did not wrote anything, no author is known of any of the gospels, dates are guesses, and the bible was composed by committee with gospels removed and declared heretical.
One example for the latter is the gospel of Judas. Declared as betrayer of Jesus in the canonical gospels, but in the found gospel of Judas he is loyal and played the most important role in Jesus crucifixion and the resulting resurrection.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas [wikipedia.org]
Those who are furnished with the immortal soul, like Judas, can come to know the God within and enter the imperishable realm when they die. Those who belong to the same generation of the other eleven disciples cannot enter the realm of God and will die both spiritually and physically at the end of their lives. As practices that are intertwined with the physical world, animal sacrifice and a communion ceremony centered around cannibalism (the symbolic consumption of Jesus' flesh and blood) are condemned as abhorrent.
Of crucial importance is the author's understanding of Jesus' death. The other Gospels argue that Jesus had to die in order to atone for the sins of humanity. The author of Judas claims this sort of substitutionary justice pleases the lower gods and angels. The true God is gracious and thus does not demand any sacrifice. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus's death is simply a final way for him to leave the realm of the flesh and return to the luminous cloud.
So the majority of Christians are doing symbolic cannibalism and everyone except Judas and Jesus are going to die no matter what. No wonder the early Christians banned the gospel of Judas.
Re:Terence McKenna said... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:ya know... (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree it's "reasonably accurate" as a "closest modern equivalent" for a one-word translation. However, the original post above was addressing the question "were Adam and Eve married, or just shacking up together?". In a modern cultural context, there's typically a clear distinction drawn between two people who are "cohabiting" ("living in sin!" according to socially conservative religious sects), versus couples who have the approved copulation license signed by church and state. Operating from this frame, it makes sense to ask about (or poke fun at) Adam and Eve's marital status before popping out children. However, given that the original Hebrew doesn't provide a linguistic distinction for this division --- whether "isha" means "woman" or "wife" --- the best answer to "were Adam and Eve married, or just cohabiting" is not to say "the Bible says they were married," but to point out that that distinction did not exist (or at least was not a major concern) at the time. Marriage as a contractual/normative relation, rather than a descriptive statement that two people were shacking up, is an anachronistic in the Adam and Eve story.
Wife Selling (Score:4, Interesting)
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. [wikipedia.org]
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.