Texas leads the race to the bottom

[whitehall]

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.

I have always been amused about what pop-culture history teaches American kids. Everybody thought that MacArthur liberated the Philippines when he was a disgraced general who lost his entire army and fled rather than risk being captured. He sat out the war in Austrailia and when Marines made it safe for his photo-op he finally waded ashore with cameras clicking.

 

[IanC]

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?

hahaha, very funny

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

 

[IanC]

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.

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

 

[Samson]

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.

Obviously, there are "problems" with any living system. There are also advantages. When the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, the organism survives, regardless of how "advanced" you personally may believe it is.

 

[Samson]

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

I wonder if a bacteria feeding off a human corpse would rather be a human.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

LOL. So you just pegged yourself as a truly stupid individual. In Scientific terminology, Theory is as good as it gets. There is nothing higher. The layman's term for theory, a guess, is not the scientific term. And Evolution is simply the most robust of the scientific theories. So robust, in fact, that we are engineering with it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[Samson]

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.

Opinion.

Nonetheless, biology has little to do with EITHER theory, and thus BOTH theories can be omitted.

 

[whitehall]

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?

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

yea and thats all because of right wingers.....you are just as stupid as the ones you are putting down Dudley and that statement proves that....

 

[ScienceRocks]

Same shit the muslim extremist are doing throughout the middle east seems to be occurring within america with ours.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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"

Why are you against allowing a different opinion on the subject?

Shouldn't people know all sides to an issue so they can make an informed decision as to what they wish to believe?

 

[mamooth]

We should teach the Flat Earth theory, astrology, homeopathy, bloodletting, and the miasma theory of disease as well. Got to be politically correct, since all opinions are equally valid.

 

[TooTall]

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.

I know a lot of earth worms that have Masters degrees. (you might want to eliminate the word earth)

 

[Samson]

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?

"Federal Education System?"



You mean West Point and Annapolis?

 

[editec]

This argument over evolution in schools is so silly.

First of all I doubt that the kids learn much about the theory of evolution. the theory is a simple statement attempting to explain all the undisputable FACTS that science teachesl

What they learn about is the biology that exists.

It isn't like they take a year of evolution studies or anything.

And if the creationists children are so attracted to the scientific logic of evolutionary theory, that they abandon their "faith" in creationism?

Is that a bad thing, really?

For those who want to cripple their children by mythologies like creationism, there is always home schooling.

 

[DGS49]

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.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

Can you prove that it's "scientific nonsense and incredible myths"?


I didn't think so.

 

[Steven_R]

Shouldn't people know all sides to an issue so they can make an informed decision as to what they wish to believe?

Not in this case. Children simply don't have the time nor the training to be able to look at all the evidence and make a rational and logical connection. That's why they're spoonfed the materials in school. It isn't until a student gets into grad school that they can be expected to start making those deductions that aren't already part of the established status quo.

In short, we already know beyond a reasonable doubt a thing before it ends up in a jr. high textbook and it is irresponsible to give them material that would make them doubt it.