Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

TEXAS UPDATE

Quote:

State to hold public hearing on how schools should teach evolution
(By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News / March 25, 2009)

AUSTIN " State Board of Education members will hold a public hearing today on proposed science curriculum standards that would delete a long-time requirement that “weaknesses” in the theory of evolution be taught in high school science classes.

Under the standards tentatively adopted by the board in January, biology teachers and biology textbooks would no longer have to cover the “strengths and weaknesses” of Charles Darwin’s theory on how humans and other species evolved.

Opponents of the strengths-and-weaknesses requirement had warned that it would eventually open the door to teaching of creationism " the biblical explanation of the origin of humans " in science classes, while supporters of the rule denied that was their intention.

The seven Republican board members who supported the rule have been aligned with social conservative groups that in the past have tried to publicize alleged flaws in Darwin’s theory that humans evolved from lower life forms.

Evolution critics scored a minor victory when the board agreed to an amendment that calls for students to discuss the “sufficiency or insufficiency” of Darwin’s tenet that living things have a common ancestry.

Science teacher groups and academics have indicated they will ask the board to strip that provision at their meeting. Board members will vote on the science standards on Thursday and Friday.

The new curriculum standards spell out not only how evolution is to be covered, but also what is supposed to be taught in all science classes in elementary and secondary schools, as well as providing the material for state tests and textbooks.

The standards will remain in place for the next decade.

3 Replies

@wandeljw,

Quote:

Opponents of the strengths-and-weaknesses requirement had warned that it would eventually open the door to teaching of creationism

It is well known in intellectual circles that what doors will be opened eventually leads to a feeling of vertigo and that only hard-bitten cynics should risk looking into it.

Quote:

The standards will remain in place for the next decade.

That is not necessarily true.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

TEXAS UPDATE

Quote:
State to hold public hearing on how schools should teach evolution
(By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News / March 25, 2009)

Evolution critics scored a minor victory when the board agreed to an amendment that calls for students to discuss the “sufficiency or insufficiency” of Darwin’s tenet that living things have a common ancestry.

Doesn't seem like much of a victory. Bottom line is that evolutionary theory is as solid (or more solid) as the rest of modern scientific knowledge. It doesn't need, and shouldn't be shackled with, any statements which inaccurately serve to undermine it's credibility.

Are we trying to give our kids valid science education or not? If not, then go ahead and mislead them. Otherwise, "Teach the Science".

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

I wish ros would try another tune. Nothing too difficult. Just something, anything, to allay the suspicion that he is so boring that he might well be used for drilling for oil in those fields too deep for modern boring equipment.

I hope he undoes his shirtfront before he makes pronouncements of that nature in public places to avoid the risk of any members of his audience who are still awake getting their eye knocked out by a flying button.

That's the main problem with atheists. They are so ******* boring. And if they don't smoke or drink or wager on the chance happenings and do so behave decorously like good Christians they are so much worse that I am stumped for words to convey it properly. You really do need to experience it as I have.

I usually gaze unblinking into their eyes and either adopt an overstated mien of vacant dumbfoundedness or produce a mime of someone who just found out the meaning of life and has realised what a fool he has been not to have seen it before this stroke of good fortune fell onto what the pompous prick must have felt was the empty head of his victim. If he's big and strong looking I tone down the heavy irony.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

The coverage of the "insufficiency" should take up at least a half to three-quarters of a page.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

They want the evolutionary theory to be a god; the ability to answer all questions today. That's because they have no idea how evolutionary theory works in real life. Evolutionary theory is still a very young science that has revealed many things to us, but creationism has lasted for two thousand years without any advancement. They can't see their own hypocrisy.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Creationism has been around for a lot longer than 2,000 years -- it's just the gods who have changed. The only "advancement" is that a bunch of wandering Hebrew scribes (secretaries) with the guidance of Yahweh wrote down in contradictory detail (see the Bible itself and the Gnostic texts) how the Earth was formed. Now they're trying to advance this myth derived from several myths before it with a deceptive and bumbling speculation that some great intelligence (still in their minds in the form of a man) had to design, assemble and paint-up all living creatures in their static state.

2 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Creationism wasn't quite so delusional back when there were no better explanations for anything.

It's one thing to call on "God" to fill the gaps where you otherwise have no idea. Even now, if we reach beyond what our science knows, filling the gap with "the supernatural" is as good a guess as any. But it's quite another to make up stories which are in direct conflict with reality, and that's what Creationism (with a capital "C") does.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Well, of course, the writers of the Bible had to make it up. They had nothing to go on but the past myths of such things as the great flood which is possibly rooted in scientific explanations. What scientists determined happened to the Black Sea in the distant past, for instance. The IDiots and Crationuts are trying to turn the supernatural into the natural, while they are really turning the natural into the supernatural. Science does not interfere with anyone's own feeling of spirituality no matter where it comes from. Science doesn't make people immoral -- they've reached that on an emotional and psychological level with or without endorsing or being educated science. Not buying into evolution does not make one a pure, sinless little cherub. Being educated in evolutionary science does not make one an impure, sinful little demon -- that's what religion wants one to believe and especially it's insignificant, small-minded armchair preachers.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

I agree. There's really no conflict between religion and science. The conflict is between reality and delusion (Creationism being pure delusion).

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

It's their anchor -- trouble is, it's stuck in the mud and they can't move.

0 Replies

Today's public hearing in Austin, Texas began less than an hour ago and will continue for 4 more hours. A local county news service is liveblogging the hearing at this link:
http://salon.glenrose.net/default.asp?view=plink&id=10152

1 Reply

and to think i left kentucky in part to get away from all of the religious zealots.

what about my needs and concerns, dammit ?!?

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

I've been listening but have to go on errands. So far, the science teachers are making a much better case on keeping the "strengths and weaknesses" out of the classes and textbooks and the testimony of those wanting to include it are just reciting DI and other blogs like they are reading a prompter.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard wrote:

I've been listening but have to go on errands. So far, the science teachers are making a much better case on keeping the "strengths and weaknesses" out of the classes and textbooks and the testimony of those wanting to include it are just reciting DI and other blogs like they are reading a prompter.

if the i.d. / creationists/whatever are successful in including "strengths and weaknesses" for evolution, it would only be fair to also include the strength and weaknesses of intelligent design and creationism.

and of course be able to prove scientifically that they are not mere "theories".

what's good for the goose and all that jazz, ya know.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

That's true; the Hebrew bible that explains how god created earth is older than 2000 years.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The Egyptians believed Ra was the creator, the other Gods were just managers. Is that much different than the Christian creator with his committee of Jesus, Mary, and all the other saints?

I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn't.
- Jules Renard

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

I thought Ra was the sun god?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

From the Tahuti Institute essays:

The One Joined Together

In Ancient Egyptian traditions, Ra represents the primeval, cosmic, creative force. The Litany describes Ra as The One Joined Together, Who Comes Out of His Own Members. The Ancient Egyptian definition of Ra is the perfect representation of the Unity that comprises the putting together of the many diverse entities, i.e. The One Who is the All. The Litany of Ra describes the aspects of the creative principle: being recognized as the neteru (gods) whose actions and interactions in turn created the universe. As such, all the Egyptian neteru who took part in the creation process are aspects of Ra. There are 75 forms or aspects of Ra. As such, Ra is often incorporated into the names of other neteru (gods) such as in Amen-Ra of Ta-Apet (Thebes), Ra-Atum of Onnu/Annu (Heliopolis), Ra-Harakhte, ...etc. The solar energy of the sun is only one of numerous manifestations of Ra. That Ra is not just the sun (only a singular form), was also confirmed in the following verse from the Story of Ra and Auset (Isis), in which Ra states, I have multitude of names, and multitude of forms.

0 Replies

It's enough to make an educated person's eyes water.

0 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know