Potential creationist curriculum in Texas schools, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 26-3-2009 @ 08:16 PM by B.A.C.
reply to post by Welfhard


This vote has NOTHING to do with creationism. This is disinformation.

From your source, and what the vote is about:

UPDATE: An initial vote on the amendment to add "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories back to the science standards has failed. The board voted 7-7 and a split vote is not passed. The final vote will be taken on Friday.


This vote is about teaching "strengths and weaknesses" of ANY scientific theory.

Anyone who believes Creationism and is reasonably intelligent would NEVER want it taught in school. Same goes with ID. This would only create further controversy and take away from actual learning in the classroom. Also, it would hinder having ID articles being accepted in peer review journals (which they currently are) because of the politics involved with the controversy.

Your source is obviously bias and misrepresenting the facts about this case. Like I said this vote is about teaching "strength and weaknesses" of ANY Scientific Theory.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


reply posted on 26-3-2009 @ 08:27 PM by Lasheic
reply to post by B.A.C.




This vote has NOTHING to do with creationism. This is disinformation.


You're wrong. This has everything to do with creationism. Not so much the explicit teachings thereof, but for some academically acceptable license to slander any science the ID movement and creationist teachers don't like and then - either impose their own unsubstantiated claims, or plead the persecution card to say they can't discuss "alternative theories", perhaps in hopes this will pique the student's interest - thus providing an avenue for indoctrination by exploiting honest academic curiosity.

To put it bluntly, high schools are not the forum for debating the validity of current scientific theories. High Schools are there to bring our children up to the current basic academic standards which they will need in collage and beyond.

I wish more people had listened to AronRa's plea.





reply posted on 26-3-2009 @ 08:32 PM by Welfhard
reply to post by B.A.C.


Ooo good deflecting. You brought up a point about ID not making it through peer review because of politics which is laughable.


reply posted on 26-3-2009 @ 08:35 PM by B.A.C.
reply to post by Lasheic


No you're wrong. Go look this up. They aren't saying anything about "alternatives", this vote is about already accepted and established theories, and about discussing weaknesses within them.

You shouldn't discuss the weaknesses of a theory? You know how crazy and completely irrational this sounds? Maybe we shouldn't be able to criticize the government either, right? Or point out any weaknesses in a law? Maybe we should just have the "thought" police escort us around everywhere. Pfft.


reply posted on 26-3-2009 @ 08:37 PM by B.A.C.
reply to post by Welfhard


ID papers DO make it to peer review. Try doing a little research. That's why it wouldn't be to bright to start teaching it in schools, it would just open up more controversy and possibly hinder that.


reply posted on 26-3-2009 @ 08:50 PM by B.A.C.
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by Welfhard
Ooo good deflecting. You brought up a point about ID not making it through peer review because of politics which is laughable.


Oh, didn't you know...the tentacles of the Darwin conspiracy even reach into the IDers own journal 'Progress (lol) in Complexity, Information, and Design' - they haven't published a single paper since late 2005. Around the time of the Dover debacle.

www.iscid.org...


Address the issue of the thread, mel.

You don't think weaknesses should be discussed about ANY theory (established and accepted)?

That's what this vote is about. To say any different is complete BS. People are so worked up about Creationism they think censorship will fix it.

Here's the REAL story from Associated Press (a little more reputable and less bias than the OP's source):

www.google.com...
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas science teachers will no longer be required to teach weaknesses of scientific theory, including evolution, under new curriculum standards tentatively adopted by the State Board of Education on Thursday.


The vote was about teaching "strengths and weaknesses" of ANY theory, of course this includes Evolutionary Theory. Why wouldn't it?


[edit on 26-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


reply posted on 26-3-2009 @ 08:52 PM by Lasheic
reply to post by B.A.C.



You shouldn't discuss the weaknesses of a theory? You know how crazy and completely irrational this sounds? Maybe we shouldn't be able to criticize the government either, right?


That's not what I said. I said it was not the place of as-of-yet uneducated high school students to probe the weaknesses of scientific theories. The place for the weaknesses of current scientific theories to be explored, and perhaps better explained, is in the collage classroom, the laboratory, and in the peer-review literature.

High School is only there to bring students up to the basic current standards of education necessary for them to succeed in collage, from which they will specialize their education.

The reason why they're doing this is to promote a creationist agenda by casting doubt on currently accepted scientific theories, thereby leaving a void which their cronies can fill with their own simple-minded snakeoil. It's a thinly veiled attack on the educational system, and if you can't see that - I hate to say but you're either woefully ignorant, utterly gullible, or completely in support of teaching bronze age myths over science.



reply posted on 26-3-2009 @ 08:58 PM by B.A.C.
Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by B.A.C.



You shouldn't discuss the weaknesses of a theory? You know how crazy and completely irrational this sounds? Maybe we shouldn't be able to criticize the government either, right?


That's not what I said. I said it was not the place of as-of-yet uneducated high school students to probe the weaknesses of scientific theories. The place for the weaknesses of current scientific theories to be explored, and perhaps better explained, is in the collage classroom, the laboratory, and in the peer-review literature.

High School is only there to bring students up to the basic current standards of education necessary for them to succeed in collage, from which they will specialize their education.

The reason why they're doing this is to promote a creationist agenda by casting doubt on currently accepted scientific theories, thereby leaving a void which their cronies can fill with their own simple-minded snakeoil. It's a thinly veiled attack on the educational system, and if you can't see that - I hate to say but you're either woefully ignorant, utterly gullible, or completely in support of teaching bronze age myths over science.


What? High School kids shouldn't be taught the truth? You support teaching the myth that there are no weaknesses in theories? You support censoring that fact? I don't support lies, apparently you do. How about we teach them the truth? Then they can decide if the weakness merits more thought on the subject.

You're saying they have no right to learn about weaknesses in a theory (any theory) so they can gain a better understanding? That's crazy.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


reply posted on 26-3-2009 @ 09:03 PM by melatonin
Originally posted by Lasheic
That's not what I said. I said it was not the place of as-of-yet uneducated high school students to probe the weaknesses of scientific theories. The place for the weaknesses of current scientific theories to be explored, and perhaps better explained, is in the collage classroom, the laboratory, and in the peer-review literature.


Yup, don't buy the BS. If they just wanted students to discuss areas of science not fully understood, they were given the opportunity.

According to Texas Freedom Network’s live blog, the proposal to include “strengths and weaknesses” language to the Texas education standards has failed with a 7-7 vote.

An alternative proposal to include the language “including discussing what is not fully understood so as to encourage critical thinking by the student” was also rejected 7-7. The rejection of this alternative is noteworthy because the creationists on the board and the current culture war strategy of the Discovery Institute have argued that students should learn “more” about evolution to develop critical thinking skills. The alternative language fit directly in that rationalization, but in a scientifically rigorous way.

pandasthumb.org...

ABE: And just to clarify, the creationists who supported the weaknesses statement, opposed the alternate critical thinking statement (proposed by an opponent of the 'weakness' trojan donkey).

They couldn't give a sod about science education bar from casting doubt on evolution et al and pushing creobull.

ABE2:

Don 'flinstones wuz documentary' McLeroy's thoughts on why he opposed Craig's 'critical thinking' statement are pretty clear, lol.



[edit on 26-3-2009 by melatonin]


reply posted on 26-3-2009 @ 09:09 PM by B.A.C.
reply to post by melatonin


You're wrong again. The same people that voted the first time, voted the second time. Why would a second vote with a rewording change anything?

Support censorship of information if you want, it's your country that suffers not mine. We don't have ridiculous votes like this period. It's a given that you would be allowed to speak of a theory's weaknesses in our classrooms, maybe that's why our SAT scores are better, who knows.




[edit on 26-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


reply posted on 26-3-2009 @ 09:31 PM by Lasheic
reply to post by B.A.C.




High School kids shouldn't be taught the truth?


I never said that, and I don't recall any science curriculum that promotes the teaching of science as absolute fact. It is (and if not, should be) in the introduction to any science course that science is merely a process of discovery - and that what follows merely represents our best current understanding.


You don't think weaknesses should be discussed about ANY theory


Not at the high school level, no. That's simply not the place for them.


That's what this vote is about. To say any different is complete BS.


ATS's motto is to "Deny Ignorance". I wish more members would embrace this ideology. But, even just a cursory view of your profile and posts reveals your bias towards wanting creationism taught in schools. This innocent ploy to "academic honesty" is hogwash, and you and I both know it. So drop the act. You promote honesty, yet play this underhanded little game?

Have some self-respect.


People are so worked up about Creationism they think censorship will fix it.


Persecution card.



I don't support lies, apparently you do.


Is that so? You know, I've yet to see ONE thread in which you raised a stink about children learning that Columbus proved the world was round. This is still taught to children in our schools, despite the fact that Columbus was a morally bankrupt basket case who couldn't even be convinced he never landed in India - and that world had been proven to be round by Eratosthenes over a millenia and a half before Columbus even set sail. Not only did he prove that it was round, he measured it to within 1% accuracy. By extrapolation, later astronomers and mathematicians could then measure the gradient of the shadow of the moon to discover not only it's diameter, but it's distance from the Earth.

Oh... but I did see a thread of your defending the "scientific accuracy" of the Bible.

So, forgive me, but I have every reason to believe that you do, in fact, support the spreading of half-truths, lies, and misinformation.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags