Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Theres that annoying chirping again.

Thats way different than what we were fed. So Dr Reiss has resigned under pressure?

State Board of Education chairman and creationist Don McLeroy said in a recent AP story that he was "sick and tired of people saying we're interjecting religion" into the classroom, though he supports restoring the "strengths and weaknesses" language and working some form of it into the proposed standards for chemistry and astronomy.

Editorial: Science only in science class
(Waco Herald Tribune, October 03, 2008)

This should not be necessary: A group of scientists from Texas universities speaks out for teaching science in public schools.

The group calls itself the 21st Century Coalition. It doesn’t want winks and nods to religion in science class.

In question is newly released proposed science standards which remove previous wording that required schools to teach the “strength and weaknesses” of scientific biology, particularly as relates to evolution.

That wording is code for and could be a cue for so-called creation science.

Some adherents to the Biblical creation theory say that gaps in the evolution model discredit Darwin’s theories.

Of course, the gaps in their own explanations of human and animal origins are so gaping as to rely only on explanations in the Bible.

The chairman of the State Board of Education, Don McLeroy, is a self-described creationist. Though he says he does not support teaching creationism or intelligent design in class, he does support bringing to light the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, as has been state policy for some time.

He also argues that science “should be redefined to include supernatural (religious) explanations and phenomena.”

Explaining and investigating “strengths and weaknesses” of any theory is inherent in scientific inquiry. But having such language in state standards, as has been the case for several years, is code for those who want religion to have a foot in the door when Darwin comes up.

Taking that phrase out returns science in its pure form relative to the mandate from the state.

The new proposed standards are the product of official Texas Education Agency work groups made up of teachers and academics nominated by the State Board of Education.

This is not just a state issue. Ever since textbook monitors Mel and Norma Gabler rose to prominence, Texas educational standards have had nationwide ramifications.

Being the second largest purchaser of textbooks behind California, what Texas requires of its materials dictates what a lot of publishers end up including.

The problem with requiring the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution is that it tends to discourage in-depth treatment of the subject in text materials.

Once again, acknowledging the shortcomings of scientific theories, no matter what they are, is one of the essences of science. But when the objective is to inject matters spiritual, we are not talking about science. We are talking about religion that wants a seat at the table.

Not in science class.

The chairman of the State Board of Education, Don McLeroy, is a self-described creationist. Though he says he does not support teaching creationism or intelligent design in class, he does support bringing to light the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, as has been state policy for some time.

He also argues that science “should be redefined to include supernatural (religious) explanations and phenomena.”

He also argues that science “should be redefined to include supernatural (religious) explanations and phenomena.”

It's the same people who promote evolution as the ones who have dropped the financial system in the ****

Thats such a vacuous vapid pile of excreta