Teaching of evolution set to go under microscope (Texas)

The Dallas Morning News ^ | 13 December 2007 | KAREN AYRES SMITH

[Stultis]

The resignation of the [Texas] state's science curriculum director last month has signaled the beginning of what is shaping up to be a contentious and politically charged revision of the science curriculum, set to begin in earnest in January.

[snip]

Former science director Chris Comer says she resigned from the Texas Education Agency to avoid being fired after officials told her she had improperly endorsed evolution. She had forwarded an e-mail announcing a speech by a prominent scholar on evolution, which the state requires schools to teach.

[snip]

The [State Board of Education] must vote on any changes to the curriculum. Most board members, including the chairman, have said publicly they don't want to introduce intelligent design into the curriculum, and many of them also have said they want to keep the current language on evolution.

[...] Even small changes in the language could mean big changes in textbooks later on.

[snip]

Don McLeroy, a conservative board member on the losing side of the vote [adopting textbooks in '03] and a Sunday school teacher, later told a church group that he believed he could have persuaded more members to reject the books if he had challenged the assumption [of naturalism].

"How can the materialistic philosophic naturalistic base dependency of Darwinism be brought into the discussion and used for our benefit?" Dr. McLeroy asked, according to a recording of the speech. "We didn't use it. All we did was stay with evidence, and we got run over."

Dr. McLeroy is now chairman of the board. Gov. Rick Perry appointed the Bryan dentist to the post in July.

[snip]

Ten Republicans and five Democrats sit on the state board. Dr. McLeroy is part of a bloc of seven social conservatives who often vote together.

[trumandogz]

Don’t teach ID and don’t teach evolution. This is the only acceptable solution to this problem.

Sure, America can simply forget about science.

[GourmetDan]

"Finally, the theory of evolution is not "an already preposterous collection of theories" to anyone but folks who, for religious reasons, are opposed to the tenets of those theories. The fact that parts of the theory are added to, or sometimes corrected, just means that the overall theory is becoming more accurate."

And the theory of evolution is not a 'scientific theory' to anyone but folks who, for philosophical reasons, assume that naturalism is the ultimate arbiter of truth and interpret all evidence through the lens of naturalism.

Having a philosophical foundation of naturalism however, removes any claim of empiricism that 'science' might claim and reduces it to just another philosophical belief.

Coyoteman knows this but likes to ignore it.

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL! I’m with you!

[editor-surveyor]

"Sure, America can simply forget about science."

More than 90% of the evolution threads posted here are about newly discovered conflicts between evolutionism and science, but the evos never seem to pick up on it.

[Coyoteman]

And the theory of evolution is not a 'scientific theory' to anyone but folks who, for philosophical reasons, assume that naturalism is the ultimate arbiter of truth and interpret all evidence through the lens of naturalism.

Having a philosophical foundation of naturalism however, removes any claim of empiricism that 'science' might claim and reduces it to just another philosophical belief.

Coyoteman knows this but likes to ignore it.

I just love being lectured on what science is, and what it isn't, by the assorted science haters that are taking over here.

Its actually quite entertaining; you never know what they'll come up with next.

[Non-Sequitur]

Here’s hoping Texas avoids the Kansas embarrasment.

On the other hand it'd be refreshing to have people laughing at some other state for a change.

[Non-Sequitur]

When you need to defend your worldview with non-stop fraud, lies, censorship, persecution and intimidation, the odds are the truth is far from you.

Yeah, but we got most of the creationists off the school board so we don't need to do that any more.

[GourmetDan]

" I just love being lectured on what science is, and what it isn't, by the assorted science haters that are taking over here. Its actually quite entertaining; you never know what they'll come up with next."

If you write your post correctly, no one will notice that you projected your hatred of religion onto your opponent as one who 'hates' science (I don't), didn't dispute the fact that science is based on the philosophy of naturalism, didn't dispute the fact that you assume that naturalism is the ultimate arbiter of truth, didn't dispute the fact that you interpret all evidence through the lens of naturalism, didn't dispute the fact that the philosophical foundation of science removes any claims of empiricism and didn't dispute the fact that you like to ignore that fact.

Is there really a vast conspiracy of 'science haters' that are 'taking over'?

Or maybe this is another one of those areas where your opinion is 'scientific'?

(Since you are already on record as claiming that your opinions are 'scientific' in certain areas.)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685030/posts?page=493#493

[Non-Sequitur]

More than 90% of the evolution threads posted here are about newly discovered conflicts between evolutionism and science, but the evos never seem to pick up on it.

And by coincidence this happens to fall into that odd 10%?

[Stultis]

Don’t teach ID and don’t teach evolution. This is the only acceptable solution to this problem

Don't stop there! The germ theory of disease will need to be excluded also as offensive to Christian Scientists. No New World archaelogy since we aren't about to present Mormon alternatives. Huck Finn will have to go due to the use of the "n-word". Conventional histories of the Civil War will trouble some Southern white students.

There are many other controversies in education and curricula that we can solve simply be eliminating troublesome swaths of subject matter. And of course once we establish this precident many more groups will come forward with greivances related to curricula content. We should be able to get the school day down to one or two hours in no time.

[Stultis]

Having a philosophical foundation of naturalism however, removes any claim of empiricism that 'science' might claim and reduces it to just another philosophical belief.

WOW! ALL of science is "just another philosophical belief". Some leftist extremist scholars have taken that view, but few creationists have been quite so bold as to say this flat out. I applaud you!

[taxesareforever]

Sure, America can simply forget about science.

Evolution is conjecture. Don't claim it is science. That's how it gets taught in school by claiming it is science when it is a lie.

[trumandogz]

Evolution is conjecture. Don't claim it is science.

LOL

[taxesareforever]

Hey, they have already outlawed the teaching of anything Christian in schools. To continue to teach the lie of evolution as fact just shows what will be taught and what won’t be taught. We can expect the teaching of islam to get top billing in the future in schools. And that is a fact. You create a void (removal of Christianity) and something must fill it.

[taxesareforever]

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!

[trumandogz]

Thank You.

In our home we celebrate both Christmas and Hanukkah

[editor-surveyor]

"And by coincidence this happens to fall into that odd 10%?"

No, in reality this isn't a true evolutionism thread; its just a common garden variety antichristian thread.

[Stultis]

How Bambi evolved into Moby-Dick (Supposed new missing link - much ado about nothing)

See, that's what's so great about creation science!

Normally it would take actual scientific research to challenge or refute Hans Thewissen's published bases for considering Indohyus (representing the Eocene South Asian "raoellid artiodactyls") a sister group to whales.

After all Thewissen, already one of the world's foremost experts on fossil whales, has based his claims on facts and research.

For instance there's the evidence of aquatic adaptation in Indohyus (e.g. extremely dense bones) the evidence that it spent large amounts of time in a marine environment (isotope ratios in the teeth) the fact that it occurs in the right place in the geological time scale (early Eocene) and the right place geographically on the globe (India, whether several early four-legged fossil whales have been found).

And of course most crucially there's the fact that, while Indohyus does not possess ALL the diagnostic morphological characteristics of whales (in which case it would actually BE a whale, rather than a sister group and possible ancestor to whales) it DOES have a number of them. For instance you can see, clear as a bell, in the photo of Indohyus' skull below, the "tympanic bulla". This is a bony capsule that surrounds the ear structures. Along with that that bony lip (the involucrum) marked out on the upper skull, this structure was completely and absolutely unique to whales until this fossil was discovered. It is the ONLY non-whale to have this feature.

But of course you don't have to deal with these facts, as any evoltuionist or normal scientist with a competing explantion, or even non-commital skepticism, would have to do. It's the characteristic magic of creation science that you can simply wave your arm and assert that there's "nothing" here.

Creation science is so much easier than actual science! Maybe we should consider it. We could slash research budgets to almost nothing.

[ME-262]

“Creation science is so much easier than actual science! Maybe we should consider it. We could slash research budgets to almost nothing.”

Actually groups like NASA might save a lot of research money if they designed their Mars probes with the goal of exploring what is actually there and not just looking for signs of life(evolution). The hippies now at NASA are a far cry from their forerunners.

“The germ theory of disease”

Funny thing about the germ theory is that while being minuscule in scope compared to evolution it gives birth to cure after cure month after month while “evolution scientists” only produce works of fiction. Evolution is a barren theory. Perhaps I’ll hold my breath till next year when the evolution believers get their theory finely tuned and suddenly the pent up gush of billions of years worth of understanding floods our world with technologies never before imagined, and the theory barren since 1859 suddenly gives birth to something more than eugenics, forced sterilization, atheism, and ethnic holocaust....or maybe they’ll just go on blindly looking for the missing link between their delusionally contrived theory and our divinely created universe while discovering nothing other than another year has passed and evolutionary theory is still barren.

[Diamond]

...In place of debating their issues in the marketplace of scientific ideas (e.g. by developing competing theories and conducting relevant original research testing them) they're trying to effect, for their views, the status normally accorded to ideas (like evolution) that have prevailed by such means, but instead bypass scientific debate and do it purely by political fiat. That is indeed a kind of "arrogance" and "'intellectual' bullying"..

Who needs a marketplace of scientific ideas when you've got the diktats of ACLU tutored Federal judges to tell you what to think science is and isn't?

Cordially,