Posted on 03/27/2009 12:44:47 AM PDT by gondramB
AUSTIN – In a decision watched by science educators across the nation, the State Board of Education on Thursday narrowly turned aside a last-ditch effort by social conservatives to require that "weaknesses" in the theory of evolution be taught in science classes in Texas.
Board members deadlocked 7-7 on a motion to restore a longtime curriculum rule that "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories – notably Charles Darwin's theory of evolution – be covered in science classes and textbooks for those subjects
... Voting for the requirement were the seven Republican board members aligned with social conservative groups. Against the proposal were three other Republicans and four Democrats. Critics of evolution managed to add a few small caveats to the curriculum, but none as sweeping as the strengths-and-weaknesses rule.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
There are so many holes and weaknesses in the theory of evolution a snow plow can fit through them w/ room to spare but the liberals, who want our children to think they’re no better than animals, have their way again.
Since it is an understatement to say that there are weaknesses in the theory of evolution, so why cant they be taught.
To me this subject is mostly insignificant, to a mother or father that cares about how the educational system either brainwashes (Likley) or informs is a mattr of philisophical debate.
If any parent wishes thier child to belive that they are ‘animals’ or near enough so, well then don’t complain when they act as such. I myself beleive in not just the law as it was interperted thousands of years go, but also by the founding fathers 200 years ago, I belive both logic and wisdom were on that case. Be a good parent. And if you rely on the NEA standards, You Ain’t doi’n right by yer peeps.
Commie Mommies(ie, useful idiots) on the school board. Works every time.
Exactly! They could use Gravitational Theory as an illustration of how something isn't wrong just because we don't understand all of how it works (and it would illustrate the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of the "It's only a theory" line).
Or discuss the strawman "Darwinism" argument, where Creationists try to pretend there have been no advances in our understanding since Charles Darwin and attack hiss original theories.
I think it could be an excellent tool to give our students a better understanding of science in place of the misleading false representations it is often given.
And by design stopped it when He decided. Man will only understand or fathom the intelligence required when in heaven.
The problems in schools is they dont even touch on the creationism/evolution as "one school of thought" evolution as if nature had created man and then he evolved.
Of course the problem introduced is when do you stop teaching all the "schools of thought" ie Buddhism, satanism, etc.
That’s how it would be taught. It’s another out and out lie to say they are teaching the weaknesses of.
??????????
You think that teaching evolution means teaching kids they are no better than aniamls???
Evolution is the best scientific explanation for the geological record and biological diversity. There are no holes in it.
Evolution in itself says nothing about the human soul, the Bible, or contradicts Divine Creation.
There are SOME evolutionists who believe this theory refutes the Biblical Creation story. YOU agree with THEM.
I was trained as a biologist, I believe in Evolution and have NO PROBLEM reconciling evolution with the Bible. Neither did many of my colleagues.
Your argument is and should be with people who use their positions as teachers to advance an atheistic agenda in schools in whatever forum - scientific, social or historical.
Science and theology are separate disciplines and one ought not to impinge on the other in the classroom.
Schools teach the scientific consensus of the day. Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by science. Marginal viewpoints tend to only be presented when a subject is studied in depth. Creationism is a very marginal set of ideas.
Weaknesses and strengths of all theories should be taught as that is the basis of critical thinking Thinking vs. Believing. Something is a theory or a fact. People need to be aware of what the word THEORY really means. If evolution is a fact then teach it as a fact. If it is a theory teach it as a theory. The either/or nature of this...EITHER creation OR evolution curtails real thinking and the possibility of some other thing or combination of things being true. Once anything is accepted as a fact, all thinking and other possiblities come to a halt. This should not be political.
>>Weaknesses and strengths of all theories should be taught as that is the basis of critical thinking <<
Yes.
This was a bad bill, however, because it singled out once science theory for scrutiny for religious reasons.
Good.
Of course evolution is a theory, but it has been developed using a scientific method that allows for disproof and modification based on observation. Creationism has no such self-correcting mechanism, hence it is not science. Creationism and ID should remain out of the science class. Congratulations to Texas.
And it "really means" what?
If humans aren't animals, what do you think they are? Plants? Fungi?
You wanna see a monkey?
Where are the intermediate species in the fossil record? Why can’t we make fruit flies evolve?
The geological record is actually SECTIONS of a biological continuum. The fossil species we find are sections out of that continuum. The continuum extends over a span of millions of years. There are "intermediate" species remains.
Look at the series we have on horses, primates, etc.
But you have to understand two things:
1) The likelihood any ANIMAL being fossilized is extremely remote. When you are dealing with animals whose popualtions were quite large, or lived over a very extended period of time, the chances of finding a fossil are enhanced.
2) Trying to trace the evolutionary development of any one modern species is difficult as lineages are not rectiliniar, they are bushlike. A lot of lineages died out after evolving in some direction without leaving any contemporary descendants. So you have a better chance of finding the fossil from a population of "cousins" of an existing species than you are of finding the fossil from a direct ancestral population.
Why can't we make fruit flies evolve?
We can make fruit flies with different characteristics from the ancestral fruit flies, but, no, we haven't been able to make a new species of fruit fly. Probably because speciation takes far longer than the average human life span and we haven't been at this business very long anyway.
We can't create life either, but that is no proof that it doesn't exist. Maybe only God can make evolution occur.
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.