Science, Texas Style
The slippery opponents of science in Texas are hard at work, writes Laura Beil in The New York Times, "playing to the American sense of fairness" and demanding that "classrooms be open to all views":
DALLAS -- Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to "creation science," which became "intelligent design," which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in Pennsylvania by a federal judge.Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are "creationism" or "intelligent design" or even "creator."
The words are "strengths and weaknesses."
Starting this summer, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.
Already, legislators in a half-dozen states -- Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina -- have tried to require that classrooms be open to "views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory," according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement.
"Very often over the last 10 years, we've seen antievolution policies in sheep's clothing," said Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education, a group based in Oakland, Calif., that is against teaching creationism.
The "strengths and weaknesses" language was slipped into the curriculum standards in Texas to appease creationists when the State Board of Education first mandated the teaching of evolution in the late 1980s. It has had little effect because evolution skeptics have not had enough power on the education board to win the argument that textbooks do not adequately cover the weaknesses of evolution.
... Dr. McLeroy, the (state education) board chairman, sees the debate as being between "two systems of science."
"You've got a creationist system and a naturalist system," he said.
Dr. McLeroy believes that Earth's appearance is a recent geologic event -- thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion. "I believe a lot of incredible things," he said, "The most incredible thing I believe is the Christmas story. That little baby born in the manger was the god that created the universe."
America The Primitive. It's not enough that Muslims are trying to knock the world back to the Dark Ages, the Christians in Texas have to pitch in.
David Barash, in a subsequent letter to the editor, says it so well:
To the Editor:No reputable college or university will teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of atomic theory or the theory of gravity.
Evolutionary theory is no different, although I begin to despair whether it will ever be possible to drive a stake through the heart of the ever-shifting manifestations of the creationist.
David P. Barash
Redmond, Wash., June 4, 2008The writer, an evolutionary biologist, is professor of psychology at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Yes, we've got a guy running education in Texas who believes the world is thousands of years old, fuck the fossil record. If you've got kids in school in Texas...move.
This is how we're supposed to compete scientifically with China and the rest of the world?
These are the same guys who blissfully think we'll never run out of oil because it's replenishes itself.
And anyway it doesn't matter because the worlds about to end anyhow.
And their vote counts for just as much as yours (not mine because I don't even get to vote in your elections, I just get to watch my MP's do whatever your President tells them).
Grand.
(I'm feeling a bit down today).
Simon Proctor at June 11, 2008 7:29 AM
We're not.
This is just one part of an overreaching design to create a north american super state filled with religious brain dead serfs happy to work for food content in the knowledge that their suffering and shitty existances will be rewarded in the 'hereafter'.
People in power have been pushing this agenda since the bubonic plauge made the feudal system impossible with the death of the majority of the underclass
Religion is the most insidious form of social control EVER. It allows people the illusion that the problems, failings, disappointments, and short commings in their lives are beyond thier control. It lulls people into a false sense of comlacentcy, dupes them into settling for less then they deserve.
WAKE UP PEOPLE there is no life after this. You have no shot so dont piss it away in an attempt to appese the greatest comercial ever devised. You spending your time effort and energy, and for what? To buy a crappy imaginary condo?
And for the sake of argument lets assume god does indeed exist.
Here we habe a being who set up a gauntlet desgined to gaurentee that everyone FAILS and you need his personal direct approval to pass. And your reward is to spend the rest of eternity telling him what a great guy he is for fucking you over and being condesending enough to find you 'worthy'
How fucking narsassitic is that?
So for the possible approval of the biggest imaginary asshole ever - people are willing to mortgage the future of their children and this nation.
lujlp at June 11, 2008 7:39 AM
The US is failing to compete with most other civilized countries in high school competency tests in a lot of subject, and then they complain the results aren't valid because the tests are biased. I guess the complainers want to be tested on bible stories, not math, science or any of that other heathen nonsense.
I'm glad I got a good education up here in Canada (where we say 'aboot' instead of 'about' and are drawn differently than everyone else in South Park). I feel sorry and embarrassed for the US that things are sliding back to the Middle Ages, and I hope enough people fight back so you stay in the 21st century.
We're getting some pressure from some of the fundanutter crap that goes on down there, and it's kind of hard to fight back, but I think we're holding out (at least for the time being). We've got gay marriage, birth control education, and free abortions (on the plus side), but when we try to make week legal (or just punishable by a fine), we get shot down by the War on Drugs people from the US. Oh well.
Chrissy at June 11, 2008 7:44 AM
Sorry, I meant 'weed' not 'week'. Outlook related mistake, sorry.
Chrissy at June 11, 2008 7:47 AM
If I ever do have kids, yes, I'm out of here before even the realistic ATTEMPTS at pregnancy.
In Lubbock, Texas, where I currently live, the Catholic school teaches evolution. The public schools do not. They just leave it out of the curriculum altogether.
Amazing, as disgusted as I am by organized religion, that if I had kids here, I would prefer sending them to Catholic school rather than public school.
Jessica at June 11, 2008 8:21 AM
"Religion is the most insidious form of social control EVER."
Nah. Let's maintain a little perspective. Religion per se has got nothing on Marxism/facism and socialism. With one major execption, the world's organized religions today are not a significant threat to anyone's beliefs. And that one major exception is an exception precisely because it has absorbed 20th-century collectivist thought into its philosophy.
So what we have here is another young-earther. It doesn't matter what kind of rhetoric you wrap it in; it's as silly and easy to disprove as it ever was. If someone tells you that the universe is 4,000 years old and all the evidence to the contrary is a trick that God played on man, ask them then how they be sure that the earth wasn't created yesterday. After all, all of those stories that we've read about the Industrial Revolution and Thomas Edison and WWI, and everything that we remember about our lives, could also be tricks played on us by God. I think the characterization of God-as-practical-joker is one that both Christians and atheists can agree is just plain stupid.
The interesting thing about the "strengths and weaknesses" bit is that it could lead to some very productive classroom discussion, although it probably won't. There is in fact an unsettled area in evolution -- how does mutation actually work? A few decades ago, we thought we knew the answer. But now, it seems like every time someone does some research to try to answer one question, it gives rise to new questions. Unfortunately, the complexity of the issue is such that it probably can't be usefully discussed in elemetary schools, but it would be interesting material for a high-school class.
Cousin Dave at June 11, 2008 8:41 AM
Wait - is this the same Texas where CPS went in and tore apart a bunch of families because some bureaucrat is offended by their primitive religion?
Can we kick Florida, Texas and California out of the country? There's just too much concentrated crazy in those places.
Amy, of course, would be more than welcome to come back.
brian at June 11, 2008 8:46 AM
I posted it to Digg . . . . For anyone who has a little success using their search feature as I do, it should be at http://digg.com/world_news/Blank_of_America.
TheOtherOne at June 11, 2008 9:28 AM
"No reputable college or university will teach the 'strengths and weaknesses' of atomic theory or the theory of gravity.
Actually, if the two theories mentioned inlcude their current aspects (relativity, quantum mechanics), almost any reputable institution is teaching their "strengths and weaknesses." In fact, getting them reconciled is one of the major efforts of modern physics.Look up works by Brian Greene for popular treatments. However, none of the proposed iterations involve a designer. I also do not see propenents of these newer theories lobbying to get school boards to incorporate their ideas into the cirricula of local public schools. They seem to be too busy doing research and publishing it.
sirhcton at June 11, 2008 9:58 AM
almost any reputable institution is teaching their "strengths and weaknesses."
Not in a sophistic way.
Amy Alkon at June 11, 2008 10:12 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism
Amy Alkon at June 11, 2008 10:13 AM
This is how we're supposed to compete scientifically with China and the rest of the world?
As it stands now, we won't be able to.
In 50 years, the USA will be about as much of a superpower as England is today.
Redpretzel in LA at June 11, 2008 10:46 AM
The "strengths and weaknesses" of science? What about the "strengths and weaknesses" of religion?
hanmeng at June 11, 2008 2:27 PM
Do religions have strengths?
DaveG at June 11, 2008 3:31 PM
Please comment on this question:
Is there an objective, empirical way to defend one's belief in science that is not subject to the arguments against religion?
I believe that the following exist, or may some day be proven to exist:
black holes
dark energy
the multiverse
higgs bosons
gravitons
strings
inflation
panspermia
exoplanets
I have never perceived any of these things; I think they exist because experts say they do. Why should I believe these experts? Because they use a very specific methodology to arrive at their conclusions and said methods and conclusions have, over thousands of years, aggregated into the technologies which we enjoy today. In addition, the mathematics which enable the science are continually verified by everyone who has ever studied them.
I just answered my own question. Religions can't make the same claims. Thanks for reading.
I do believe, though, that we science defenders walk a slippery slope. Getting angry with idiots and verbally bitch-slapping them doesn't make it any more likely that they'll get smarter. Setting an example might.
DaveG at June 11, 2008 3:54 PM
...tihs taht detrats uoy nehw nooM ehT fO ediS kraD ehT ot gninetsil saw i - eduD
cirE at June 11, 2008 7:58 PM
?deneppah maercs eht nehw nepgip eht otni llaf yhtoroD diD
dirC at June 11, 2008 8:17 PM
!yppiks nmad reY
cirE at June 11, 2008 8:43 PM
Move? Won't help. Through a thoroughly perverse system, a couple of small-but-influental groups in Texas pretty much determine the content of textbooks nationwide.
Don't look into the textbook development and selection process unless you have a strong stomach...
bradley13 at June 11, 2008 11:17 PM
That little baby born in the manger was the god that created the universe.
According to my bible, Jesus was not born in a manger. He was born in a stable, and laid in a manger. (That's not laid like an egg!)
Perhaps Dr McLeroy reads a different bible. Perhaps he doesn't actually read any.
Norman at June 12, 2008 12:13 AM
Cousin Dave "Religion per se has got nothing on Marxism/facism and socialism. "
I really disagree with you on this point. First of all Fascism and marxism have nothing in common so i am not sure I understand why you linked them.
You are also confusing the economic philosophies of communism and socialism with the political system of fascism. (Just for the record, fascism is a uniquely 20th century phenomenon, while communism (and socialism) are 19th century philosophies.
Of the three fascism is most like religion in that it uses emotions to control the masses. However, there is no fascist system that has lasted for any real significant amount of time - unlike religion which has been around for thousands of years.
I agree with lujlp, religion has been used in Europe (specifically catholicism) to press the masses into accepting their role of poverty and subsistence living - promising them eternal reward for their hard work (which is why so many icons of that religion portray angels lounging an dplaying harps. Lounging was seen as ideal to the worker who never had a moment's leisure in their entore lives).
In America religion is still used by some as an attempt to gather wealth and force people into living in a way that is acceptable to the evangelist. Anything that threatens that base of power is condemned as evil and heavily lobbied against.
In line with free speech, I have a difficult time approving laws that prohibit this kind of thought (if we outlawed stupidity we'd need a whole lot more jails). However, allowing religious beliefs to permeate the school system and impede a student's ability to grasp basic facts about our nature and the physical sciences is a serious issue. In my opinion it is a breach of the separation of church and state. Religious viewpoints have no place in our education system outside of general philosophical studies.
steveda at June 12, 2008 5:50 AM
steveda: I didn't say I approve of what they're doing in Texas. I don't. However, there is no religion that compares to what the totalitarian systems of communism and facism wrought in the 20th century. Between Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot, I figure conservatively 30 million people murdered for standing in the way of "progress" (or merely because "progress" considered their continued existence inconvenient). No religion anywhere has ever done anything like that. Now, Islam aspires to, but I claim that Islam wouldn't be where it is if had not incorporated those totalitarian philosophies into itself.
(As for why I conflate communism and facism: To the guy in the street, it's all the same. The only practical difference is who the favored class is, and who the scapegoat class is. It's the Pete Townshend rule.)
DaveG, to further answer your question a bit: Science is underpinned by a belief in the existence of an objective reality, even though our senses don't always perceive it perfectly. That's why we do experiments and research -- to make sure we're getting the right information from the world exterior to our selves. As for questioning the veracity of science, I think the results over the ages speak for themselves: no other system of understanding the universe has taken us anywhere near as far as science has. In contrast, systems of thought that reject the existence of objective reality have gotten us nowhere and are responsible for much human misery. I claim that all such systems eventually lead to nihlism. And I can refute nihlism, in its own terms, thusly: "Nihlism sucks!" No nihlist can disprove that statement, because nihlism doesn't allow them to.
Cousin Dave at June 12, 2008 7:09 AM
No religion anywhere has done that
- Cousin Dave
Well dave I would suggest every religion, everywhere in the last 6 thousand yrs of recorded history plus what occured in prehistory when we as a species were even more savage and superstious topps 30 million
It is estimated that between 20 million and 180 million africans died due to the slave trade alone, not all of slavery mind you, just in the time frame in which christians were taught that it was morally desirable to enslave and via enslavment convert africans
Interseting side note, our great allies the saudis apperently didnt outlaw slavery until the 1960's
And lets not forget the holocaust and how Hitler used christianity to massacre millions
lujlp at June 12, 2008 11:15 AM
the barbarism of the early to mid 20th century is indisputable, but its causes are not as clear cut as you protray them. There were a lot more humans on the planet in the 20th century than in earlier times, and as a result it is hard to say comparatively what was worse.
Additionally, the advantage (bad word but I can't think of a substitute at the moment) of Stalin and Hitler was the technology that allowed them to kill that many. (Your numbers may be a bit low by the way, 7million jews and over 20million russians died in WWII.) The means to do that didn't exist in the 19th Century or earlier times.
I can't talk too much about Pol Pot or Mao as my knowledge of Asian history is really weak.
But I do believe that had missionaries had access to machine guns and flame throwers the imperialism of the muslim and catholic religions would have had many more victims. They just enslaved them for want of an efficient way to murder by the thousands.
steveda at June 12, 2008 12:24 PM
"Science supports the existence of God"
A quote from a St Edwards professor at an event for high school students (here in texas). As in, evolution proves God, not as in Creation is it. WHY do some people insist on being dumb?? You can be Christian AND belive in science. Most of the bible is allegory, not literal. I suppose I believe in directed evolution, or whatever they call it. Yes evolution happened, God was the force behind the system. I don't believe all the trillions upon trillions of things that HAD to happen, all in sequence, for life to arise just happened to do so by chance. That's crazy to me. So is teaching 7 day creationism in public schools. You want your kids to learn that, teach it yourself or send them to parochial school.
momof3 at June 12, 2008 5:43 PM
luljp: "It is estimated that between 20 million and 180 million africans died due to the slave trade alone, not all of slavery mind you, just in the time frame in which christians were taught that it was morally desirable to enslave and via enslavment convert africans."
Bullshit. This had what to do with Christianity, specifically? First of all, your numbers are about 1000x too high. There is no way there were 180 million people on the African continent in the 18th century. Heck, I'd be surprised if there's many more than that now. Second of all, people of all religions have owned slaves. And guess what? Atheists have owned slaves too. Being that Communism was an explicitly atheistic philosophy, I could, if I wanted to, just as easily lay Stalin's genocides at atheism's feet. I won't do that because I know that's a perversion of the truth.
"Interseting side note, our great allies the saudis apperently didnt outlaw slavery until the 1960's".
This is where you really crossed the line. Since you have lumped me in with the radical Islamists, why should I give a goddamn about anything you say? You remind me of the atheists who are jumping all over Rachel Lucas's shit because she committed a supposed heresy in a moment of emotion. This makes atheism nothing more than another belief system, going around accusing those who stray from the One True Path of apostasy. At that point I have to conclude that you are no more in possesion of the truth than I am, probably less. Go get a fucking grip.
Cousin Dave at June 13, 2008 11:10 AM
Wow, you really are a moron arent you dave?
Where did I say you were a slaver of a muslim? Where did I group you in with them?
And where did I say that the figures I mentioned were exclusive to the 18th century?
I said they werw inclusive of the time that the catholic church gave a moral athority to slavery which was around the 14th century
My coment on saudi arabia was to show that until 50 yrs ago religiously and governmentally endorsed slavery was alive and well in the middle east
Perhaps you need to take a reading comprehension class, that or pull you head out of your ass
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatv.htm
http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-4-TheScourgeofSlavery.htm
lujlp at June 13, 2008 2:05 PM
(in a sing songy voice)
Oh where Oh where did our Cousin Dave go?
Oh where Oh where did he flee?
lujlp at June 15, 2008 12:44 PM
It all starts with ego. Some people can't stand the idea that they are alone and insignificant.
Let's see how significant you are.
Only five things in the picture are stars. The rest are galaxies - and the area in the night sky this picture represents is the apparent size of a strawberry on a fence post. Two miles away.
Radwaste at June 25, 2008 3:01 PM
Corrected the expired link!
Radwaste at July 23, 2014 1:01 AM
Leave a comment