Posted on 04/03/2009 8:22:15 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
After months of hearing debates over Texas science education standards, the 15-member State Board of Education voted to remove the requirement for teachers to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories, such as evolution, and instead adopted a requisite for students to critically analyze and evaluate “all sides of scientific evidence.”
The board voted 13-2 in favor of the new curriculum requirements, which state:
In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students.
However, despite meeting their goal to get the “strengths and weaknesses” language dropped from the standards, Darwinists have rejected Texas’ effort to “encourage critical thinking by students.”
“This is a setback for science education in Texas, not a draw, not a victory,” said Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the pro-evolution lobbyist group National Center for Science Education.1
“Having students ‘analyze and evaluate all sides of scientific evidence’ is code that gives creationists a green light to attack biology textbooks,” said NCSE project director Josh Rosenau.1
But isn’t analyzing and evaluating what science is all about? Are not scientists supposed to thoroughly examine scientific evidence in order to come to a solid and indisputable conclusion? And isn’t fostering critical thinking among students the aim of all classroom teaching, particularly in public science education? Why would anyone, regardless of worldview bias, want to deny students the opportunity to critically think and follow the evidence wherever it may lead?
The issue isn’t merely academic, but has applications to all areas of scientific endeavor. If a scientist developed a pharmaceutical drug, wouldn’t patients want to be assured that the drug had been thoroughly analyzed for its drawbacks as well as its benefits? If an aircraft designer engineered a new wing design, wouldn’t pilots and passengers want to know that the data from the flight tests underwent intensive scrutiny to find possible dangers before implementation on real airplanes?
The new standards will take effect for the 2010-2011 school year. This makes Texas one of seven other states that specifically require students to critically analyze scientific theories, including Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Two states, Mississippi and Louisiana,2 have passed academic freedom measures for teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical to Darwinism. This may be a “setback” for supporters of evolution, but it is a victory for science.
References
* Ms. Dao is Assistant Editor at the Institute for Creation Research.
Ping!
“In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students.”
Isn’t this more a defeat for Creationists?
Col 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Agreed. Enough of the closed mindedness, that considers only one hypothesis.
{“Having students ‘analyze and evaluate all sides of scientific evidence’ is code that gives creationists a green light to attack biology textbooks,” said NCSE project director Josh Rosenau.}
Great quote. LOL!
“Darwinists have rejected Texas’ effort to “encourage critical thinking by students.”
You mean, their freedom to make a decision on their own? I’m so tired of this PC BS and persona that Christians are cramming their beliefs down the throats of individuals.
In reality it’s the other way around...evolutionary and Godless theories have been running rampant in the schools since the 1960’s!
My thoughts exactly. How does “In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students.” represent a victory since are no experimental observation or testing in creationism?
” ...and instead adopted a requisite for students to critically analyze and evaluate “all sides of scientific evidence.””
___________________________________________________________
Hurray for this!
In this ‘black is white’
‘Up is down’
‘Love is Hate’ world ...
This is a beautiful spot of sunshine gleaming through.
represent a victory since are no experimental observation or testing in creationism?
As well as no empirical evidence and logical reasoning
Not on your life!
Anything that advances the "scientific method" defeats the idiotic "theory of evolution." The evidence stands strongly against evolution, but discussing that evidence in class has been forbidden. Now it comes out in the open, in Texas at least.
When I debate evolutionists or atheists, I simply show them the Bible in my hand and ask “If there is no G-d, how did this book get in my hand?”
They usually just walk away shaking their heads.
Yes, it is!
( its also a victory for the Emporer's clothier, since the Emporer will now have to buy some! ;o)
For a nice simplistic lesson on the scientific method. Nothing in the decision talked about a change to the scientific method. Frankly, I think the creation side got taken for a ride.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
The scientific method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions. Scientists use the scientific method to search for cause and effect relationships in nature. In other words, they design an experiment so that changes to one item cause something else to vary in a predictable way.
You picked it up off of the table?
The problem, as always, is that alternative hypotheses ARE welcome in science.....but at the moment, there are none.
Your predicted rebuttal will be “Intelligent Design is an alternative hypothesis.” To head this off, I simply ask this: what predictions about the origins, evolution, development, or current state of life does the hypothesis of Intelligent Design make that are DIFFERENT than the theory of evolution? If the answer is “none” then it is simply not a valid scientific theory, and has no place in the science classroom.
If it makes all the same predictions, then it is the same theory. In most circumstances, it wouldn’t particularly matter what you call a theory, as long as the predictions are all the same. For instance, if the theory of gravity had its name changed to “The Theory OF Shnewglarvs” I couldn’t particularly care less. However, calling the theory of gravity “The Theory of Magical Attraction” changes its connotations by using a word with charged meaning; Magic.
Even if ID has all the same predictions as evolution (which, as far as any IDers have been able to tell me, it does) it basically IS evolution. However, just like gravity and magic, Calling the driving force of evolution “intelligent” is misleading if it predicts that things will simply obey physical laws. Evolution is a function of basic natural selection, which obeys all known physical laws and chemical reactions.
If you wish to posit that the reason any of these laws and reactions EXIST is because someone (something?) intelligent designed them that way, I suggest you take your views to the philosophy classroom. However, science is about predictions and data, not philosophy.
Until Intelligent Design comes up with (and successfully tests) some predictions that are DIFFERENT than evolution via natural selection, it is simply philosophy, and any attempt to insert it (WITHOUT peer review) into scientific curriculum is circumventing the entire scientific process, allowing it an unfair advantage granted to NO other scientific theory. THIS is why people are upset about beliefs being “crammed down people’s throats.”
In science, unlike in common parlance, theories are about accounting for the data, not sitting back in an armchair and wondering about why things happen. If your theory can’t account for the known data any better than evolution, it’s not a valid theory. If you can find some data to add to the datapool that MAKES it better than evolution, I’d love to see it.
Just to clarify - that last post was meant to say that I thought the ID side was provided with language that actually made their future challenges more difficult.
Is ANY alternative hypothesis required in order to criticize the “only” hypothesis?
We can’t just say “that hypothesis has holes” unless an alternative is offered?
Who made these rules?
Nicely said. Welcome to Free Republic.
Looking forward to the creationists debating which God created us.
Since, you know, if it were actually science that’s what they would do.
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.