Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@spendius,

I betcha dollars to donuts that all your "friends" at the pub feel the same way about you! LOL

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Yep--I have been known to shoot a few illusions out of the sky. They tell me that I'm an aquired taste.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

those same teachers needs to be told about addressing those aspects of creationism and its weaknesses. LOL

Thats my entire point. You leave the teachers to compose "strengths and weaknesses"esson plans and treat all theories or hypotheses the same. ID will come out as a totally religious doctrine and therefore, by Federal Ourt, is not a candidate for science classes.

McElroy could be shooting hisself in the foot no matter what the turnout of these regs.

SO< gimme the bumper sticker version, I have limited screen space on this damn device. Whats the outcome (in just a few lines, no long clips or Ill have to wait till I get home to hear the news)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

If you can get up for reading Prof. Gellner's Legitimation of Belief effemm you will find that it is sociological, psychological and economic. And they are sciences. The first two anyway. Surely human behaviour is more interesting than chiclids and rocks.

DON'T BLAME ME--I DON'T VOTE.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

It seems, on the evidence, that you have an obsession with accusations of cowardice.

Nope, just pointing out your cowardice on occasion. I'm sure I miss 9/10ths of the stupid things you say and which surely warrant similar "accusations" (read: accurate summaries).

You have fought no fight but that of a troll, spendius. You make barely-coherent ramblings and near-randomly flung insults that make one question whether they should honor them with acknowledgment. It's why you're usually ignored. I got bored with this thread - I follow the challenges elsewhere most of the time, but sometimes there are some gems - like farmerman's stories of S.J.Gould.

Feel free to make your own thread on your rantings against the teaching of evolution, try to make something coherent and cogent. Since I've issued this challenge for a while and you've failed miserably, I definitely don't expect you to actually lack the cowardice to do so. It's not so much about having 'courage' per se, spendius, it's not like it takes much to be minimally intellectually honest. It's about not being a coward.

And then you go on to prove my point by spouting a bunch of nonsense with a rather small point nestled in there: you still think it's contradictory for one to advocate while having scientific preoccupation. How pitifully-argued and boring a repetition. I can see why you add the fluff, it's to hide the piss-poor attempts at saying something substantial.

1 Reply

Liveblog of today's Texas BOE meeting from Houston Chronicle:
http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/evosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3af12fd84e-253f-46cf-9408-ee579f9a3a0bPost%3a31f6c3f6-9102-41de-835c-694f920c51db

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

From the above link:

Quote:

9:15 a.m.- Chair McLeroy calls the meeting to order. Gail Lowe gives the Invocation and prays "in Jesus' name." Why didn't I foresee this? Ms. Lowe did ask God to help the Board members make good decisions that help Texas students to succeed, and I certainly hope God grants that prayer. If He/She/It does, all the anti-evolution amendments passed yesterday will be removed today. And if God is really generous, He will fill the hearts of the Texas legislators with the idea to strip the SBOE of its authority to write academic standards and adopt textbooks. Then perhaps the students of Texas will begin to get an adequate education that gives them the accurate and reliable scientific knowledge they will need to succeed.

I have been in communication with several SBOE members this morning to shore up support for our amendments. Our science coalition has submitted five amendments, three for Biology that strike the two McLeroy amendments and the one Leo amendment to the evolution section that damage evolution and promote Creationism and two for ESS that amend the Cargill amendments that damage fossil evolution and the origin of the universe in unscientific ways that can promote Creationism.

(Steve Schafersman writes this blog.)
Schafersman is president of Texas Citizens for Science.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I never pass up a good straight line. Not to worry, I eat a lot of celery. I

It does give a new meaning to the pub to suck on a big one. That could be a pint of ale but use your imagination.

1 Reply

@Shirakawasuna,

A troll with obvious penis envy.

The discussion is hanging on the vote today, but the school board voting over and over again makes them a laughing stock to begin with. Does someone ask for a recount because they can't count a handful of people in the first place?

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Don't know what happened to that sentence in the reply:

It does give a new meaning to going to the pub to suck on a big one. That could be a pint of ale but use your imagination.

0 Replies

Silly, convoluted wording changes being made this morning at the Texas education board. Excerpt from Schafersman's liveblog:

Quote:

12:05 p.m - We just had a much-need 20-minute break. I heard a rumor that an agreement had been made between some Board members that in return for the religious right's support for the Craig compromise amendment for rule 3A, the five amendments to change or strike the bad Biology and ESS amendments would be dropped. I was also told that this is an untrue rumor and that the amendments will be made.

McLeroy is now going up through the grades for amendments. The many TEA staff amendments are no longer being proposed. I think they received a talking-to from a senior TEA official for coming up with a long list of small amendments on Friday of final SB meeting. As I said, this was not the way to conduct this process. Those small changes, all good suggestions from individuals who sent in proposed changes, are months late.

Well, I'm wrong. Barbara Cargill is now proposing a small wording change directly from the TEA list of suggested changes. So I guess the editing process is continuing. Mrs. Berlanga is now criticizing bringing up small changes at the last minute when other SB members made that same argument for an amendment by Ms. Knight. This process is getting sillier and sillier.

(emphasis added)

0 Replies

I realize some of this is not up-to-the-hour but a good summary from the New York Times:

Defeat and Some Success for Texas Evolution Foes

By MICHAEL BRICK
Published: March 26, 2009

AUSTIN, Tex. " In an evenly split vote, the State Board of Education on Thursday upheld teaching evolution as accepted mainstream science.

But social conservatives on the board, using a series of amendments tailored to particular school subjects, succeeded in requiring teachers to evaluate critically a variety of scientific principles like cell formation and the Big Bang.

The debate over new curriculum requirements, to take effect in 2010, stands to influence educational standards nationwide. Once every decade, major textbook publishers revise their offerings to match the requirements newly set forth by Texas, which is one of their largest bulk customers.

More than 80 years after the biology teacher John Scopes was tried on charges of illegally teaching evolution in Tennessee, the controversy here has played out with more subtlety, involving political code words and efforts to undermine the theory itself.

The debate has centered on a longstanding clause that requires teachers to address the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories, including Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Teachers quietly ignored the requirements for decades.

The board tentatively decided in January to drop the “strengths and weaknesses” language. On Thursday, Democrats and moderate Republicans on the board blocked a proposal by social conservatives to reinstate it. Even with one moderate board member missing, the measure was blocked with a preliminary 7-to-7 vote.

The full board is set to take a final vote on Friday.

Failing to overhaul the curriculum broadly, conservatives instead attached a series of measures specific to subjects like biology, where teachers would be newly required to “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of natural selection to explain the complexity of the cell.”

In the earth-science curriculum, conservatives weakened language concerning “the concept of an expanding universe” to address instead “current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe.”

With protesters on both sides of the issue carrying signs outside its meetings, the board has heard impassioned testimony from science teachers, parents and others.

A conservative board member, Bob Craig of Lubbock, expressed satisfaction with the overall changes.

“I personally believe that language is good language,” Mr. Craig said in an interview. “It allows for full discussion of all sides of the issue.”

Dan Quinn, a spokesman for the Texas Freedom Network, a nonprofit group that promotes the teaching of evolution, said the vote would not end the debate.

“If they don’t get the political strategy, they’ll go piecemeal,” Mr. Quinn said. “The State Board of Education pretty much slammed the door on ‘strengths and weaknesses,’ but then went around and opened all the windows in the house.”

0 Replies

If the teachers have been ignoring this, what's to keep them from continuing to ignore anti-evolution amendments?

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

If they ignore it, they can be fired. If they define its content, they can, if theyre smart, turn this to an advantage to the scientific method.

"eg"

"Natural Selection has a wealth of evidence to draw from, including genetic structure that clearly shows the interrationship among existing animals , and a fossil record that contains major breaks in the occurence of species and cellular organisms through time. This attests to the fact that things developed and appeared through time. This piece of information clarly stomps on a worldview that states that things were Created in a static appearance of EVERYTHING AT ONCE (according to the Evangelical Christian belief). The natural election theory presents us with several levels of evidence and data that can be analyzed and from which a conclusion , coordinant with science's predictions, can be presented. ANy other belief, can not be similrly presented"

I would push this until my tenure was in jeopardy and beyond. After any punitive action by the school board, Id take em to court in a fashion very similr to How John SCopes and colleagues met in Dayton Tennesee that warm July day to promote a "test" of the Tennessee Creation Laws. Of course , with SCopes, it tokk several decades after his verdict to have the laws repealed.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I would think that would immediately be grounds for unlawful dismissal as the wording has been on the books and from what I can gather from the searches, many teachers are ignoring it and still teaching evolution. They can't mass fire hundreds of teachers -- that would be a nuclear legal result.

You're likely right and that's what the NSTA is designing as a lesson plan.

These people are the fundamentalist who preach staying out of the arms of the devil and they're heading full bore into the heat.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Yeah, they should all burn in hell...

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

may we live in interesting times-
--Duncan Munro

0 Replies

Today's Texas education board meeting has ended. Here is Steve Schafersman's summation in his Houston Chronicle blog:

Quote:

What is the bottom line? Did we win or lose? Neither. We got rid of the worst language, but a great deal of qualifying language remains. I am not going to claim either victory or defeat. I realize that Casey Luskin of Discovery Institute will declare complete, unqualified victory, but it is not that for them. Neither is it for us. The standards adopted were generally good, but there are several that are flawed, fortunately most in minor ways that textbook authors and publishers can deal with. I think we can work around the few flawed standards. But the point is that there shouldn't be ANY flawed standards. The science standards as submitted by the science writing teams were excellent and flaw-free. All the flaws were added by politically unscrupulous SBOE members with an extreme right-wing religious agenda to support Creationism.

This will become apparent in 2011 when the Biology textbooks come up for adoption. Rule 3A and several other poor amendments in Biology--all the contribution of SBOE members who know nothing about science but a lot about pseudoscience--will be used to attack Biology textbooks. Cynthia Dunbar said so: "All we need is Rule 3A as now written and we have everything we want" (I am paraphrasing, but she said this in so many words). Gentle Readers, this is not the way to develop educational policy in one of the most wealthy and powerful state in the most wealthy and powerful country in the world in the 21st century. The process you just experienced, by reading my live blog columns, was deplorable and should be deeply embarrassing to every Texas citizen.

The policy (science standards) that resulted are not the best they could be. They are acceptable but could have been pseudoscience- and Creationism influence-free. However, I can also say the standards could be much worse. The votes were so close, and several members switched their votes back and forth several times, sometimes voting with the antiscience radical right wing members and sometimes with the pro-science members, that anything could have happened. I suppose I should be grateful the results are not worse.

I am happy the process is over but only because I am tired. I will write some more about the science standards later on the Texas Citizens for Science website. But for now, this live blog is finally ENDED.

1 Reply

I am appropriately embarrassed. But, I know the fight for truth in science classes will continue long after my old bones have been stripped clean by wolves on an ice floe.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

I haven't visited the DI site to see what their news blog editorializes about the decision, but here's the Dallas News new report:

Texas education board cuts provisions questioning evolution from science curriculum

04:33 PM CDT on Friday, March 27, 2009

By TERRENCE STUTZ

AUSTIN " Social conservatives lost another skirmish over evolution Friday when the State Board of Education stripped two provisions from proposed science standards that would have raised questions about key principles of the theory of evolution.

In identical 8-7 votes, board members removed two sections authored by board Chairman Don McLeroy that would have required students in high school biology classes to study the “sufficiency or insufficiency” of common ancestry and natural selection of species. Both are key principles of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Five Democrats and three Republicans joined to narrowly outvote the seven Republicans on the board aligned with social conservative groups.

Afterward, a disappointed McLeroy, R-College Station, called the board’s decisions a blow to science education in Texas.

“Science loses. Texas loses and the kids lose because of this,” he said. Earlier, McLeroy, a creationist, argued that many aspects of Darwin’s theory are not supported by fossil records " though he pointed out he does not oppose teaching evolution in the public schools.

Board member Geraldine Miller, R-Dallas, was among those who voted to delete the two provisions. She said the proposals conflicted with other requirements on evolution in the curriculum standards for science.

“It doesn’t make any sense to have these in our standards,” she said, pointing out that students in science classes will still be able to examine all aspects of Darwin’s theory " including those pinpointed by evolution critics.

Groups representing science teachers and academics had urged the board to dump McLeroy’s proposals on common ancestry and natural selection of species, contending they would be used to undermine the teaching of evolution.

Those groups also questioned board decisions Friday to adopt compromise language in other areas " on the study of fossil records and the complexity of cells. Those compromises were supported by McLeroy and most other board members.

The Texas Freedom Network, which has battled with social conservative groups on education issues, warned that the compromise language could still be used by evolution critics to water down coverage of evolution in textbooks.

“This document still has plenty of potential footholds for creationist attacks on evolution to make their way into Texas classrooms,” said TFN President Kathy Miller, who predicted heated battles over the content of biology textbooks in two years.

Friday’s votes came a day after social conservatives lost one of their key objectives in the debate over evolution " to require that science teachers and textbooks cover the “weaknesses” of Charles Darwin’s theory as well as its strengths. That proposal failed on a 7-7 vote of the board.

Board members on Friday also adopted on a 13-2 vote curriculum standards for all science courses in Texas schools that will remain in force for the next decade. The standards will determine what students are taught in class and what must be covered in science textbooks.

Because Texas is one of the largest textbook purchasers in the nation, science educators and publishers have been closely monitoring the Texas debate on evolution and other science topics. Books sold to Texas schools are marketed across the country.

End of article

Reverting to the tactic of attacking basic Darwinism is like starting American history with the Civil War.

0 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know