Posted on 01/19/2009 9:42:35 PM PST by Coyoteman
The new Earth and Space Science (ESS) course standards (and all other science course standards) will be up for approval before the State Board of Education (SBOE) during January 21-23. Some SBOE members--the seven who are Young Earth Creationists (YECs)--will attempt to make changes to the ESS standards in ways that will damage the scientific integrity and accuracy of the course. In particular, these SBOE members will try to negatively modify or delete the standards that require students to understand the following topics that deal with scientific topics they consider controversial: age of the Earth and universe, radiometric dating, evolution of fossil life, and the origin of life by abiotic chemical processes. These topics are the ones that YECs consider to be controversial; indeed, they are obsessed with them to the exclusion of everything else.
Continues...
(Excerpt) Read more at texscience.org ...
Get ready for the Flat Earth geology class and the geocentric astronomy class.
The good news for students is that they get to watch the Flintstones in biology class.
Public schools should not exist
On another note, after chemistry class, we're going to give equal time to alchemy.
Then, after astronomy class, we're going to give equal time to astrology to demonstrate the 'weaknesses' of astronomy.
There is little accuracy in these textbooks anyway
Then, after astronomy class, we're going to give equal time to astrology to demonstrate the 'weaknesses' of astronomy.
They want their religious beliefs taught in these classes!
And that's because they can't get them taught instead of science classes. But they're working on it.
Some people will read whatever they want to into scripture. Is there any GOP official who will renounce these nuts? At the same time, take those who obsess over who is smoking what, who is sleeping with who, and those who expand the definition of being pro-life beyond being in favor of giving every child in the womb a chance at life, with them.
1. Teach my child throughout his 12 years of public education science based on the Young Earth Creationist Theory.
2. Teach my child throughout his 12 years of public education science based on the scientific method.
Just ram it down their throats and make them feel like a fool if they question anything they are taught. That’s what good teaching is all about, right?
This is crap. Of course these people are wackos but you know what— when they something stupid the left and the media love to pile on them like they’re morons.
But they’re not so diff’t from Algore, NBC, and the left with their global warming “science”.
and those who expand the definition of being pro-life beyond being in favor of giving every child in the womb a chance at life
It has often and confidently been asserted, that man’s origin can never be known: Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.— Charles Darwin
Here are a couple of quotes for you:
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
By the way, how confident are you in Darwinian evolution being the way everything came about? So confident that a dissenting voice might upset the whole apple cart?
I think that the problem of teaching pseudoscience or superstition in science classes is less than the problem of simply not teaching key science. Take, for instance, evolution. Penn State Professor Michael Berkman finds that a majority of biology teachers either mention evolution for 2 hours max in a year’s classwork, or not at all. For my own part, I had three years of biology in high school and never heard mention of evolution. They didn’t give us creationist stuff, either: the teachers just didn’t talk about the origin of life or species at all. The result was that high school biology was my least favorite science: it was all just a lot of unorganized facts: frog / pig / cat muscles to memorize thoughtlessly. Loved physics and my 2 years of chemistry.
Also: if you or anyone else has a ping list for the pro-science side, would you kindly add me? I appreciate these posts.
Those who expand the definition of being pro-life beyond being in favor of giving every child in the womb a chance at life are akin to the nuts who want to intrude on science education. Having them around gives the MSM a chance to link the conservatives and Christians to them. They go too far but are convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong.
As we currently see things, there would appear to be no absolute final answers in empirical science, and any scientist who deserves the name will always admit the possibility that future evidence might force the modification of current views. With that said, Darwinian evolution (with suitable additions and modifications as biologists deem necessary) is our current best idea of what our planet’s biome has undergone over the last several billion years. We’re not yet able to give a persuasive and evidentially supported account of how life first got started, but that’s what makes continued exploration interesting: there are still things to try to find out.
It is very difficult to wend one’s way between Creationists and climate warmists:
“Left out are rocks and minerals, ... geologic periods, ... weather, ... galaxies and ... stars, …. Instead, we included a great deal about climate and climate change, … energy resources, …, fossil fuels, .. Emphasized … space imagery and … GPS, personal computers, and the Internet. … (meteorologists probably won’t like it, but climatologists will love it!).”
Keep in mind taxpayers are funding this.
The percentage of families home schooling their children will incress.
The percentage of families sending their children to church schools will increase.
I am as confident in Darwin as I am in Newton as the thinker whose theories best explain the available evidence. Both have seen their work added to and modified, though not rejected outright, by new-found evidence and improved observation.
So confident that a dissenting voice might upset the whole apple cart?
No one is closing churches. There are no SWAT teams massing outside the Discovery Institute. Flat Earthers, Young Earth creationists, UFOlogists, all are welcome to spin their hypotheses. They do not have a right to promote them in public schools.
If you want to change the scientific consensus, the place to start is in science -- in the lab, not the classroom. The push to get creationism/ID into high school biology is like trying to teach kids in driver's ed how to drive a hydrogen fuel cell car instead of focusing on building one.
Forget Albatross, Young Earth Creationism is straight-up the noose being used to string-up political conservatism to the entire (<30) web-generation. Crap guilt-by-association or no, if political conservatives do not rally together to disassociate themselves from these nuts soon (ideally before the next election), there is going to exist an entire generation in this country who associates ANY Republican, no matter how noble, with Young-Earth Creationist Anti-Rationalism.
The nutcase Steven Schafersman is just another Big Government Atheist, Hyper-Humanist who worships Big Government Public Schools directed top-down by the far left NEA.
I wonder how many Republicans actually want to stop the teaching of evolution.
I think these arguments among Conservatives are silly. They are not productive in any way that I can see other than to divide. Let the parent decide what they want their child taught or not taught. It is just that simple.
My thinking is that evolution theory is rather meaningless to the bottom line so what a student knows or doesn’t know about it will not matter. I think many people are turned off because much of this complex theory is guesstimating and active imagination, that is, those parts which the average person thinks of as Evolution. In the end, to me, it just doesn’t matter. Here are the some of the greatest scientific discoveries and not one hangs on evolution theory save one; The Origin of Species: http://encarta.msn.com/column_scientificdiscoveries_tamimhome/10_Great_Scientific_Discoveries.html
1. Teach my child throughout his 12 years of public education science based on the Young Earth Creationist Theory.
2. Teach my child throughout his 12 years of public education science based on the scientific method.
There is no young earth creationist theory--that's the problem. There is only young earth creationist belief.
And that belief is not subject to discovery or modification via evidence, as would be the case in science. Not surprising, because that belief is not based on evidence!
That is why it is a belief instead of a part of science. And that's why your belief is not appropriately taught as a part of science.
I guess that's all you got, eh?.
This is the same guy who continues to hold that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval artifact, denying the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary from multiple disciplines (remember, "confidence comes from consilience").
And it is people like Schafersman who will be leading the charge to link "conservatives" to "anti science irrationalists" -- you know, like Matt Damon's comments about Sarah Palin.
But the îber-libertarian types seem to think that almost anything else a person things or does, is irrelevant to public office -- only religious faith need disqualify them.
Go figure.
Cheers!
1. The best explanation of the evidence is that it is a medieval artifact
2. "the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary" is that put by Turinfers who disgree on their own explanations. (Much like JFK Assassinationists or UFOlogists - which actually puts them below The School of Anthropomorphic Global Warming on the credibility scale - true story)
“Was The Enlightenment in vain?”
IMO - Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design are forms of fundamentalist Protestant apologetics. The idea that the Enlightenment is the source of modern science originated from Protestant apologetics. So I’d say the answer to your question is no.
Does anyone have the pro-science ping list PatrickHenry used to have?
Yes the media will link this to the rest of us with glee. Science textbook editors would do well to ally with all the Christian (and others) denominations who don’t have a problem with science. Unfortunately, I doubt they do that. They’d have to give up the humans are evil meme (overpopulation, global warming, etc)
The problem is that if such baboomery is adopted in Texas, it will be in all the nation’s text books. Plus, the company that evaluates textbooks is run by an elderly YEC, biblical literalist who has no problem injecting his religious views into his evaluations. If this goes through, Texas will become one fucked up state with respect to education. And all in the name of keeping kids stupid for the sake of a minority deviation from Christianity and Islam.
It will be interesting to see this play out in court. Perhaps this time it will get to an appeals court and establish a national precedent.
Texas has a lot of sane, rational people. A lot of defense contractors, semi-conductor companies, aerospace as well as a big petrochemical industry. I’m sure the people at these places, like the Johnson space center, are going to love having their kids exposed to YEC crap that contradicts what their parents do for a living. And that’s on top of some fairly prominent research universities, too.
It would be even more interesting if this goes through and the Texas high schools lose accredation with respect to their diplomas being valid for admittance to colleges and universities. Some California Christian high schools got hit with that a few years ago and that was over teaching YEC creationism and warping science to fit their religious superstitions. Teach kids garbage and they won’t be able to handle science majors in college without a good brain bleaching.
It could happen. The public schools in my home town were disaccredited -- the main reason I was sent to a private school.
California universities have a list of textbooks that are not approved for credit. You might get admitted to the university, but have to take a remedial course to make up for a high school class taught from a creationist text.
At any rate, textbooks having creationist materials will be banned by the courts, and I don't think any reputable publisher will risk the humiliation. There could even be a backlash in which publishers use "banned in Texas" as a selling point.
“Can't argue the issue, but have to attack me personally?
I guess that's all you got, eh?.” --Coyoteman
And the question on his stance is it the job of science to eradicate religion
Uh-huh...any thinking person understands that evolutionists project. That’s what you do, because most creationists I see are for teaching BOTH, and as I’ve said the facts (that would be the multiple lawsuits excluding anything other than the cult of evolution), speak for themselves.
You’ve left your dishonest self hanging out here like a big fat sore thumb again coytoteman.
...creationist materials will be banned by the courts...
Josef Goebbels would be so proud!
yup...science enforced by the courts...typical liberalism.
Alot of sane rational people? The vast majority of sane rational people understand the failed godless liberal NEA is exactly that...failed. They get an F.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html
Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719
**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63
**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts
***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp
************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63
************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties
************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/
It will be interesting to see this play out in court. Perhaps this time it will get to an appeals court and establish a national precedent.
Sure why not...now that you’ve got a hypocrat congress and president in place to continue bashing any and all things Christan, why not?
Good a time as any.
Newsflash....the godless liberal NEA has already undermined our public education, and they socialize kids, they don't educate them.
As a matter of fact, before the godless liberal NEA stomped God out of science class, science flourished, as did our schools.
Worldview enforced by courts, and by the threat of legal violence for non-compliance - THAT'S typical liberalism.
precisely...parents and students are intelligent enough to reject that which doesn’t make sense.
Unfortunately there’s the theory of evolution and the NEA cult of evolution demanded of public screwels.
It’s an open ended debate that will never be conclusively answered scientifically, but each and every criticism of evolution is seen as a religious assault on their cult.
Does everybody who posts here have to agree with JimRob on every issue? Does JimRob's opinion on scientific matters mean they are more credible?
I don't see the point you're making, and the 20 point type makes it look childish.
It is very difficult to wend one’s way between Creationists and climate warmists:
No it’s not....algoreacle’s godless liberal hot air cult more closely resembles that of the godless cult of the NEA model of science and evolution.
So confident that a dissenting voice might upset the whole apple cart?
Yup, the whole idea of peer review is a joke because every threat to evolution, every crticism is attacked as a “religious assault on science, theocracy, inquistion, dark ages, a threat to enlightenment, burinings at the stake”...etc.
and the only people incapable of recognizing this are the evo-cultists themselves.
Just ram it down their throats and make them feel like a fool if they question anything they are taught. That’s what good teaching is all about, right?
.....Just ram it down their throats .....
That’s how they became Creos. constant indoctrination
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.