Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas State Board of Education Votes To Require Students to Analyze and Evaluate Evolution
Discovery Institute ^ | January 22, 2009

Posted on 01/23/2009 9:39:39 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: board; creation; education; evolution; intelligentdesign; state; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last
To: 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.

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?"


21 posted on 01/23/2009 10:34:32 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

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


22 posted on 01/23/2009 10:34:48 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
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.

23 posted on 01/23/2009 10:39:59 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Nihil utile nisi quod honestum - Marcus Tullius Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

[[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.


24 posted on 01/23/2009 10:41:29 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Troll_House_Cookies
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.

25 posted on 01/23/2009 10:45:09 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Troll_House_Cookies

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.


26 posted on 01/23/2009 10:46:58 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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

27 posted on 01/23/2009 10:49:01 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Troll_House_Cookies
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.

28 posted on 01/23/2009 10:52:52 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


29 posted on 01/23/2009 11:09:25 AM PST by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; Troll_House_Cookies
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.

30 posted on 01/23/2009 11:13:26 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

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.


31 posted on 01/23/2009 11:23:23 AM PST by Troll_House_Cookies (Ironically, Chancellor Obama's first re-education camp will be in Alaska.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
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!

32 posted on 01/23/2009 11:24:24 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Troll_House_Cookies
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.

33 posted on 01/23/2009 11:30:05 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

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!


34 posted on 01/23/2009 11:36:41 AM PST by ExTxMarine (For whatsoe'ver their sufferings were before; that change they covet makes them suffer more. -Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


35 posted on 01/23/2009 11:36:49 AM PST by antiRepublicrat ("I am a firm believer that there are not two sides to every issue..." -- Arianna Huffington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
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".

36 posted on 01/23/2009 11:41:34 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
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!!!

37 posted on 01/23/2009 11:46:27 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

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.


38 posted on 01/23/2009 11:50:33 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
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.








39 posted on 01/23/2009 11:57:35 AM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 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.


40 posted on 01/23/2009 12:01:33 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson