Posted on 03/27/2009 6:23:20 AM PDT by laotzu
AUSTIN — The State Board of Education gave a nearly-final nod to new science curriculum standards Thursday that would change a long-standing Texas tradition over how schoolchildren learn about evolution.
The tentative vote — a final one is expected today — will mean teachers and students no longer will be expected to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution and the theory about the origin of life developed by Charles Darwin 150 years ago.
The move is a setback for critics of evolution, who argued that teachers and students should have to analyze the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution — a standard that has been a part of Texas school science standards for 20 years.
But the argument over how to teach evolution continues, with final votes today on several amendments that some scientists say seek to cast doubt on evolution.
One asks students to evaluate fossil types, as some contend gaps in fossil records create scientific evidence against universal common descent. Another questions “natural selection.”
Scientists are working on Rick Agosto, D-San Antonio, in an effort to switch his votes on the amendments. He voted with the social conservatives on the amendments, though he ultimately sided with scientists on the “strengths and weaknesses” issue. The vote was 7-7; eight votes were needed to restore it.
Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, who missed Thursday's hearing, is expected to participate in the final vote.
“If you can't attack evolution through strengths and weaknesses, talk about the insufficiency of natural selection. We see this in other states. This is what creationists are doing — is attacking evolution,” said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
Scientists and more than 50 national and state science organizations urged the 15-member board Thursday not to include references “to creationist-fabricated ‘weaknesses' or other attempts to undermine instruction on evolution.”
Many scientists contend basic evolutionary theory at the high school level has no weaknesses, and to suggest it does would confuse students.
However, Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, fought to restore the “strengths and weaknesses” clause, which board-appointed science experts removed from the proposed standards. The board's seven social conservative members supported that effort but fell one vote short.
Not all scientists agree about evolution, Mercer argued.
“There are questions about evolution. ... There are weaknesses,” he said.
Darwin's theory of evolution posits that all life is descended from a common ancestor.
The theory is not without its critics. Darwinists try to conceal some of the weaknesses and fallacies of evolution theory, said Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands.
“They are not the sole possessors of truth. Our schoolchildren belong to the parents, and they want their children educated,” she said. “They don't want them indoctrinated with one side. They know that evolution has weaknesses.”
The new science curriculum standards will take effect in the 2010-2011 school year and last a decade.
The standards will influence new science textbooks, not only for Texas but also for most other states. Publishers, considering the volume, typically duplicate textbooks used by Texas schools. About 4.6 million students attend K-12 grades in Texas public schools.
No one is trying to disprove the theory of evolution, or silence it being taught in public schools.
What is your point?
How about Einstein's theory that gravity/mass bends light?
Light being bent in a gravity field is not a theory but an observable, measurable fact.
Einstein's theory on why it happens is the currently accepted explanation, and probably mostly true. That does not rule out a better explanation being found in the future.
Paul
Today, it is an observable, measurable fact.
At one time is was merely a theory of Einstein's.
What to do with relativity then, and the evidence that supports it, if Newtons theories of motion had already been “proven”?
It is obvious you have no knowledge of or respect for the methodology of science; but in science no theory is ever “proven”, just accepted provisionally awaiting contradictory data or refinement.
“Then you support teaching the evil-spirit theory of disease, etc”
Considering the order of the galaxies and the uniqueness of our planet—and quest for peace of mind and nations—it takes more faith to believe in something-out-of-nothing than something-out-of-Someone.
And the issue of where the original ‘nothing’ or ‘Someone’ came from or how it/He/they pre-existed as the force, cause or raw materials is not in the realm of science. And one’s faith in one or the other of these world views, whether or not acknowledged as such, affect one’s subordinate premises, actions and future.
Once one chooses to deny the materialist impossibility of something-out-of-nothing, one can build and disseminate grand theories often at enormous (Department of Education) public expense and call it ‘science’ but it’s the religion of Atheism.
But there are a great many people (scientist and non-scientist) who would like criticisms of evolution discussed at least somewhat in schools. To shut them out of the marketplace of ideas -- when they are a large and vocal group -- is to show signs of fear.
So we now decide what is science by popular vote? If we had a majority who didn't like dealing with that pesky pi, would we have to discuss criticisms of pi in math class? And they are not "shut out of the marketplace of ideas," all they have to do is come up with an alternate theory that is testable and falsifiable and that fits the known findings in the natural world.
As to "signs of fear," it is not fearful to refuse to refight old battles that are settled from a scientific point of view. It is merely efficient.
How nice for the scientists.
Meanwhile, there are millions of people screaming that the scientists have not made a compelling case. But we don't want to pay any attention them, do we? No, that would be "deciding what is science by popular vote". That would be bad ...
... for the scientists who have faith in evolution.
Evolution is a foundation for many aspects of biology. In my own field, medicine, recognition of evolution of bacteria, viruses, and parasites means people looking for more effective antibiotics.
If one doesn’t recognize evolution, taxonomy classifications seem meaningless. One can go on and on, but evolution is considered one of the four or five foundations of biology. (Cell theory and genetics theory are two others.)
Perhaps you should actually investigate what Intelligent Design is, instead of merely assuming it's young earth creationism by another name.
“Darwin's Black Box,” & “The Limits of Evolution” by Microbiologist Michael Behe would be a good place for you to start.
You’re right. That’ was stupid comment. Evolutions should just be dropped altogether.
I assume y'all never discussed the problems with Einstein's theory of relativity, nor talked about Nicolai Tesla's competing theories, nor the ..
Not in an introductory high school class, no.
Something you dogmatic Darwinists just don't get is ID is NOT antithetical to evolution; it merely states that Macro-evolution cannot happen by pure chance alone!!! It makes the proposition that some other, as yet undiscovered, natural law governs the process. (Yes, it also means that we have a CREATOR! Which is the main reason it is an anathema to the Darwinists.)
I'm not against learning about a Creator. I entirely approve of it - taking place in a church or synagogue or from one's parents. Or even in a comparative religion class. Not in a science class, which studies the natural, not the supernatural.
Nonsense. You can classify organisms just as easily under the assumptions that God created similarities between them.
And Creation theory doesn't reject the idea of change within species in response to environmental pressures, either, so there is no argument there.
Just what discovery wouldn't have been possible while observing biological processes with the mindset of "let's discover how God created this structure or system"?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were SO knowledgeable in the subject of microbiology!
BTW, it doesn't take a genius to see that the complexity of inner workings of a single cell ARE INDEED IRREDUCIBLE! It does however, take someone with at least average intelligence.
What's the matter, AMD, a cardinal support for your atheism being being shaken?
Acutally, Creationists would have a little problem with ring species, wouldn't they?
I am knowledgeable about the subject of MOLECULAR biology, which is what Behe is talking about. MICRO biology deals with culturing microbial life forms.
Behe’s flagship flagella is perfectly reducible as a type II secretory system. It is not “irreducibly complex”.
Moreover the Incompetent Design movement is a pack of perjurers and “liars for the lord” that seek nothing less than the overthrow of the scientific method and a “theological” based science to replace it.
Moreover, among Behe’s idiotic assertions about the nature of the designer, and Behe’s view that the designer is rather incompetent; Behe also thinks that “astrology” is or was an accepted science, and that “God” as he conceives of the “designer” might be dead.
Behe also accepts the evidence for common descent of species.
Do you accept his premise of “irreducible complexity” but reject his simultaneous acceptance of common descent? How, when the actions of the designer to accomplish common descent are what his conjecture of “irreducible complexity”
is all about?
One kind turning into another kind is another matter.
Ring species are examples of speciation in progress, where one species may turn into two. Evolution, in other words.
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.