Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I have always been amused by what Texas teaches their kids. They are taught to "Remember the Alamo", where hundreds died for Texas (which was rebelling against Mexico, since Mexican law forbad slave holding), but not many Texans have ever heard about Goliad, where hundreds surrendered without a serious fight, and then were executed by the Mexicans.
However, I agree that creationism also doesn't belong in a science text book. It isn't science. It's religion.
With all due respect, if the universe was created, there has to be as much science behind it as there is any other theory. Even the power a deity would use to create something has to derived from somewhere, and that kind of power has to be based in science. Just because we can't comprehend it doesn't mean we should just dismiss it as being any less scientific as anything else.
Should it be taught in school. If evolution is, it should be, since evolution is nothing more than a theory. If you're going to teach unproven theories, then teach all of them, otherwise teach none of them.
Then I support the "None" option.
Frankly, public school has expended more resources dealing with these ridiculous, unproven theories. "gravitational fields" and "light particles" and "quantum mechanics!" What a bunch of HOOEY!!
Then we need to eliminate the "number zero (0)." Has anyone actually seen this before?
1. Between living organisms there are no "advanced" biological features: there are different biological features.
2. I say, "Take Eclipsazoology in College."
Not true. An animal with a spine and an internal skeleton is more advanced that an animal without one. An animal with a digestive track that takes in food at one end and excretes the food at the other end is more advanced that an animal that takes in food and expels waste through the same orifice. Animals with a circulatory system are more advanced than animals without one. Animals that can lay eggs on dry land are more advanced than animals that need water to lay their eggs.
So we have a difference of opinion regarding what is "advanced," and what is "different."
How does this matter in teaching biology?
Living Thing A. takes in food at one end and excretes the food at the other end
Living Thing B. takes in food and expels waste through the same orifice
Obviously, these are two DIFFERENT living things.
The matter of one being "more advanced" is conjecture and opinion, and can easily be avoided in the context of teaching biology.
Not true. An animal with a spine and an internal skeleton is more advanced that an animal without one. An animal with a digestive track that takes in food at one end and excretes the food at the other end is more advanced that an animal that takes in food and expels waste through the same orifice. Animals with a circulatory system are more advanced than animals without one. Animals that can lay eggs on dry land are more advanced than animals that need water to lay their eggs.
So we have a difference of opinion regarding what is "advanced," and what is "different."
How does this matter in teaching biology?
Living Thing A. takes in food at one end and excretes the food at the other end
Living Thing B. takes in food and expels waste through the same orifice
Obviously, these are two DIFFERENT living things.
The matter of one being "more advanced" is conjecture and opinion, and can easily be avoided in the context of teaching biology.
No, it's not conjecture or opinion. Obviously, there are problems with excreting waste through the same orifice an organism uses for eating. For one thing, the incoming food is contaminated by previously excreted waste. Also, it's less efficient at extracting nutrition from the food consumed.
Given the above, the obvious question is why any organism would employ such an arrangement for digestion.
Not true. An animal with a spine and an internal skeleton is more advanced that an animal without one. An animal with a digestive track that takes in food at one end and excretes the food at the other end is more advanced that an animal that takes in food and expels waste through the same orifice. Animals with a circulatory system are more advanced than animals without one. Animals that can lay eggs on dry land are more advanced than animals that need water to lay their eggs.
So we have a difference of opinion regarding what is "advanced," and what is "different."
How does this matter in teaching biology?
Living Thing A. takes in food at one end and excretes the food at the other end
Living Thing B. takes in food and expels waste through the same orifice
Obviously, these are two DIFFERENT living things.
The matter of one being "more advanced" is conjecture and opinion, and can easily be avoided in the context of teaching biology.
No, it's not conjecture or opinion. Obviously, there are problems with excreting waste through the same orifice an organism uses for eating. For one thing, the incoming food is contaminated by previously excreted waste. Also, it's less efficient at extracting nutrition from the food consumed.
Given the above, the obvious question is why any organism would employ such an arrangement for digestion.
So we have a difference of opinion regarding what is "advanced," and what is "different."
How does this matter in teaching biology?
Living Thing A. takes in food at one end and excretes the food at the other end
Living Thing B. takes in food and expels waste through the same orifice
Obviously, these are two DIFFERENT living things.
The matter of one being "more advanced" is conjecture and opinion, and can easily be avoided in the context of teaching biology.
No, it's not conjecture or opinion. Obviously, there are problems with excreting waste through the same orifice an organism uses for eating. For one thing, the incoming food is contaminated by previously excreted waste. Also, it's less efficient at extracting nutrition from the food consumed.
Given the above, the obvious question is why any organism would employ such an arrangement for digestion.
why you...you...eukariotic- centric racist!
hahahaha
the only real test of life is whether it survives to procreate or replicate. 'more advanced' life is less successful because it is more susceptible to extinction because of its greater requirements to hold on to existence. that said, I would still rather be a human than a bacteria, etc
However, I agree that creationism also doesn't belong in a science text book. It isn't science. It's religion.
With all due respect, if the universe was created, there has to be as much science behind it as there is any other theory. Even the power a deity would use to create something has to derived from somewhere, and that kind of power has to be based in science. Just because we can't comprehend it doesn't mean we should just dismiss it as being any less scientific as anything else.
Should it be taught in school. If evolution is, it should be, since evolution is nothing more than a theory. If you're going to teach unproven theories, then teach all of them, otherwise teach none of them.
Evolution is Scientific Theory, which is almost fact.
Any creationist who attacks it as "theory" self witnesses a lack of understanding of empirical data and its use.
Students in Texas will soon be reading biology textbooks that teach creationism if some of the state's textbook review panelists have their way.
And if they have their way theyll be subject to a lawsuit that theyll lose.
Consequently this is merely a partisan stunt by the right to pander to the base, with school children the unwilling pawns.
And, the right is terrified of education. They like people to stay ignorant. That's why those elitist teachers and professors get crappy pay while sports coaches get high pay.
Just one more way in which the treasonous right refuses to invest in their own country.
Tell Texas: Creationism doesn't belong in a science textbook | LeftAction
Students in Texas will soon be reading biology textbooks that teach creationism if some of the state's textbook review panelists have their way.
Documents recently obtained by the nonprofit civil liberties group Texas Freedom Network (TFN) show that several members of the state's biology textbook review panel recommended that textbook publishers add sections about creationism, and remove information about climate change and evolution. Whether or not the publishers choose to make said recommendations could help determine if those textbooks are on a list of "approved" books for school districts.
Source:
2013 Science Textbook Adoption Review Documents - Texas Freedom Network
IMO, creationism is just dumb but if you want to teach it, don't call it "science"
And how do you teach that some biological features are more advanced that others? How do you even explain the vast array of species that exist on the Earth?
1. Between living organisms there are no "advanced" biological features: there are different biological features.
2. I say, "Take Eclipsazoology in College."
Not true. An animal with a spine and an internal skeleton is more advanced that an animal without one. An animal with a digestive track that takes in food at one end and excretes the food at the other end is more advanced that an animal that takes in food and expels waste through the same orifice. Animals with a circulatory system are more advanced than animals without one. Animals that can lay eggs on dry land are more advanced than animals that need water to lay their eggs.
Why are radical lefties so concerned with evolution/ creationism issue when there are oh so many failures in the federal education system? Is it about camouflage?
The problem that Bible Believers have is not only with Evolution per se. The basic problem is that the scientific evidence disproves the account of creation that is contained in Genesis, as well as the timeline that can be inferred (if you are truly determined) from the Old Testament.
Evolution posits an explanation for the natural world that actually makes logical sense, as contrasted with the Bible, for which you must leave your logical skills at the door before entering.
Ultimately, the problem is that Bible-believing Texans can't accept the School System teaching their kids that what they learn in "Sunday School" is scientific nonsense and incredible myths.
Shouldn't people know all sides to an issue so they can make an informed decision as to what they wish to believe?
