Creationism Defeated in Texas

Biggins

Creationism Defeated in Texas


Campaigners against the teaching of creationism in science lessons last week celebrated a key victory in Texas.




In meetings to revise science standards in Texan schools, the 15 members of the Texas State Board of Education elected to get rid of wording which has allowed the standing of evolution to be attacked for 20 years in Texan science lessons.
The offending wording invites teachers and students to debate "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. In practice, this was used as a pretext to attack evolution in lessons and textbooks.
"Removing the concept of 'strengths and weaknesses', when the supposed weaknesses are completely bogus, is a real victory," says Michael Zimmerman of Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana, and a campaigner against creationism.



http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=6735357&page=1

AtomicHorror

Yes, read about this yesterday. Promising news, though it is disturbing to read just how closely-fought these battles still are. The comments on the ABC article make for some funny reading.

pepsicokeacola

meh hu cares tbh. its in a place in the usa, not that it effects us

Dades

pepsicokeacola wrote: »

meh hu cares tbh. its in a place in the usa, not that it effects us

Interestingly, that's the way a lot of Americans think about the rest of the world.
You'd be right at home there.

Rb

pepsicokeacola wrote: »

meh hu cares tbh. its in a place in the usa, not that it effects us

:rolleyes:

Fantastic news.

Edit: Some of the comments in that abc article are terrifying.

pepsicokeacola

pepsicokeacola wrote: »

meh hu cares tbh. its in a place in the usa, not that it effects us

He/she/it is just a troll. They're driving everyone mad over on the LC forum and in a few others.

Rb

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

He/she/it is just a troll. They're driving everyone mad over on the LC forum and in a few others.

Well, in that case, he/she should go and study their LC English notes a little better because, judging from their posts here, they are doomed to fail in June.

AtomicHorror

pepsicokeacola wrote: »

meh hu cares tbh. its in a place in the usa, not that it effects us

The likes of Mervyn Storey MLA and some of the conservative posters on the Christianity forum would seem to make a nonsense of that notion. Ignore creationism and it will certainly become an issue here in Europe.

philologos

I'm not so sure if this wording really is so bad. People should be allowed to discuss if there are weaknesses in certain theories in the classroom if they have an issue that needs to be clarified. This actually might be productive for the students to have some of their preconceptions refuted, however, I guess if this law has been abused maybe it should be removed.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not so sure if this wording really is so bad. People should be allowed to discuss if there are weaknesses in certain theories in the classroom if they have an issue that needs to be clarified. This actually might be productive for the students to have some of their preconceptions refuted, however, I guess if this law has been abused maybe it should be removed.

But, see, the thing that annoys me is that many people refute the Theory of Evolution because it's called a theory. People don't understand that a theory, in the scientific sense of the word, isn't just a hunch or a guess: it's a very very strong idea that makes sense of observations. Let people poke holes in evolutionary theory all they like, as long as they do it validly; saying that just because it's a theory it's nonsense, is, exactly that: nonsense.

Of course I'm not implying that you mean any of that, I'm just stating what many people do.

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not so sure if this wording really is so bad. People should be allowed to discuss if there are weaknesses in certain theories in the classroom if they have an issue that needs to be clarified. This actually might be productive for the students to have some of their preconceptions refuted, however, I guess if this law has been abused maybe it should be removed.

Well, science is all about challenging established models and testing the evidence. There are scientific weaknesses to the standard evolutionary model, though they are rather mundane and not fundamental to the standing of the theory itself. Weaknesses, major or minor, should certainly be discussed if their basis is scientific. But what has been happening instead is that religious objections to the theory have been allowed to masquerade as science, by merely using the sometimes impenetrable jargon of science. And that can't be allowed. It's dishonest and disempowering too.

philologos

Hang on though -JammyDodger-, and AtomicHorror legally the schools wouldn't be allowed to let people expose weaknesses in Darwinian evolution under this new move though. I'm not sure if it's the right direction to go, but perhaps a precautionary measure is necessary.

I think that teachers and students should be encouraged to reason scientific theory, and this could prove a good ground for those teachers who have expertise in biology to rightfully correct peoples misconceptions on evolution.

The law change in Texas would even prohibit discussing weaknesses in evolutionary theory such as you describe. It is only through discussion that things get learnt, not through suppression of peoples objections.

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that teachers and students should be encouraged to reason scientific theory, and this could prove a good ground for those teachers who have expertise in biology to rightfully correct peoples misconceptions on evolution.

The problem is, and you well know it is that this has nothing to do with weaknesses in scientific theories. This is a religiously motivated campaign, which when it failed to get creationism taught instead of evolution, then tried to get "alternative" theories taught alongside evolution, and when that failed wanted to keep the door open to at least attack evolution in the classroom as a last resort (this is not their preferred choice).

This is not motivated by science educators wanting to change the way science is taught (by somehow making the course less dogmatic and more about debating things), unless you're saying it is, unless you're saying that in general, across physics, chemistry and biology too many theories with "weaknesses" are being taught (without explaining those weaknesses to the students)?

So to be fair to you Jackass, what are your top 10 scientific theories (taught at secondary/high-school level in the US) with "weaknesses" and what are those weaknesses?

philologos

pH wrote: »

The problem is, and you well know it is that this has nothing to do with weaknesses in scientific theories. This is a religiously motivated campaign, which when it failed to get creationism taught instead of evolution, then tried to get "alternative" theories taught alongside evolution, and when that failed wanted to keep the door open to at least attack evolution in the classroom as a last resort (this is not their preferred choice).

I know that in the Texan circumstance it was nothing to do with weaknesses, however I do think that those words shouldn't have been removed from the law either. I do think that other preventative measures would have been better advised. This encourages the suppression of peoples views rather to get the teacher to engage with them and to see how best to explain evolution to a student.

This is not motivated by science educators wanting to change the way science is taught (by somehow making the course less dogmatic and more about debating things), unless you're saying it is, unless you're saying that in general, across physics, chemistry and biology too many theories with "weaknesses" are being taught (without explaining those weaknesses to the students)?

pH wrote: »

So to be fair to you Jackass, what are your top 10 scientific theories (taught at secondary/high-school level in the US) with "weaknesses" and what are those weaknesses?

It's not my place to explain what exactly these weaknesses might be, but I do think that if students do find some or want the teacher to explain to them in more detail that these should be discussed. I don't think this move is anything productive apart from to suppress questions that students may want to be discussed even if you or others might disagree with them. I think the idea that science can be challenged and discussed would promote people to become interested in it, rather to place it on a pedestal with an unwritten law of "Just accept, don't question". Infact wouldn't that be a similar objection that many of you had towards religion?

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

Hang on though -JammyDodger-, and AtomicHorror legally the schools wouldn't be allowed to let people expose weaknesses in Darwinian evolution under this new move though. I'm not sure if it's the right direction to go, but perhaps a precautionary measure is necessary.

It wasn't my understanding that rational debate was prohibited. Does anyone have the new and revised texts in a link somewhere?

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that teachers and students should be encouraged to reason scientific theory, and this could prove a good ground for those teachers who have expertise in biology to rightfully correct peoples misconceptions on evolution.

I agree completely. And in fact I think that derivation of theories from the evidence and understanding of how hypotheses and theories are built is something sadly neglected in science education. Not enough time is spent on teaching kids what science really is. However, I'm not convinced that the form this should take is the challenging of established parts of the curriculum. There are far better targets. Until evolution is called into scientific question, it is appropriate that it is taught as correct. That's how education works, teaching the established.

When the history curriculum must be questioned, is it questioned by school teachers and students or is that change initiated by historians? Evolution is a scientific theory, and if it needs to be questioned in a fundamental way that questioning is going to start in the scientific community. Amongst the people who study it most closely. This is the same as for any academic pursuit. The experts will then lobby for change using evidence.

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not my place to explain what exactly these weaknesses might be, but I do think that if students do find some or want the teacher to explain to them in more detail that these should be discussed.

I don't think that is being prohibited at all. If a student asks a question, why would the teacher be prohibited from answering? I gather it's
more that the teacher should not, as a matter of habit, invite the debate. Just as it would be rather impractical to do so in other parts of the curriculum.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass - you seem to be missing that just because the word 'weaknesses' has been removed doesn't mean that weaknesses cannot be discussed; it is merely not obligatory for them to be discussed in the classroom now, and that is a good thing.

AtomicHorror said above that the weaknesses are fairly mundane and have little bearing on the theory as a whole - as I have no idea what said weaknesses are I'm prepared to take his word on that - but I'm sure a teacher would have nothing but praise for a student who went far enough out of his or her way and did enough research to find some of these genuine weaknesses.

philologos

The Mad Hatter, what was the point in the legal decision then if the loss of the word weaknesses has no consequence whatsoever, surely the secular humanists, atheists, agnostics etc who campaigned for this shouldn't have bothered at all then. I think that it should be obligatory for weaknesses to be discussed to give one a fuller view of the situation, and for one to be actively engaged in the science. Surely this is only intellectually honest. However I do not agree with people manipulating this for their own ideological agenda either which leaves us at a conundrum.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

The Mad Hatter, what was the point in the legal decision then if the loss of the word weaknesses has no consequence whatsoever, surely the secular humanists, atheists, agnostics etc who campaigned for this shouldn't have bothered at all then. I think that it should be obligatory for weaknesses to be discussed to give one a fuller view of the situation, and for one to be actively engaged in the science. Surely this is only intellectually honest. However I do not agree with people manipulating this for their own ideological agenda either which leaves us at a conundrum.

Because, I suspect, weaknesses in the theory are a detail, and are only required in advanced study. The consequence is that weaknesses - true or false - do not have to be discussed. They still can, of course, but the important thing is to teach the theory itself.

I can't really imagine a classroom full of high-school biology students discussing the fine details of which version of evolutionary theory is more likely to be accurate.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that it should be obligatory for weaknesses to be discussed to give one a fuller view of the situation, and for one to be actively engaged in the science.

The problem isn't weakness of a theory being discussed.

The problem is who defines what is a weakness of a theory and whether the teacher should discuss that

There is a whole thread going on in Christianity where to a number of posters the "weakness" of evolutionary theory is that it doesn't match Genesis. Should teachers be teaching their students that this is a "weakness" of evolutionary theory?

There are scientific issues with all theories, they wouldn't be theories if there wasn't. But that is a matter for science and the weakness should be framed within scientific boundaries. I don't like it isn't a weakness of the theory.

Most of the scientific issues with Evolution are far too complicated for high school biology students to be dealing with anyways.

2Scoops

Perhaps the solution would be to freely discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the science behind Creationism? I think students should know there is absolutely, positively ZERO evidence for it, bar the secret stuff that J C does in the Creationism thread and won't tell anyone about.

Incidentally, how come almost every single creationist has managed to worm their way on to a school board?! :eek:

philologos

2Scoops: When you live in a country where about 40% of the population are Young Earth Creationists of course they will have a certain degree of influence within society.

2Scoops

Jakkass wrote: »

2Scoops: When you live in a country where about 40% of the population are Young Earth Creationists of course they will have a certain degree of influence within society.

Yah, that and the fact that they are incredibly desperate to obtain power to influence to the most naive members of society!

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

2Scoops: When you live in a country where about 40% of the population are Young Earth Creationists of course they will have a certain degree of influence within society.

Particularly when Creationists appear to show such disdain for science

Valmont

The prospect of creationism masquerading as science is a bleak one indeed. Thank God for this victory in Texas!