Texas State Board of Education Votes To Require Students to Analyze and Evaluate Evolution

Discovery Institute ^ | January 22, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Texas State Board of Education Votes To Require Students to Analyze and Evaluate Evolution

By: Staff

Discovery Institute

January 22, 2009

AUSTIN, TX--The Texas State Board of Education today voted to require students to analyze and evaluate common ancestry and natural selection, both key components of modern evolutionary theory. The surprising vote came after the Board failed to reinstate language in the overall science standards explicitly requiring coverage of the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories.

"The Texas Board of Education took one step back and two steps forward today," said Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute. "While we wish they would have retained the strengths and weaknesses language in the overall standards, they did something truly remarkable today. They voted to require students to analyze and evaluate some of the most important and controversial aspects of modern evolutionary theory such as the fossil record, universal common descent and even natural selection."

According to West these changes to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills means that teachers and students will be able to discuss the scientific evidence that is supportive as well as evidence that is not supportive of all scientific theories.

"Analyzing, evaluating, any additional scrutiny of evolution can only help students to learn more about the theory," said West, who is associate director of the Institute's Center for Science & Culture.

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[metmom]

IBT OH NO!!!!! We’re heading back into the dark ages and theocracy hysteria.

[metmom]

I wonder if there’s any criteria on the conclusions the kids have to reach as well, or if they’re going to let them think for themselves.

[Coyoteman]

They voted to require students to analyze and evaluate some of the most important and controversial aspects of modern evolutionary theory such as the fossil record, universal common descent and even natural selection."

And if they use the scientific method they will come up with the same results as scientists have.

But if they use creation "science" they could come up with all sorts of oft-refuted anti-science nonsense.

In the interest of helping them out down there in Texas, here is a refutation of a few hundred of the most common creationist claims:

Index of Creationist Claims

[GodGunsGuts]

It would seem that that will largely be based on the teacher, and the curiosity of the student. I kind of like how they did it. They took away the language that the ACLU et al key in on to file lawsuits.

[metmom]

And if they use the scientific method they will come up with the same results as scientists have.

No, not necessarily.

It is simply beyond the comprehension of any evolutionist that the data could be interpreted in any other way than to support evolution.

They need to break out of their boxes and stretch their brains a little bit.

There's a big difference between *We know evolution is true, let's find the evidence to support it. It's there, some where. We'll find it if we keep looking long enough, in all the right places.* and *Here's the evidence, what else can it tell us?*

And evos have been looking for that fossil to link man to apes for how long now?

[Sopater]

And if they use the scientific method they will come up with the same results as scientists have.

Which scientists, exactly?

"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." (Conway Morris, Simon [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)

[Troll_House_Cookies]

I always thought that good science came out of doubting old scientific theory and finding more/better ways to understand the world with new scientific theory. I always thought this was the way science “progressed.” But in this day and age, if you dare merely to question the science (global warming, evolution) then you’re a “buffoon” worthy of ridicule.

Very sad.

[Troll_House_Cookies]

Hey Coyoteman, if belief in God is good enough for Einstein, it is good enough for me.

[org.whodat]

There's a big difference between *We know evolution is true, let's find the evidence to support it. It's there, some where. We'll find it if we keep looking long enough, in all the right places.* and *Here's the evidence, what else can it tell us?*

ROFLOL, how does that read when you translate it to English.

[org.whodat]

There's a big difference between *We know evolution is true, let's find the evidence to support it. It's there, some where. We'll find it if we keep looking long enough, in all the right places.* and *Here's the evidence, what else can it tell us?*

ROFLOL, how does that read when you translate it to English.

[Rippin]

Perfectly stated.

[CottShop]

[[They voted to require students to analyze and evaluate some of the most important and controversial aspects of modern evolutionary theory such as the fossil record, universal common descent and even natural selection.” ]]

That’s fine- but I ALSO think that they should be required to learn about al lthe times macroevolutionists point blank lied and deceived students in the past with outlandish claims like ‘we’re seeing examples of macroevolution right before our eyes’ when those makign htose claism KNEW full well they were NOT seeign that, but were witnessing symbiotic relationships which macroevolutionists were tryign to pass off as ‘NEW information’ arising, and ‘Macroevolutionary change’ when it was NOTHING more than a parassitic invasion into a host species!

As well, in addition to learning about hte weaknesses, student should be required ot learn about the IMPOSSIBILITIES- Until and unless they do- they are still going to be having a biased, subjective, non realistic ‘science’ (read ‘religious beleif’) shoved at them. Objective scinece means just that- presenting ALL the facts- regardless of whether those facts and evidences support or dismantle a given hypothesis. Anythign less is nothign but propoganda- NOT science!

[atlaw]

Call me crazy, but I don't think we're going to see any cutting edge theoretical constructs coming out of high school kids.

Back before conservatives decided in the name of expediency to go all in for this "let the children decide" hogwash, high school was where the basics were drilled in. With a thorough understanding of the basics, you then went on in college and graduate school to find "more/better ways to understand the world with new scientific theory." Over time, that's proved a pretty effective way of making scientific "progress."

But I guess all that rote "learning" stuff is old hat these days. The "new age" way is to let ignorance "organically flower" into insight. Can't you just feeeel the freedom?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[CottShop]

In the itnerest of keeping the public informed of the TRUTH- here’s a site that exposes the one you listed for the liars and deceivers they really are! http://www.trueorigin.org/

That site refutes the absurd claims of hte one you listed- it refutes practically everythign styated on your link- but that’;s ok- just wave your hand and pretend it doesn’t, and that you’re ‘doing science a favor’ by linking to a site that has been exposed time and time again as liars and frauds and deceivers.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Analyse and evaluate evolution? But but but, what ever happened to the old time religion of simple faith in TENS?

Jus’ gimme that old time religion,
Gimme that old time religion,
Gimme that old time religion,
‘Twas good enough for me.

‘Twas good enough for Sagan,
‘Twas good enough for Sagan,
‘Twas good enough for Sagan,
And it’s good enough for me!

‘Twas good enough for Dawkins,
‘Twas good enough for Dawkins,
‘Twas good enough for Dawkins,
And it’s good enough for me!

‘Twas good enough for Dennett,
‘Twas good enough for Dennett,
‘Twas good enough for Dennett,
And it’s good enough for me!

And so on.

[CottShop]

[[Back before conservatives decided in the name of expediency to go all in for this “let the children decide” hogwash, high school was where the basics were drilled in.]]

mmm- Yes, the ‘basics’, like how Negros were inferior, how slavery was the right thing to do, how women were second class citizens underserving of a vote

Best to keep drilling it into the heads of kids that Macroevolution -despite evidence to the contrary, is still perfectly possible, when infact, it isn’t- Best to just keep that hypothesis alive and thriving. Best not to quesiton it or point out hte problems with it.

[Troll_House_Cookies]

Call me crazy, but I don’t think we’re going to see any cutting edge theoretical constructs coming out of high school kids.

Sure, but thats a straw man. The point of letting children question science is to equip them be be analytical in their thinking and not just blindly accept the “science” or “fact” coming out of an “expert.”

Had we equipped children like this years ago we may not have created the generation of global warming crazies that put the current clown in the whitehouse.

Whats wrong with teaching children to think critically? If you’re a teacher it may be time for you to retire...

[Coyoteman]

I always thought that good science came out of doubting old scientific theory and finding more/better ways to understand the world with new scientific theory. I always thought this was the way science “progressed.” But in this day and age, if you dare merely to question the science (global warming, evolution) then you’re a “buffoon” worthy of ridicule.

Very sad.

But you are missing the point. When you question a scientific theory you need to bring scientific evidence, not religious belief, as creation "science" does.

These "weaknesses" that were discussed, but not included, consist of hundreds of creationists' claims that have long since been refuted by scientific evidence. Why should they continue to be hashed out?

In grad school there was a seminar course titled something like "Problems in Evolution." I took it three times, as the subject matter changed to match current scientific findings and debates. Not a one of the standard creationist talking points was ever discussed, as they are simply "what if" stories with no scientific evidence to support them. They've long since been settled by science, and science has moved on. Creationists haven't kept up.

A good example--upthread is a comment disparaging evolutionary science for the lack of a "missing link." That's a phoney issue, and reflects a belief in creation "science" rather than a knowledge of science. See the chart below--which is the "missing link?"

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Talk.Origins has been pretty thoroughly discredited by now, lad.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

But you are missing the point. When you question a scientific theory you need to bring scientific evidence, not religious belief, as creation "science" does.

That's just it, however. To actually believe all of this evolutionist nonsense, one basically has to suspend disbelief and approach the matter from the perspective of simple, blind faith.

For instance, there is no reason - none in the world - to think that the cladogram which you posted has any relevance to anything at all. It's just some palaeontologist arranging a variety of human and primate skulls, in various states of quality, into a structure that he or she thought looked like it fit together, assuming the unproven evolutionist paradigm. The actual dates given, as well as the actual arrangement of supposed evolutionary ancestors and descendants, have no actual, independent relevance. The whole structure is based on circular reasoning.

[CottShop]

[[Why should they continue to be hashed out?]]

Why? To expose how phony those ‘descritings’ really are, and how much htey rely on religious propoganda to ‘discredit’ instead of actual science, and to keep exposing the absurdity of claims such as the chart you posted- that’s why- Because the actual science betrays your beleif- that’s why- because hte actual scientific facts and evidences show common design, and discontinuity, and biological impossibilites, manthematical, chemical, and natural impossibilites, not common descent as has been preached for 150 years- that’s why- Because Kids DESERVE the truth- not religious propoganda of Darwinism that preaches faith in nature despite the growing scientific evidence agaisnt it- that’s why.

[metmom]

But in this day and age, if you dare merely to question the science (global warming, evolution) then you’re a “buffoon” worthy of ridicule.

More precisely, you're an anti-science theocrat, ready to sacrifice civilization and put us back in the dark ages.

And any arguments against it are purely religious apologetics, not *real science*.

Science may not be done by consensus but by gosh, you'd better not question their latest pronouncements. It'll cost you your career.

[metmom]

It’s good enough for Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Faraday, Pasteur, to name a few.

None of them would stand a chance in today’s scientific atmosphere.

[metmom]

Call me crazy, but I don't think we're going to see any cutting edge theoretical constructs coming out of high school kids.

Not likely considering the state of public education in this country today. That's why homeschooling is doing so well.

[Coyoteman]

Whats wrong with teaching children to think critically? If you’re a teacher it may be time for you to retire...

Thinking critically is what science is all about.

Introducing long-since refuted ideas as valid criticism is nonsense.

So just ask yourself, are these standards made to better science or to weaken it by introducing non-scientific and anti-scientific religious beliefs in the guise of critical thinking? The latter is clearly the case. That's what these new standards are all about and everyone knows it.

Claiming that this is pro-science is nonsense.

[autumnraine]

I think this is a great idea! By letting the students analyze it, instead of memorize it, there might be one genius in the bunch that figures something out someone else missed.

Seriously, we have got to stop with the absolutes in everything. Yes, we are knowing more and more as time goes on, but lets let the up and coming minds explore science. Not just repeat propoganda.

[atlaw]

mmm- Yes, the ‘basics’, like how Negros were inferior, how slavery was the right thing to do, how women were second class citizens underserving of a vote

Right. Teaching high-school kids all that so-called "basic" grammar, math, old-white-man-literature, chemistry, biology, and physics is just like teaching them that slavery is good and women are inferior. Everything from the past was invented by bad white men, after all, and we need to let our kids start fresh with clean, unencumbered minds.

The point of letting children question science is to equip them be be analytical in their thinking and not just blindly accept the “science” or “fact” coming out of an “expert.”

Oh, I agree. But why stop with the theory of evolution? I think we should apply this new-found freedom across the board. We should definitely let the children question the periodic table, the principles of velocity and acceleration, the confining oppressiveness of algebraic equations and english grammar, and all those so-called "facts" coming out of so-called "experts." Indeed, I think we should let the children answer test questions in whatever way they "feel" is right, and in the name of "self-esteem," let them know that there are no "wrong" answers. Let freedom reign.

[Troll_House_Cookies]

Nobody is making a self-esteem learning argument here, they’re just pointing out that scientists aren’t as smart as they think they are when it comes to understanding our world...and as such, they should understand that their “facts” will be routinely overturned and modified ad infinitum after they publish. 1000 years in the future,the concept of evolution may have been found to be a bigger joke than a flat Earth. The answer may be closer to some science branch that hasn’t even been researched yet. Any claim above ignorance as to an “final picture” of natural processes is just silly and narcissistic. See flat earth, see ether in the atmosphere, see racial disposition science, etc. Nothing wrong with these kids learning that its called the “theory” of evolution and that there exist skeptics who have criticising opinions.

[jimmyray]

In the interest of helping them out down there in Texas, here is a refutation of a few hundred of the most common creationist claims:

My favorite on the list is
CA112. Many scientists find problems with evolution.
Silly creationists. They know that they don't qulify as scientist unless they accept mud to man evolution as an proven fact.
To doubt it means you are not a scientist.
If the accepted orthodoxy does not approve of your ideas, you're not a scientist.
If peer reviewed journals disagree with your findings, you're not a scientist.

Thus, no scientists doubt. Perfect petitio principii!

[atlaw]

Nothing wrong with these kids learning that its called the “theory” of evolution and that there exist skeptics who have criticising opinions.

I see you and irony are not on speaking terms.

[ExTxMarine]

You stated “...pretty effective way of making scientific ‘progress.’” Are you serious? Are you trying to make the statement that American schools have made progress even though the Japanese and Indian high school students have out paced American students in tests and college aptitude by almost 2:1?

Make sure you know what you are talking about before you type on that little keyboard thingy next time!

[antiRepublicrat]

I like the idea to cover the strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories. It can only lead to better-educated students.

Singling out evolution shows we yet again have a bunch of creationists with a religious agenda. Take us back 500 years and it would be heliocentrism singled out for scrutiny.

[jimmyray]

Oh, I agree. But why stop with the theory of evolution? I think we should apply this new-found freedom across the board. We should definitely let the children question the periodic table, the principles of velocity and acceleration, the confining oppressiveness of algebraic equations and english grammar, and all those so-called "facts" coming out of so-called "experts." Indeed, I think we should let the children answer test questions in whatever way they "feel" is right, and in the name of "self-esteem," let them know that there are no "wrong" answers. Let freedom reign.

Excepting grammar, all of the above can be demonstrated via direct observation, usually in a science lab of less than an hour, or through infallible mathematical proofs. Modifcation by descent into completely new Genus' cannot, be definition, because of the time frames reqwired. It has NEVER been observed, but is arrived at by conjecture and extrapolation from variation within a genus (or Biblical kind, more accurately), or speciation. Thus, it requires you take the word of the "expert".

[jimmyray]

Nice chart!

You could put together a much mopre convincing one using the skulls of the canis.

See http://www.skullsunlimited.com/domestic-dog-breed-skulls.htm

Pretty charts with skulls all arranged with connceting lines and time scales proves nothing other that the 3rd grade ability to create mobiles out of coat hangers and magazine pictures.

That is the VERY reason children need to critically evaluate your absurd ToE!!!

[atlaw]

Learning the basics in high school and expanding on those basics in college has been a very effective way of making scientific progress.

Your point seems to be that the Japanese and Indian high schools are more effective in teaching the basics (and those well equipped kids then matriculate to American colleges, where they outperform American high school kids).

I fail to see how further undermining the teaching of basics in American high schools serves to correct this problem.

[jimmyray]

Heck, I'll even give it a try! This series finishes at the top with the common Shetland Collie, but started 30 million years ago with the Chiwawarex Snipicanus, first discovered in 1927 by Leroy Buffoonoxi in a West Pyranees dig. While not being as open to scientific interpretation as a few fragements of skull and a couple of teeth, the complete skull in convincing in it's own right.

[jimmyray]

Most fascianting is the gradual evolution of the eye sockets to actually retain the ball within the skull, and the gradual lengthening of the jaw for better catching and holding of prey. Also note the grdual development of more prominent canines. The evolution of the lengthened snout also contributes to improve olfactory funtion, thus giving the modern canis a highly adapted sense of smell.

[Troll_House_Cookies]

I think we should apply this new-found freedom across the board. We should definitely let the children question the periodic table Simply: *Only if one is free to question the periodic table can one discover a new element to add to the table. Or are you trying to say all the elements were there from the start? I'm done with this thread.

[jimmyray]

I fail to see how further undermining the teaching of basics in American high schools serves to correct this problem.

We don't teach true science and math, rather, we teach them this ToE stuff and tell to believe it or their never be scientists! Who needs critical thinking when you have this!?

[LiteKeeper]

HOOAH!!!

[jimmyray]

See the chart below--which is the "missing link?"

See if you can find the missing link in this series. I can figure what order they go in, could you help. I can't provide ages for the rocks each skull was discovered in, though.

NOTE: Skull pictures size is not idicative a relative sizes of actual skulls.

[Texas Federalist]

I think we need to clarify what we are talking about when we refer to “evolution” - pure Darwinism or simply the change in inherited traits of an organism from one generation to the next. There is no doubt that the latter description of evolution is scientific fact. But pure Darwinism has a huge problem with its belief in random mutation being the cause of the change in traits. No scientific evidence backs up the random mutation aspect of Darwinism and I think logic dictates that the change in traits is better explained by intelligent design (since random mutation is easier to refute).

[CottShop]

mmm yes- that’s exactly what we are advocating- having hte children quesiton established laws- Yup- you pegged us- our secret is out- We’re anti-educaiton- Darn it- and I htought out secret was safe- but you cracked our secret code- what we REALLY mean when ask that students be taught the TRUTH about Macroevolution, and to discover the impossibilities and high imporbabilities, and to discover how macroevolution violates many key established laws of biology, mathematical statistics, natural laws, and chemistry, is that we mean we really want htem to deny all the other established laws in other fields of science too- Golly- Guess we weren’t as trickily sneaky as we thought!

[Texas Federalist]

Comparing the certainty of the truth of mathematics and grammar as taught in schools to the theory of evolution is absurd, even if you believe in evolution. You sound like a global warming alarmist now.

[atlaw]

I may be incorrect, of course, but you seem to be operating under the impression that the simplistic caricatures of evolutionary biology tossed around on this forum by creationists actually reflect the state of the science. Perhaps some time spent browsing through current scientific literature would help disabuse you of this notion. There is a great deal of it available. You can start, for example, with this searchable, free archive (I plugged in the word "evolution" for you, so you can choose from more than 109,000 journal articles to start).

In addition to the NCBI free archive linked above, you can prowl through various biological abstract archives like the one available here; various university molecular and cellular biology archives like the one available here; and various fascinating sites addressing genetics and genetics related evolutionary research, such as the human gene mutation database, the Metazome project, the NCBI human gene master list, the Blast assembled genomes database, and the EMBL nucleotide sequence database You can also, of course, browse through the many fossil databases available, with just a few of them here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here here here and here, and with a pretty good overview of "Paleontological Evidence to Date the Tree of Life" located here.

As you can see from the available literature, evolutionary biology overlaps many scientific fields, including organic chemistry, genetics, paleontology, geology, cell biology, zoology, etc. The point being that there is a great deal of "evidence to weigh," and if high school students will eventually be expected to "weigh" that evidence and "decide for themselves," they will need a solid grounding in it.

This means, of course, a solid grounding not only in biology and the theory of evolution itself, but also in the the scientific fields it draws upon and influences.

"Let the children decide" is all well and good, but give them the children the evidentiary ammunition first so their decision will at least be informed.

[tpanther]

“let them know there are no wrong answers”...

IOW when it comes to the cult of evolution...there simply can not BE any OTHER answers...

I see.

Anytime the cult is challenged, the challenge is attacked as a religious insult to science.

Yep, I’m sure the kids will come to respect the cult....errr...theory of evolution with that cozy little caveat.

And if they don’t fall in line, you can always enforce science via the courts.

NO WONDER public NEA godless liberal run schools are such unmitigated DISASTERS!

[tpanther]

Thinking critically is what science is all about.

---

Except when it comes to the cult of evolution.

Can you show us any instance, ever, of where your cult was challenged and you didn’t attack the challenge as a science hating religious attack?