Texas leads the race to the bottom

[Luddly Neddite]

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"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 they’ll be subject to a lawsuit that they’ll lose.

Consequently this is merely a partisan stunt by the right to pander to the base, with school children the unwilling pawns.

 

[bripat9643]

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"

Agree 100% with the plan to remove propaganda about global warming. School should be about learning facts, not politically motivated hocus-pocus and abracadabra.

However, I agree that creationism also doesn't belong in a science text book. It isn't science. It's religion.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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 they’ll be subject to a lawsuit that they’ll 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.

 

[peach174]

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 they’ll be subject to a lawsuit that they’ll 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.

The right want better education for all of our kids. The right is focusing the kids.
All the left has done is throw money at it and never fix what is wrong. The left focus on the teachers & unions and not the children.
It's the left who want people to stay ignorant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The state board managed to get the creationists thrown out.

Not too worry.

 

[Samson]

And, the right is terrified of education. They like people to stay ignorant. .

Even without being part of the right, I appreciate the ignorance you display is spelling Texas with three s's.



Genius.

 

[007]

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.

 

[Samson]

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?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Texas has thrown the Creationist crowed out of Texas science classrooms.

Let's move on.

 

[Samson]

Texas has thrown the Creationist crowed out of Texas science classrooms.

Let's move on.

What is a "Creationist Crowed?"

 

[whitehall]

Texas High Schools are considered to be some of the best in the Country by US News/World report. Teaching creationism probably wouldn't affect anybody but the easy to anger bigoted radical left.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There is no deity. There isn't the slightest evidence of a deity. Every argument for the existence of a deity is a contradiction. You don't get to make stuff up just because you don't know the answer to a question. Creationism is a fantasy.

The theory of evolution is as valid as any theory in science. There is endless evidence to support it. There is no evidence to support the claim that some gaseous vertebrate created the universe.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

You can't teach high school biology without referring to the theory of evolution. Most of the concepts in biology stem from evolution, like the various phylum of living things.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

 

[Samson]

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?

You can't teach high school biology without referring to the theory of evolution. Most of the concepts in biology stem from evolution, like the various phylum of living things.

You can't?

Biology is literally the study of LIVING THINGS.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I haven't seen a Wooley Mammoth walking around my yard (there was a Saint Bernard), and unless you can prove they are living, then I say rip the Wooley Mammoth Chapter out of public school "Biology" books.

I don't want my kids lernin' 'bout a bunch of dead shit in a class that's supposed to be 'bout livin' shit!

 

[bripat9643]

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?

You can't teach high school biology without referring to the theory of evolution. Most of the concepts in biology stem from evolution, like the various phylum of living things.

You can't?

Biology is literally the study of LIVING THINGS.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I haven't seen a Wooley Mammoth walking around my yard (there was a Saint Bernard), and unless you can prove they are living, then I say rip the Wooley Mammoth Chapter out of public school "Biology" books.

I don't want my kids lernin' 'bout a bunch of dead shit in a class that's supposed to be 'bout livin' shit!

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?

 

[Samson]

You can't teach high school biology without referring to the theory of evolution. Most of the concepts in biology stem from evolution, like the various phylum of living things.

You can't?

Biology is literally the study of LIVING THINGS.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I haven't seen a Wooley Mammoth walking around my yard (there was a Saint Bernard), and unless you can prove they are living, then I say rip the Wooley Mammoth Chapter out of public school "Biology" books.

I don't want my kids lernin' 'bout a bunch of dead shit in a class that's supposed to be 'bout livin' shit!

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."

 

[bripat9643]

You can't?

Biology is literally the study of LIVING THINGS.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I haven't seen a Wooley Mammoth walking around my yard (there was a Saint Bernard), and unless you can prove they are living, then I say rip the Wooley Mammoth Chapter out of public school "Biology" books.

I don't want my kids lernin' 'bout a bunch of dead shit in a class that's supposed to be 'bout livin' shit!

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.

 

[Samson]

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.

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.