Texas Board of Education Supports Evolution 344
somanyrobots writes with this excerpt from the Dallas News:
"In a major defeat for social conservatives, a sharply divided State Board of Education voted Thursday to abandon a longtime state requirement that high school science teachers cover what some critics consider to be 'weaknesses' in the theory of evolution. Under the science curriculum standards recommended by a panel of science educators and tentatively adopted by the board, biology teachers and biology textbooks would no longer have to cover the 'strengths and weaknesses' of Charles Darwin's theory that man evolved from lower forms of life. Texas is particularly influential to textbook publishers because of the size of its market, so this could have a ripple effect on textbooks used in other states as well."
other "theories" (Score:5, Interesting)
Well as a science teacher in Texas... (Score:1, Interesting)
Official policy really has very little to do with what gets taught in the classroom. Even in Biology, which is the only place that evolution gets mentioned, the textbooks have been very evolution-friendly for years. Of course in that, they have been focused on lots of aspects of evolution that have been disproven, like human fetuses having gills and other similar things. And of course, the real control over this content lies with the teachers, who for the most part teach science and the scientific method, which really doesn't support most of the conclusions that evolution-science come to since they aren't based on observation. Whether or not intelligent design is discussed officially in the textbooks makes no difference in the end, but science does get taught properly in most classrooms.
Evolution vs Creationism (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet for some reason Darwin's theory of evolution gets picked out so that teachers must highlight its weaknesses. Why might this be?
The TFA said the scientific community widely accepts Darwin's theory, while biblical proponents reject the theory. Thus, the state board forced teachers to teach pros and cons in the 1980s.
I guess the debate was so serious that the state board had to compromise to satisfy the creationism parties (who can be rich and powerful).
I guess evolution is a really thorny part of religion (specifically, blind belief). If students understand that humans are developed from fish and apes, then creationists have a harder time pushing their own agenda to these students.
Any idea whether churches in Texas in the 1980s actually had to report their income, pay taxes, and donate the proceedings to poor people and worthy causes?
Teach Methods and Logic (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it would be valuable if schools taught methods and logic. Not just knowledge, but also the way of how knowledge can be arrived at. Teach people what is and what isn't a conclusive argument, point out the factors that complicate deriving valid conclusions from one's observations, and show that how experiments can be set up to minimize those factors. Preferably also teach statistics, so that people can calculate the probability of two things being corerlated vs. the probability that an observation is due to other factors.
All these are valuable skills, not specifically in the evolution debate, but in every aspect of life.
As for my stance on religious issues...I am convinced that we have no conclusive evidence one way or the other on most of them, and I would say that, until we do (which I think will never happen) everyone should be free to believe as they do. Nothing gives me the right to force my beliefs on you, and the same applies in the other direction.
Re:Teach Methods and Logic (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice idea, but if people at large were taught how to think, then the government as it exists today would not last long. You will find that in almost every aspect, government players depend heavily on people who think that thinking somehow hurts their brains.
I find it interesting to see patterns that even I fall into myself. When someone thinks differently, we want to stamp it out. It is just the aspects and details by which we determine differences that change. I want people to think critically of EVERYTHING including their gods. I want people to assume everything they are told is wrong and seek evidence to the contrary or at the very least seek answers to the question, "why shouldn't I?"
Other people see "lacking of faith" and want to stamp it out. It makes people uncomfortable to see these differences. They challenge our very identities and who we think we are.
There is only one way to prove "God." And that would be for God to show himself. All other evidence is tainted as it is created by people. Feelings are not proof of anything other than a human weakness of the heart over the brain.
Re:other "theories" (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, gravity is easy to test.
Theory of evolution is also fairly easy to test, and that was done before. Scientists from around the world used populations of fast-reproduction species (mostly bugs), and placed them in specific conditions. After some time - features useful for living in these new conditions were developed. This looks like definitive proof done in the lab for me.
On the other hand you just can look into fossilized bones of ancient species, or remains of our own predecessors - go, figure out yourself.
I understand that a "weakness" of theory of evolution would be a claim that changes in species appear randomly vs. deterministic. But knowing how strong anti-evolution-redneck-lobby is in USA, I would expect something like "it's not the way it's described in the Bible".
I live in Europe, in *very* conservative an catholic country (90% of populations are catholics), but anyone who would say evolution is bullshit would looked at like he was crazy.
Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses (Score:3, Interesting)
Evolutionary biology has changed quite a bit since Darwin. Many specific things Darwin said are wrong. But his fundamental idea is still right.
Re:Won't someone please think of the children? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not like a high school freshman is going to be scarred for life by hearing two sides of an argument. "These people believe this for this reason. These other people believe this for this other reason."
They might not be scarred for life, but they won't learn much science. Scientific debate isn't about valuing everybody's opinion - its about objectivity, logic and evidence.
This isn't even about a debate between science and faith: its a debate between science and bogus pseudo-scientific FUD which attempts to dress religious fundamentalism up as science. Even mainstream religion [catholicnewsagency.com] thinks the debate is absurd.
There are almost certainly gaps and weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution. However, it still explains more than any other theory on offer, and you don't throw it out because it fails to dot a few "i"s - at least not until you have a new, better theory.
When Newton's theory of gravitation failed to accurately predict the orbit of Mercury, the scientific community didn't throw Principia on the fire and go back to crystal spheres and epicycles - it went on to make good use of the understanding given by what Newton's theories did predict, until that smart guy with the bad hair came up with a better theory which someone then went out and proved. That's how science is supposed to work.
PS: I'm all for books on evolution having a label in them which points out that its a theory with which some people disagree provided that, in return, every copy of the Bible is required to have a preface by Richard Dawkins. Fair's fair, eh? :-)
Re:Won't someone please think of the children? (Score:3, Interesting)
Children are impressionable. They are (usually) unable to weigh the pros and cons of arguments and instead defer to authority figures. There are some theories which are not legitimately challenged in today's scientific world.
Maybe in grade school - but I don't think I've ever met a high schooler (myself included when I was in HS) so impressionable.
The whole DHMO thing is really an unfair example, as it involves misleading scare tactics (100% of people who consume it die, for example). That's not presenting an opposing idea and letting people come to their own conclusion, but rather intentionally presenting well-known facts in extremely misleading and overcomplicated ways in an attempt to trick them - it's more of a trivia test and social experiment than anything else. While I don't support teaching creationism or intelligent design in schools by any means, they're not really leveraging those tactics in order to make people believe in them (aside from the whole "do as I say lest you burn in hell for all eternity" thing, anyways).
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
wrong direction (Score:2, Interesting)
Evolutionary theory is vastly unimportant compared to a lack of Scientific Method. I see the requirement of showing weaknesses in Darwinian Evolution as forcing the employment of Scientific Method on difficult, emotion laden, and controversial issues. Beating the method into young impressionable skulls is far more important than whether they believe in creation by amoeba or creation by God. Teach them to think, don't tell them what to believe.
Just IMO.
-D
Re:other "theories" (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually you do have that luxury with Evolution to an extent. Evolution is always twisted to whoever is talking about it at the moment. I am not accusing you personally of doing that, but you certainly are demonstrating a misconception about evolution. That's the real problem with constructive dialogue regarding this whole stupid issue.
1) The "religious nutballs and born again christian whackjobs" all object to having their kids taught that man originated in any way that deviates from the good ol' bible.
2) The "Intelligent Design Quasi-Scientists" all object to their theories not being included as it works for their more liberal interpretations of a faith based interpretation of their reality and they strongly assert that their explanations and models are just as valid as any other theory.
3) The "Heathen godless scientists that-will-burn-in-hell" all object to any thing being taught in a school that does not directly conform to the "holy" scientific method for measuring, quantifying, and verifying our reality.
The simple truth is that there are TWO SIDES to evolution.
One is that evolution is a FACT. It is an observable property of biological life in this planet that is indisputable. We have more than enough evidence to show that lifeforms have an ever continual process of adaption to their environment. That is called Evolution. DUH. You can feel that, test it, hold it, smoke it, blah blah blah.
Two is, and what everyone involved with also has to admit, is that WE HAVE NO DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THAT MAN EVOLVED FROM ANY OTHER LIFE FORM ON THIS PLANET. We just have reasonable guesses. That's it. Therefore, in the context of explaining man's origins on earth, THE PROPERTY THAT IS EVOLUTION IS ONLY PART OF A THEORY THAT EXPLAINS OUR ORIGINS! A THEORY!
I know that is not original and I am certainly not the first person to state that evolution can be both a theory and a fact. It depends on how you are using it to explain our reality. Gravity always means gravity. Evolution however is used so vaguely that is quite frankly frustrating and more than a bit silly.
It really is two different things. The solution is so fucking simple its ridiculous. Just teach about evolution as an observable property and don't start stating it as a fact (or law) that it explains our origins. In fact, you can explicitly not talk about it at all as it clearly has too many religious overtones for EVERYONE. Or you could just simply say that we don't know how man evolved on this planet, or how anything even started the process of evolution in the first place. We could say that there are theories based on science, religion, and a mix of the two that attempt to offer an explanation and leave it at that.
Will people actually do this?
FUCKING OF COURSE NOT. Why?
It serves as a vehicle for religious zealots, the scientists that embrace faith and the unknown and like to conform science around their religious beliefs (faith) to be comfortable, and the hard core scientists that won't believe anything exists until it is peer reviewed and published in journals to continue to argue and advance their own ideologies.
Basically, everyone involved is an asshole of some degree and is bending the truth and mangling the human language to advance their own side.
It's sad and pathetic.
I already has this conversation with my sibling who is in school and I told him the same thing. He relates to me how at his school (private) there are teachers that are pushing intelligent design, bringing bible passages to school to teach history, and how some students are actively arguing with other students about how Jesus teaches that evolution is wrong in science class. He said he would be afraid to mention this to the "Jesus freaks" since he would probably get hit in the face and that the teachers bri
Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses (Score:5, Interesting)
well, you might be right there. With all these battles about what to teach, there is probably no room for teaching critical/logical thinking. There are quite some ex-teachers that claim that the basic purpose of the school system is not to bring out the best in each student, but to deliver working and middle class drones. As few as possible top student should be delivered, as this favours the ruling elite that can afford to sent their kids to better private schools...
Not that I think that the people on this board are actively planning that, but if their main feature is what party they represent, I assume them not to be very educated in educational science.
Re:Teach Methods and Logic (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice idea, but if people at large were taught how to think, then the government as it exists today would not last long.
You cynical bastard..... Of course, you're 100% right. As a science teacher, I can clearly state that School isn't about learning to think, and developing logic. School is about learning to engage/disengage when you hear the bell. It's about being able to work the line, downtrodden with the rest of your social peers.
I had some high ideals for what Education was once. That was before getting a Master's degree in Education, and working in a public high school. I could be the best science teacher ever, do original research and instill thought and logic into my students. Except for a system that doesn't let me. By the time I see students in 9th grade, the #1 question they have is "What's the answer?", followed by "Am I right?".
As a science teacher, that kills me. Science is the PROCESS of FINDING that answer, of PROVING that you're right. When the base mechanic that all students operate under is right/wrong, with the answer as the most important thing, Science (and Education) has already lost.
Our state standardized test for Science is a largely multiple-choice, "do you remember what you were taught in Science?" test. Since WHEN is Science about regurgitating facts? It's not. But designing a test where students must figure something out on their own is hard to do, hard to score, and entirely outside much of their skillset, due to a life-time of fact regurgitation. This ties directly into religion as well, for such qualities are REQUIRED to be religious. You must be able to spit out the tenets of your faith. You must noe use use logic and question what's mashed into your head by those above you.
As a Science teacher, what am I to do? If our scores drop too much due to students being unable to barf out facts on command, then the administration takes a look at the department to see if we're doing our "jobs". And as our job is clearly to stuff the heads of mindless automatons with facts, until the bell rings and they move to the next filling station, those not doing that need to be seriously worried about their jobs. And that's as it should be - our society doesn't run on millions of individuals, having individual thoughts and doing individual things. It runs on Industry and Media. It runs on 3 types of beer, 2 types of soda, 3 major sports on TV, 2 types of reality show formats, 5 types of car, etc. It runs from bell to bell, then people drive in their similar cars, on the same roads, to their similar houses, and eat the same sorts of dinner. Anything else, and it all falls apart. And that, of course, must be weeded out and crushed somewhere - luckily school is mandatory, even if religion is not. The most effective schools and states have somehow combined the two.
Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that I have anything against Texas but the reason these people make (subtle) anti-science and greenie bashing a political platform could be due to either power/money/ignorance, regardless of which one it is, ignorance amoungst their followers is the sole reason they get away with it.
The situation is the same as practically everything else in this world - the people in charge are either trying to not look like complete fucking idiots, or are trying to milk you out of all your money. If you have taken up an indefensible position, you can either admit that you're a tard, or you can defend it unto death. A lot of people will assume that means you're right, or at least have a point, even when this is the farthest thing from the truth.
IMHO Dawkins and Sagan are correct in that science is taught as a "dictonary of facts", the philosophy of science is largely ignored by the education system and consequently misunderstood/ignored by the public at large.
That isn't really a problem, though. The idea that we all should receive and/or need the same level of education is pretty silly - and what I'm saying is that some people could stop after, say, Junior High school, and I only really want them to go there if we can reinstitute home ec, woodshop, metal shop, auto shop etc for kids of that age.
To my mind, the problem is really twofold: the people who want the education can't get it, and the people who want to educate them aren't allowed to. They aren't permitted to educate by the system which defines the bullshit curriculum (anyone else here learn about columbus "discovering" america in elementary school?) and they aren't permitted to give the most education to the kids who will benefit the most because of standardized testing. That shit has been going on for ages, but the No Child Left Behind act is a particularly egregious little piece of unfunded mandate.
Due to the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence I can no longer belive a politician can (legitimately) keep using ignorance as an excuse to poo-poo global warming and/or evolution. Therefore the root cause of the cherry-picked "science" found in the opinion columns of the mass-media and subsequently regurgitated by a million ignorant bloggers - must be money and/or power.
Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding. Coal and oil are "killing the planet" (read: rendering it unsuitable for our habitation.) But they sure are profitable.
Premptive Al Gore reply: I'm not from the US, I haven't seen his film. I had already read the IPCC reports and didn't see the point, from the reviews of Gore's film by IPCC scientists, (and later their answers to critics), I would have to conclude his slide show was an accurate representation of the reports. OTOH: Just because the doco is accurate does not mean Gore's motivations for presenting it are intellectually honest.
Well, people who are acquainted with things like physics can do the math themselves and see that the CO2 is going to poison the oceans. That's the kind of thing that makes me wonder how many different reasons to stop spewing various pollutants and undesirable gases we're going to need. To see the blooms in cancer rates downwind (and in the general area of) refineries, smelters, power plants, and so on, and then not make the connection that we need to fix this problem (we can find out-of-regulation smokestacks as fast as we can find money to send people up them in this country, no joke) takes a whole different kind of lack.
Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses (Score:5, Interesting)
There are quite some ex-teachers that claim that the basic purpose of the school system is not to bring out the best in each student, but to deliver working and middle class drones.
I know personally (though not well) a current teacher who straight tells his students that they had better listen because they are being prepared to go into prison or the military, and if they want a chance to escape that fate, they are going to need some tools.
Unfortunately there is definitely no time to teach these kids what they actually need to know. The curriculum requirements due to the No Child Left Behind shit leave the instructors at the school where he teaches with negative fifteen minutes in the day to teach other material, assuming that calling roll, getting students seated and on topic et cetera takes zero minutes. That is obviously not enough...
The problem is compounded by the fact that (the majority of) teenagers are biologically incapable of functioning at full capacity before about 10 or 11 am, and they rarely start school later than 8:15. I know that I myself regularly had mathematics in the first period... but anecdotes aren't really all that useful. Still, I am mathematically challenged today, a serious impediment for a nerd.
Add to that the culture of violence (little Lord of the Flies bastards) in the school that causes everyone to need to toe the line in order to be permitted to exist without physical abuse, let alone the continual emotional abuse, peer pressure, et cetera and it's a wonder anyone ever learns anything in public school. What is less amazing is that for the most part, people come out of school very much fit into a traditional mold. We are taught that our success will be measured by our fiscal accomplishments. Then they teach us to sit in rows and do as we are told. The system was originally designed to produce factory workers, and it works very well. Too bad we exported all our manufacturing jobs and convinced ourselves we were the smartest people on the planet who would surely find a way to pull money out of thin fucking air.
Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Science includes BOTH strengths and weaknesses (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't advocate that either, except for the basics of reading/writing. What I am suggesting is that skeptical think should be part of the basics as it ENABLES you to learn. Skeptical thinking is a skill, it doesn't tell you what to learn, it tells you how to learn and can be taught in a short amount of time (less than what it takes to memorise multiplication tables). The difficult part is getting people to be skeptical of their own "common sense" (in particular many of the teachers).
Interesting you bring up Columbus. Captain Cook is the Aussie equivalent. My history lessons comprised 10yrs worth of Captin cook, McArthur and his damm sheep, no mention of WW2 that my parents generation had endured. History is prologue but what I encountered in school was propoganda. Yes Australian history is important in Australia but leaving out the natives, the rest of the world, and the events of the 20th century is a tad over the top and totally useless to anyone except a scholar of the first half of Australian settlement, (who would know it's mostly crap anyway).