Science under attack in Texas

I may get flamed for this response but this post sounds like the religious extremists when their ideas are challenged. There is NOTHING wrong with teaching weakness in the evolution theory, especially from a scientific viewpoint. That teaches children to keep their eyes open, might challenge and interest some into proving the theory either completely true or completely bogus. After all it is still the THEORY of evolution right?

Children shouldn't be brainwashed into one way of thinking but rather given the honest facts and taught how to think for themselves. It is just like teaching the children the Bible in school. You are telling them again and again that this is fact and this is what you are supposed to believe when, to many, there are inconsitancies and holes throughout the text.

I think Texas is taking a step in the right direction towards more properly educating our children.

Hmmm....

I'm not so sure. The vast majority of scientists accept that ToE is the most likely explanation. Those that don't (I'm hypothesizing) probably either have a religious ax to grind or have only certain reservations that prevent them from agreeing with the majority.

So long as evolution is taught only as theory, I'm not sure what the benefit is of teaching children what the flaws in the theory are, when even scientists as a whole do not agree on those flaws. Surely it's sufficient to teach them that as a theory there are certain things that remain unclear or unexplained and that the issue needs to be continuously investigated in the pursuit of the truth. Anything more than that I see as college material.

I think that while Texas may not be taking a step in the wrong direction, it's an unnecessary step for them to take.
Do you agree it's ridiculous to be teaching kids that the earth is only 10,000 years old? When we know for sure there are writings older than that -- hell, even other RELIGIONS older than that! Never mind evolution, let's just go here!

This is the kind of fundy silliness, extremist idiotic beliefs, that make the point of whether evolution only should be taught totally moot.

No more silly that teaching children the theory of evolution is a fact instead of a THEORY. Duh.

The issue is only moot to you that keep your blinders on tight.
 
Hmmm....

I'm not so sure. The vast majority of scientists accept that ToE is the most likely explanation. Those that don't (I'm hypothesizing) probably either have a religious ax to grind or have only certain reservations that prevent them from agreeing with the majority.

So long as evolution is taught only as theory, I'm not sure what the benefit is of teaching children what the flaws in the theory are, when even scientists as a whole do not agree on those flaws. Surely it's sufficient to teach them that as a theory there are certain things that remain unclear or unexplained and that the issue needs to be continuously investigated in the pursuit of the truth. Anything more than that I see as college material.

I think that while Texas may not be taking a step in the wrong direction, it's an unnecessary step for them to take.

Do you agree it's ridiculous to be teaching kids that the earth is only 10,000 years old? When we know for sure there are writings older than that -- hell, even other RELIGIONS older than that! Never mind evolution, let's just go here!

This is the kind of fundy silliness, extremist idiotic beliefs, that make the point of whether evolution only should be taught totally moot.

The way I read it, I don't think they were proposing to teach kids that the earth is only 10,000 years old. Were they? If they were, I would agree that it would be ridiculous.

I don't think there's any harm in telling children to continually question theories. I think there would be harm if the only objective in doing so was a desire to advance adherence to certain religious convictions.


They simply want to state a theory is in fact only a theory; which, of course, is fact.

The rest is a contrived argument by the anti-religion goons.
 
I may get flamed for this response but this post sounds like the religious extremists when their ideas are challenged. There is NOTHING wrong with teaching weakness in the evolution theory, especially from a scientific viewpoint. That teaches children to keep their eyes open, might challenge and interest some into proving the theory either completely true or completely bogus. After all it is still the THEORY of evolution right?

Children shouldn't be brainwashed into one way of thinking but rather given the honest facts and taught how to think for themselves. It is just like teaching the children the Bible in school. You are telling them again and again that this is fact and this is what you are supposed to believe when, to many, there are inconsitancies and holes throughout the text.

I think Texas is taking a step in the right direction towards more properly educating our children.

I would think that that's happening right now, if it's not then the curriculum needs sorting out and this intervention isn't going to help. If the current state of the theory - and it has advanced considerably since Darwin first published The Origin of Species, I hope Tx is aware of that - isn't being taught then it should be, but it should still be in the scientific framework.

And with respect you've misinterpreted the idea of "theory" as used in this context. It's an explanation based on observed evidence, it's not theoretical in the common useage of the word in the sense of "hypothetical". Not that I'm a scientific minded type but "theory" is science, as I understand it, is akin to "explanation inferred from observation and experimentation and observation", it isn't a wild guess which is how detractors sometimes try to portray it.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been taught here since *I* was in the 5th grade. Regardless the "state" it is in, it's STILL a theory and should be taught as a theory.

And with respect, those of you that leap to explain the unexplainable without fact are STILL only theorizing. It most certainly IS guessing.
 
The Texas Board of Education will vote this week on a new science curriculum designed to challenge the guiding principle of evolution, a step that could influence what is taught in biology classes across the nation.

The proposed curriculum change would prompt teachers to raise doubts that all life on Earth is descended from common ancestry. Texas is such a huge textbook market that many publishers write to the state's standards, then market those books nationwide.

"This is the most specific assault I've seen against evolution and modern science," said Steven Newton, a project director at the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching of evolution.

Texas school board chairman Don McLeroy also sees the curriculum as a landmark -- but a positive one.

Dr. McLeroy believes that God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago. If the new curriculum passes, he says he will insist that high-school biology textbooks point out specific aspects of the fossil record that, in his view, undermine the theory that all life on Earth is descended from primitive scraps of genetic material that first emerged in the primordial muck about 3.9 billion years ago.

He also wants the texts to make the case that individual cells are far too complex to have evolved by chance mutation and natural selection, an argument popular with those who believe an intelligent designer created the universe.

The textbooks will "have to say that there's a problem with evolution -- because there is," said Dr. McLeroy, a dentist. "We need to be honest with the kids."

The vast majority of scientists accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

Yes, they say, there are unanswered questions -- transitional fossils yet to be unearthed, biological processes still to be discovered. There is lively scientific debate about some aspects of evolution's winding, four-billion-year path. But when critics talk about exposing students to the "weaknesses" or "insufficiencies" in evolutionary theory, many mainstream scientists cringe.

The fossil record clearly supports evolution, they say, and students shouldn't be exposed to creationist critiques in the name of "critical thinking."

"We will be teaching nonsense in the science classroom," said David Hillis, a biology professor at the University of Texas at Austin. ...

Texas School Board Set to Vote on Challenge to Evolution - WSJ.com
I cant wait to see them teach kids that hurricanes are in fact the misdeeds of a fake Muslim god striking them for being good Christians. :lol:

Why? Blaming Bush is SO much easier.:cuckoo:
 
The way I read it, I don't think they were proposing to teach kids that the earth is only 10,000 years old. Were they? If they were, I would agree that it would be ridiculous.
I don't know the exact text they seem to want to introduce, but the quote from the fundie GOOB heading up the Texas School Board is egregious. Clearly it would be okay with HIM if public school kids graduating from Texas schools actually thought the earth was only 10,000 years old. He belongs elsewhere, not in a position of power with the state school board, for crying out loud.
I don't think there's any harm in telling children to continually question theories. I think there would be harm if the only objective in doing so was a desire to advance adherence to certain religious convictions.
Yes, ALWAYS question science. Kids should be taught to do so intellectually, dispassionately, not emotionally. And religion is nothing but emotion-based. But DON'T question it with idiotic fundie SHIT like "the earth is only 10,000 years old" I mean come the fuck on, we can debate Darwin's theories but we cannot debate toweringly titanic, galactically STUPID shit like that, which has NO basis in science whatsoever.

You are assuming what would be "clearly okay" based on nothing more than your personal prejudices. YOU are the one confusing your personal beliefs with the facts here.

Clearly all that is stated is that he believes the theory of evolution should be called what it is ... a theory. That has NOTHING to do with his personal beliefs. THAT is fact.

You are projecting an argument onto him he is not making.
 
:lol:


these fucks won't be happy until they turn us into Idiot Nation

YouTube - Green Day - American Idiot [Official Music Video]

"These fucks" would be ANYONE trying to push their beliefs on others.

You mean like "scientists" ? :lol:

Fact is, where origin is concerned, scientists overstep the bounds of science. Science doesn't have the answer and science cannot deal with not having an answer, nor can those who choose science as their religion.
 
:lol:


these fucks won't be happy until they turn us into Idiot Nation

YouTube - Green Day - American Idiot [Official Music Video]

"These fucks" would be ANYONE trying to push their beliefs on others.


uhh.....dude....."beliefs" don't have anything to do with science. A proper science education teaches science. Beliefs can be taught in church.

The taliban teach "beliefs" in madrassas. We teach science in science class.

Bullshit. When science steps outside the bounds of science to try and explain something it can't, then science is nothing more than yet another "belief." Science should stick to science. It's good at it.
 
uhh.....dude....."beliefs" don't have anything to do with science. A proper science education teaches science. Beliefs can be taught in church.

The taliban teach "beliefs" in madrassas. We teach science in science class.

You should go back about 50 years and see what scientists "believed".


so your contention is that we should teach children that the earth is ten thousand years old in science class.

Gotcha.

Not one fucking person here has said anything of the sort except you science only weenies.
 
God does love Texas-----I'm sure science can handle an "attack" on it's omnipotency. They are always proven right about everything until the next theory comes out but that's science too. :lol:

The problem is that the creationists strongarm their way into having evolution attacked in the schools because they can't win on the merits. They almost got their way in Kansas and Dover, PA but sensible people wouldn't stand for that bullshit and tossed the Creationists out on their illogical asses.
 
I may get flamed for this response but this post sounds like the religious extremists when their ideas are challenged. There is NOTHING wrong with teaching weakness in the evolution theory, especially from a scientific viewpoint. That teaches children to keep their eyes open, might challenge and interest some into proving the theory either completely true or completely bogus. After all it is still the THEORY of evolution right?

Children shouldn't be brainwashed into one way of thinking but rather given the honest facts and taught how to think for themselves. It is just like teaching the children the Bible in school. You are telling them again and again that this is fact and this is what you are supposed to believe when, to many, there are inconsitancies and holes throughout the text.

I think Texas is taking a step in the right direction towards more properly educating our children.

I would think that that's happening right now, if it's not then the curriculum needs sorting out and this intervention isn't going to help. If the current state of the theory - and it has advanced considerably since Darwin first published The Origin of Species, I hope Tx is aware of that - isn't being taught then it should be, but it should still be in the scientific framework.

And with respect you've misinterpreted the idea of "theory" as used in this context. It's an explanation based on observed evidence, it's not theoretical in the common useage of the word in the sense of "hypothetical". Not that I'm a scientific minded type but "theory" is science, as I understand it, is akin to "explanation inferred from observation and experimentation and observation", it isn't a wild guess which is how detractors sometimes try to portray it.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been taught here since *I* was in the 5th grade. Regardless the "state" it is in, it's STILL a theory and should be taught as a theory.

And with respect, those of you that leap to explain the unexplainable without fact are STILL only theorizing. It most certainly IS guessing.

My lack of scientific background/knowledge and the fact that I used to drool over my physics teacher because she had a habit of wearing almost see-through dresses and had a stunning body and I (and every other young bloke who was "taught" by her) didn't pay any bloody attention in class for the last two years of high school is hurting me now. I should have paid attention back then.

However, that aside. What is your definition of a scientific theory Gunster?
 
"These fucks" would be ANYONE trying to push their beliefs on others.


uhh.....dude....."beliefs" don't have anything to do with science. A proper science education teaches science. Beliefs can be taught in church.

The taliban teach "beliefs" in madrassas. We teach science in science class.

Bullshit. When science steps outside the bounds of science to try and explain something it can't, then science is nothing more than yet another "belief." Science should stick to science. It's good at it.

Got an example?
 
You should go back about 50 years and see what scientists "believed".


so your contention is that we should teach children that the earth is ten thousand years old in science class.

Gotcha.

Not one fucking person here has said anything of the sort except you science only weenies.

But that's what this bloke is trying to pull on, it's absolutely transparent to anyone not befuddled with crazed ideas about ID and Creationism and all the rest of that muck masquerading as science.

Okay, your turn.
 
so your contention is that we should teach children that the earth is ten thousand years old in science class.

Gotcha.

Not one fucking person here has said anything of the sort except you science only weenies.

But that's what this bloke is trying to pull on, it's absolutely transparent to anyone not befuddled with crazed ideas about ID and Creationism and all the rest of that muck masquerading as science.

Okay, your turn.

This dude is a loon. That doesn't certify everything science comes up with as something we can take to the bank. Scientific claims about "how things are" are constantly proven false as we learn more. Science that I was taught as fact in the 60s has been proven NOW to be absolutely wrong. Science in not an infallible explanation of our universe. Why should it be the only thing taught ?
 
Not one fucking person here has said anything of the sort except you science only weenies.

But that's what this bloke is trying to pull on, it's absolutely transparent to anyone not befuddled with crazed ideas about ID and Creationism and all the rest of that muck masquerading as science.

Okay, your turn.

This dude is a loon. That doesn't certify everything science comes up with as something we can take to the bank. Scientific claims about "how things are" are constantly proven false as we learn more. Science that I was taught as fact in the 60s has been proven NOW to be absolutely wrong. Science in not an infallible explanation of our universe. Why should it be the only thing taught ?

It's been said already. Teach science in science class, teach religion in religous class and teach metaphysics in a philosophy class. If you were taught that science deals in absolutes then get your money back. Even I knew back then that science was tentative. No right-minded person is going to claim that science has the answers to everything, some may say it doesn't even have the answers to anything but has a range of pretty good ideas about why things are as they are. One of the things that solid science can do is predict things and explain why. But it is tentative, science is all about knocking down ideas. That's why science and religion can't be mixed up, they're totally different one from the other. To infuse religion into a science class is bloody ridiculous. It would be as stupid as infusing science into a religious class. Science is tentative, religion is not.
 
But that's what this bloke is trying to pull on, it's absolutely transparent to anyone not befuddled with crazed ideas about ID and Creationism and all the rest of that muck masquerading as science.

Okay, your turn.

This dude is a loon. That doesn't certify everything science comes up with as something we can take to the bank. Scientific claims about "how things are" are constantly proven false as we learn more. Science that I was taught as fact in the 60s has been proven NOW to be absolutely wrong. Science in not an infallible explanation of our universe. Why should it be the only thing taught ?

It's been said already. Teach science in science class, teach religion in religous class and teach metaphysics in a philosophy class. If you were taught that science deals in absolutes then get your money back. Even I knew back then that science was tentative. No right-minded person is going to claim that science has the answers to everything, some may say it doesn't even have the answers to anything but has a range of pretty good ideas about why things are as they are. One of the things that solid science can do is predict things and explain why. But it is tentative, science is all about knocking down ideas. That's why science and religion can't be mixed up, they're totally different one from the other. To infuse religion into a science class is bloody ridiculous. It would be as stupid as infusing science into a religious class. Science is tentative, religion is not.

Both however attempt to teach children how things are and why they are. One uses and intellectual approach while the other uses a spiritual approach. Why is the spiritual approach banned from being taught in school ?
 
I may get flamed for this response but this post sounds like the religious extremists when their ideas are challenged. There is NOTHING wrong with teaching weakness in the evolution theory, especially from a scientific viewpoint. That teaches children to keep their eyes open, might challenge and interest some into proving the theory either completely true or completely bogus. After all it is still the THEORY of evolution right?

Children shouldn't be brainwashed into one way of thinking but rather given the honest facts and taught how to think for themselves. It is just like teaching the children the Bible in school. You are telling them again and again that this is fact and this is what you are supposed to believe when, to many, there are inconsitancies and holes throughout the text.

I think Texas is taking a step in the right direction towards more properly educating our children.

I would think that that's happening right now, if it's not then the curriculum needs sorting out and this intervention isn't going to help. If the current state of the theory - and it has advanced considerably since Darwin first published The Origin of Species, I hope Tx is aware of that - isn't being taught then it should be, but it should still be in the scientific framework.

And with respect you've misinterpreted the idea of "theory" as used in this context. It's an explanation based on observed evidence, it's not theoretical in the common useage of the word in the sense of "hypothetical". Not that I'm a scientific minded type but "theory" is science, as I understand it, is akin to "explanation inferred from observation and experimentation and observation", it isn't a wild guess which is how detractors sometimes try to portray it.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been taught here since *I* was in the 5th grade. Regardless the "state" it is in, it's STILL a theory and should be taught as a theory.

And with respect, those of you that leap to explain the unexplainable without fact are STILL only theorizing. It most certainly IS guessing.

The idea that evolution has occurred is a fact and the theory of evolution explains the facts. I suspect you are not using the word theory in the scientific context. It does not imply doubt.
 
This dude is a loon. That doesn't certify everything science comes up with as something we can take to the bank. Scientific claims about "how things are" are constantly proven false as we learn more. Science that I was taught as fact in the 60s has been proven NOW to be absolutely wrong. Science in not an infallible explanation of our universe. Why should it be the only thing taught ?

It's been said already. Teach science in science class, teach religion in religous class and teach metaphysics in a philosophy class. If you were taught that science deals in absolutes then get your money back. Even I knew back then that science was tentative. No right-minded person is going to claim that science has the answers to everything, some may say it doesn't even have the answers to anything but has a range of pretty good ideas about why things are as they are. One of the things that solid science can do is predict things and explain why. But it is tentative, science is all about knocking down ideas. That's why science and religion can't be mixed up, they're totally different one from the other. To infuse religion into a science class is bloody ridiculous. It would be as stupid as infusing science into a religious class. Science is tentative, religion is not.

Both however attempt to teach children how things are and why they are. One uses and intellectual approach while the other uses a spiritual approach. Why is the spiritual approach banned from being taught in school ?

It is not banned from schools as long as it is taught alongside other creation stories in a comparative religion class. It HAS been banned from science classes because creationism can't qualify as science.
 
I would think that that's happening right now, if it's not then the curriculum needs sorting out and this intervention isn't going to help. If the current state of the theory - and it has advanced considerably since Darwin first published The Origin of Species, I hope Tx is aware of that - isn't being taught then it should be, but it should still be in the scientific framework.

And with respect you've misinterpreted the idea of "theory" as used in this context. It's an explanation based on observed evidence, it's not theoretical in the common useage of the word in the sense of "hypothetical". Not that I'm a scientific minded type but "theory" is science, as I understand it, is akin to "explanation inferred from observation and experimentation and observation", it isn't a wild guess which is how detractors sometimes try to portray it.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been taught here since *I* was in the 5th grade. Regardless the "state" it is in, it's STILL a theory and should be taught as a theory.

And with respect, those of you that leap to explain the unexplainable without fact are STILL only theorizing. It most certainly IS guessing.

The idea that evolution has occurred is a fact and the theory of evolution explains the facts. I suspect you are not using the word theory in the scientific context. It does not imply doubt.

Correction--the theory of evolution TRIES to prove the facts.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top