Posted on 01/19/2009 6:23:49 AM PST by Sopater
Public hearing on hot topic planned for Wednesday.
The State Board of Education will meet this week to vote on how to teach evolution in the classroom and take up other changes to the Texas public school science curriculum that have been recommended by a panel of experts.
Science students should be expected to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing," according to the final recommendations by the six-member panel, which were made public earlier this month.
Since 1988, the state has required that students learn the "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories. Though some critics say that has opened the door to teaching creationism alongside evolution, those who believe that the strengths-and-weaknesses language should remain say it encourages open discussion and critical thinking in classrooms.
As recently as November, the panel of experts was effectively trying to reintroduce the requirement to teach the weaknesses of scientific theories by mandating that students "analyze and evaluate strengths and limitations" of scientific explanations.
The expert panel, appointed in October, included one of the leading proponents of intelligent design, which holds that the origins of the universe stem from a higher power, and two scientists who have said they have doubts about the theory of evolution.
Steve Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science and a curriculum expert who is part of a separate group responsible for writing the earth and space science standards for the state, said the new language that will be discussed this week includes a more accurate description of what schoolchildren in Texas should be expected to know about science.
"Scientific theories do not have weaknesses, and high school students do not have the skills to critique theories; they need to learn them," Schafersman said of the potential change to the curriculum. "The word 'weaknesses' has been removed because it's very limited in that context. The scientific theory of evolution is complete."
But Ken Mercer, a member of the State Board of Education, says that excluding the phrase about strengths and weaknesses "raises a huge red flag about academic freedom and freedom of speech" by essentially telling students that they are not qualified to ask questions about scientific theories, he said.
"I'm hoping for a 10-5 vote, with a strong majority on whatever we go with, whatever's best for the kids," Mercer said.
"I know the kids of today, and if you tell kids not to ask questions, you lose your credibility," he said.
The board will hear testimony Wednesday, vote Thursday and prepare a final vote on the recommendations Friday, Schafersman said.
Board members will also talk this week about mandating more science experiments and fewer lectures in classrooms, but the evolution discussion has been the most controversial and drawn the most attention from educators and activists.
I could care less what the outcome is.
We teach objective science.
Creation wins hands down.
We laugh at evolution.
Creation is more than “religion”. LOL!!!!!
Objective science supports it.
I don’t see why the Marxist schools shouldn’t teach their Marxist religion. I’ll just go ahead and teach my kids the truth and let the pagans give their kids over to the Marxists.
I understand completely.
We literally LAUGH at evolution.
Talk about tortured “logic” - that is a requirement to believe evolution has an merit even as the hypothesis it truly is. They can't even be honest using their own definitions - evolution at best is a left wing hypothesis.
Sorry, but "creation science" simply isn't science, period. The existence of a Creator cannot be either proven nor disproven by science---it's a question of philosophy (or perhaps metaphysics) that is completely outside what science can do.
"Creation science" belongs in a philosophy class, not a science class. Teach it all you like, but not in science class.
According to him, but his opinion is not fact.
Under the 'general diffusion of knowledge', schools have got to teach the balancing aspect of evolution, which is creationism.
The schools in early America did it with the McGuffey's readers. It's a series of simple, short stories with morals....appreciation of the wonders of Nature, the virtue of Perseverance, the love of family, ALL gifts to be appreciated as gifts of a Creator, and coincidentally, the source of our unalienable rights.
Public schoolkids are taught the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, but not WHY the People are superior to government.
Set it up as a philosophy class if nothing else, and have them use the Great Books of the Western World as textbooks.
IMHO, it's essential that people hold themselves responsible because it's the right thing to do, and not that many parents teach personal responsibility at home.
excluding FReepers, of course :-)
Uh, the existence of a creator can be explained by the fact we’re here. That’s observable fact.
It makes you wonder why they continue to be altered. Scientific theories are refined or completely abandoned altogether at times.
1) Molecules to man evolution can not be reproduced by scientists biasing conditions orders of magnitude in their favor, much less by random chance process in a natural environment.
2) The fossil record shows very little in the way of transitional forms that can be conjectured to fit their theory.
3) Limits are seen when breeding various species.
4) Favorable Mutation is pretty much an oxymoron.
There are just a few of the weaknesses that I threw together in about 5 minutes.
Thank GOD my last child graduates from high school here in Texas this year and won’t have this kind of nonsense-science forced on her. Some people are bound and determined to make our school kids as stupid in science as the kids in Somalia.
Nope, sorry, but that's not science. You're assuming your conclusion. Not a legit argument.
As a Roman Catholic I believe firmly in the existence of a Creator and an act of Creation---but as a scientist, I must confine my theorizing to things that are "within science", and provable by scientific methods.
...which excludes the theory of evolution.
“Creation science” is the giant oxymoron of modern era.
How many scientific theories do they plan to have students analyze? (From the article, I'm thinking they are only concerned with one in particular...)
Okay so we evolved from microbes or whatever, where did the microbes come from? They’ve always existed. There’s no other word for that but stupid.
Well keep your “science” to yourself or use your own money to indoctrinate the masses.
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.
The theory of evolution is science. Creationism is a religious belief.
The two are not "competing theories." They rely on entirely different evidence (scientific evidence vs. revelation or scripture) and they employ entirely different methods (the scientific method vs. belief and faith, etc.).
And your "weaknesses" show the problem of letting religious belief masquerade as science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.