Evolutionists, Atheists Admit Defeat in Texas
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
1. Science setback for Texas schools. National Center for Science Education press release, March 30, 2009.
2. Dao, C. Louisiana the Only State to Promote Academic Freedom (So Far). ICR News. Posted on icr.org on July 23, 2008, accessed April 1, 2009.
* Ms. Dao is Assistant Editor at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on April 3, 2009.
http://www.icr.org/article/4581/
I can't tell you how disgusting this is...
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
1. Science setback for Texas schools. National Center for Science Education press release, March 30, 2009.
2. Dao, C. Louisiana the Only State to Promote Academic Freedom (So Far). ICR News. Posted on icr.org on July 23, 2008, accessed April 1, 2009.
* Ms. Dao is Assistant Editor at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on April 3, 2009.
http://www.icr.org/article/4581/
I can't tell you how disgusting this is...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Galen on -
It just seems to me that any half-decent science teacher could very easily read the text of this and say "well, that certainly doesn't apply to anything stated in ID, so it looks like I don't have to teach it now!" If I were a science teacher, this specific wording would make me feel like teaching ID is now forbidden since it certainly doesn't qualify as logic, reason, etc.
-
Permalink Reply by Johnny on -
But that's you, a rational being, who rejects ID, and understands ID is religion, and who understands separation of church and state.
There are plenty of teachers out there (especially in Texas) who prescribe to ID/creationism 100%, and would run with this tiny window of opportunity, pushing as much as they thought they could get away with through that window. All the while saying "I'm showing these kids ways to critically analyze and evaluate evolution."
It is better than the original "strengths and weaknesses" language they tried for, but it still is completely unnecessary and somewhat counter-productive.
-
Permalink Reply by Reggie on -
I somehow missed this thread until now. I think Johnny sums it up rather well. Critical thinking should be taught to students. However, it does seem that this will be used simply to call into doubt sound theories for high school science students who do not possess the capabilities or education level to accurately assess them. Scientific theories are always up for scrutiny and the scientific method encourages people to overturn them. This type of research and work is done on a far higher playing field than high school by professionals that have spent their lives studying their particular subject. That is where the "arena" is, not in high school.
The silliest thing notion that creationists have is that it should be up to high school students to make these important decisions. When these people were deciding what type of loan to take out on their house, did they let several mortgage brokers explain each one, in glowing terms, to their 10 year old and let little Timmy decide?
I would be more than happy to see a year long course at the high school level on critical thinking. Keep it separate from the science class. They can examine the scientific method (strengths and weaknesses) as well as examine religious and paranormal claims. Put all these worldviews under the harsh light of critical inquiry for an entire year for high school kids. Make it mandatory. How would the Texas BOE and religious parents like that?
-
Permalink Reply by Reggie on
-
Sadly, I know too many people like that to one degree or another. The level of science literacy in the United States is appallingly low.
-
Permalink Reply by Frink on -
I'll bet this description sounds familiar to many people here. It seems that those who reject science are those who are ignorant of it.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave G on -
Worse are those who have a general understanding of the scientific method, profess to love science, but any scientific research that counters their religious beliefs are disregarded as a conspiracy of evil, elitist, wicked scientists who are trying to force their views on God-Fearing Folk.
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on -
If pigs could fly, pork wouldn't be the other white meat!
-
Permalink Reply by Stacy B on -
Technically, I agree with Galen.
"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."
This excludes ID entirely since it can't be tested and since we already teach "all sides of the scientific evidence" for evolution in order to show why it makes sense, then according to the wording of this curriculum there's no problem here. I hope that opponents of the ID infiltration use that to their advantage.
I know that in practice this will get twisted, but anyone so inclined to teach ID in their science classroom will use some BS justification for doing so. Unless we start firing teachers who teach BS (which would probably eliminate 1/4 of all US teachers in any subject if only due to sheer, frightening ignorance of some of our teachers) then this will continue to be an issue.
The comparison to drugs and aircraft is quite ludicrous since it implies there is a positive and negative benefit to accepting the fact of evolution. Sure there is the negative impact of your religion being definitively wrong, but it's hard to dispute the benefit of reality.
And we can go back to the age old comparison to the Theory of Gravity - yes, let's teach all sides of the Theory of Gravity so that students can think critically about it...and realize that it's as close to fact as science can get, just like evolution. These efforts by the IDers are doomed to backfire on them. And I think that our students and science curricula will benefit from it in the end. The transition, however, may be rocky.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave G on
-
Unless we start firing teachers who teach BS (which would probably eliminate 1/4 of all US teachers in any subject if only due to sheer, frightening ignorance of some of our teachers)
What's the downside of this again? (Aside from already overcrowded classrooms getting even more crowded)
-
Permalink Reply by Stacy B on
-
I wouldn't say there is one, but there would have to be other changes to our education system to support it - like higher salaries to draw more applicants. Losing teachers at this point is not a viable option, but I'd like to see that in the future.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave G on
-
I'd love to see higher standards, such as teachers actually having to be competent in whatever field they are teaching in. Higher standards would require higher compensation, of course.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
What's new today
Forum
It's little companies who are destroying the middle class
Started by Unseen in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Patrick Hershey 8 minutes ago. 4 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
How Jesus' Views on Marriage Proves Yahweh's Laws are NOT Absolute OR Jesus is Mistaken
Posted by Cathy Cooper on May 17, 2013 at 10:00am 0 Comments 0 Likes
Events
-
Frederick Beer Week
May 11, 2013 at 12pm to May 18, 2013 at 6pm – Stillpoint Farm, MD
0 Comments 0 Likes
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
