It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Potential creationist curriculum in Texas schools

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Pretty sad.


TENSION is rising prior to this Friday's crucial vote on whether Texan children should learn about creationism in science lessons. In the run-up to the vote, which will decide the state's school curriculum, it has emerged that Don McLeroy, chair of the Texas Science Board of Education, recently endorsed a book criticising the US National Academy of Sciences statement on evolution, and recommended it to his fellow board members.

In Sowing Atheism, Robert Bowie Johnson describes those of the Christian clergy who support evolution as "morons". McLeroy says he does not support calling anyone a moron, but agrees with Bowie Johnson's arguments. The US National Academy of Sciences statement, he says, is a "theft of true science" and neglects "other valid scientific possibilities".

The vote itself will likely go to the wire, with eight pro-evolution members and seven creationists on the board. Although evolutionists prevailed in an earlier meeting, the creationists slipped in last-minute amendments to the curriculum.


Non-science in science classes. They can't be content with creation stories in religious studies can they? There are dozens of creation fables out there. Ought they all be taught in Science class?

Edit:
Whoopsie, for got the link.
www.newscientist.com...

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Welfhard]




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
This really isn't much of a surprise. Living in the Dallas/Fort Wort area, I've seen this going on for more years than I know of. I barely remember science class, but I do remember that it seemed like the teacher almost ignored the subject all together. Probably a smart move on her part.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
well here in australia they have muslim only schools and aboriginal only schools so a little false preaching couldn't hurt that bad could it?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Why.. how is that constitutionally okay? If schools get funding from the government, how can they teach religion?

And in science class, really?

I don't think it will pass... do you?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead
well here in australia they have muslim only schools and aboriginal only schools so a little false preaching couldn't hurt that bad could it?


It's the principle of the matter.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
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.]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
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.


They aren't being rejected because of a controversy, it's because it's bad science.

STARTING WITH CONCLUSIONS IS BAD SCIENCE



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
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.




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by B.A.C.
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.


They aren't being rejected because of a controversy, it's because it's bad science.

STARTING WITH CONCLUSIONS IS BAD SCIENCE


What are you talking about? They are NOT being rejected (ID papers) by peer review. Where do you get that idea from?

And what does that have to do with what this vote is about? It's nothing to do with ID or Creationism. It's about teaching "strengths and weaknesses" of ANY theory. Did you even do a search to confirm what this vote is about?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

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...



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

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.]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

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.]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

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]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
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.]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead
well here in australia they have muslim only schools and aboriginal only schools so a little false preaching couldn't hurt that bad could it?


Yes and over in the good ol' united states they have bible schools. And then they have public schools. You can choose in which school you wish to put your kids in.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join