Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Getting Evolution In Science Textbooks For Texas Schools

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the monkey's-uncle dept.

Education 710

First time accepted submitter windwalker13th writes "Recently the New York Times ran an article highlighting the pull that a State Board in Texas holds over that state and rest of the Nation. Because of the unique way in which Texas picks school textbooks (purchasing large volumes of textbooks at once to be used for the next decade) publishers pander to this board to get their books approved. The board currently holds several members (6 of 28 who are known to reject evolution) who hold creationist views and actively work to ensure that the science textbooks do not use as strong language or must include "critical thinking" about possible alternate explanations for evolution."

cancel ×

710 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Once upon a time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518517)

A bearded man...

Re:Once upon a time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518995)

...raped a 14 year old in the Levant, impregnating her...

make jesus a dinosaur (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518519)

t rex jesus

Re: make jesus a dinosaur (0)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 10 months ago | (#45518825)

Now, sir... you are being absurd! We have long knew that Jesus rode a T-Rex at the moment of Creation.

ya know... (5, Funny)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 10 months ago | (#45518531)

Any old God can do speciation. But a TRULY awesome God? He automates it.

Re:ya know... (2)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#45518579)

But only in a way that puts us on top, because we had to evolve to become "in his image".
Or something...

Re:ya know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518681)

No..no..no...HE created Eve so we could Fuck our BRAINS out!

God is for promiscuous no-marital Sex! After all, was Adam and Eve married?!

Fuck no!

God created Eve and said, "Thou shall fuck her thy brains out!" - or something ...

Re:ya know... (4, Informative)

WilliamGeorge (816305) | about 10 months ago | (#45519091)

Actually, they were married - the first couple, wed by God. In fact, the passage in Genesis refers to the "man" (Adam) and his "wife" (Eve) for a long time before ever mentioning her name as being Eve!

'Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.'

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:23-25&version=ESV [biblegateway.com]

Re:ya know... (1)

zoffdino (848658) | about 10 months ago | (#45518593)

No, he outsources it to India. Look, they are already overtaking the advancing His creations -- North America women don't bear children as much anymore.

Re:ya know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518969)

Not just the coding and runtime either. Even the decision about whether a copy error is a "bug" or a "feature" is automated!

News for Nerds... (1, Insightful)

ekimd (968058) | about 10 months ago | (#45518539)

How is this news? We've all known about this for a very long time.

Re:News for Nerds... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518583)

Drum up pageviews on a boring Monday that's why

Re:News for Nerds... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518599)

How do you know that you weren't created 10 minutes ago, with your knowledge already in place?

Re:News for Nerds... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518779)

How do you know that you weren't created 10 minutes ago, with your knowledge already in place?

Because my tea water is boiling.

My cat is demanding food.

The cats ... THEY know ...they have ALWAYS known....

Act like you don't know (1)

Safety Cap (253500) | about 10 months ago | (#45518833)

Otherwise you will DIAF [edgecastcdn.net] .

Re: News for Nerds... (0)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 10 months ago | (#45518979)

If we are to assume that ten minutes ago, you were created with memories to lead you to believe that you have existed prior to this very moment, isn't it also plausible that your cat (a living being that has knowledge of you) was not formed in the same fashion as you, with memories and knowledge of what it is to have an empty belly, and a belief that if vocalized to you that it would be fed? For the incredibly intricate task of creating that scenario, why does the observation that water can and is currently boiling provide irrefutable evidence to you that this world or even just your part in it has existed longer than 10 minutes?

Re:News for Nerds... (2, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 10 months ago | (#45518807)

The Texas Board of Education on Friday delayed final approval of a widely used biology textbook because of concerns raised by one reviewer that it presents evolution as fact rather than theory.

That's how: it's a recent development. Would have been nice if the summary mentioned this though, I agree. The article also mentioned that the board didn't attempt to do anything shady about censoring climate change from the books. Newsworthy given the low standards that are set for Texas education.

Re:News for Nerds... (5, Insightful)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 10 months ago | (#45518917)

The article should mention that the concerned reviewer is an idiot. I'm so tired of the media pretending that "superstitious yahoo" is a point of view, and the truth lies half-way between our best understanding of the world and right-wing religious derp.

Re:News for Nerds... (2, Interesting)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 10 months ago | (#45519051)

Comments like this should not be modded up. The article is about the recently delayed approval of a book, and the fact that Texas is continuing to elect anti-science fundamentalists to this board. That said it also looks like there was a step forward - more approval and less watering down. All of these items are newsworthy.

But even if none of the information was new, the situation is ongoing. An ongoing struggle to dampen scientific education within the US is most certainly news for Nerds.

Santa Claus was Shakespeare (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518545)

It's a SCIENTIFIC FACT!

Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518551)

"Creationism" does not have ANY place in a scientific textbook. These people MUST be told to go soak their heads for 40 days and 40 nights under peer review.

Education in sciences isn't up for a debate along the lines of "everything we're teaching has an equally plausible antithesis, if you're raised religious."

This is bullshit taught to children with tax dollars in a secular environment. Kill it with fire.

Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518799)

You are a Liar.. This isn't about religion...

Creationism is not religion, even if its proponents are sometimes religious. Creationism is system of scientific thought that presupposes a specific world view that can not be proven or disproved. You have no way to know that there was no creator, you just start with that assumption. Creationists start with an alternate assumption and arrive at different conclusions on some points.

Your claim that it is teaching religion to teach creationism is a lie. Unless you are willing to stipulate that teaching evolution is tantamount to teaching atheism and thus is teaching religion too. I'm going to bet you won't stipulate that point.

So, do we teach both or do we just teach your religious view?

Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518845)

" Creationism is system of scientific thought that presupposes a specific world view that can not be proven or disproved. "

IE, religious bullshit, and not science as one would expect in a SCIENTIFIC TEXTBOOK, durr. So you're the liar, really.

Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45518891)

If you start with assumptions about the outcome you don't have science.

It is a philosophy not a science.

Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (2, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 10 months ago | (#45519007)

Creationism is system of scientific thought that presupposes a specific world view that can not be proven or disproved.

No, it's not. Creationism is a system of anti-scientific thought (which is what concerning itself with something that cannot be proven or disproven means). It is not science, and therefore has no place in a science textbook.

Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (5, Interesting)

TheMeuge (645043) | about 10 months ago | (#45519013)

Creationist is not a system of scientific thought. Neither is "intelligent design". The whole concept of a scientific system is that it makes no assumptions, beyond being able to attain accurate and true measurements. Teaching "intelligent design" is a gross intellectual dishonesty because it IS an excuse to teach religion. Once you "presuppose" a specific world view, you've negated any concept of science.

I have faith, I even believe in God. Yet I'm a scientist, and I think I will utterly fail both faith and science if they are ever allowed to meet in my head. Once is a philosophical framework for the world. One is a structure of strict mathematics and logic. They have nothing to do with one another, and every time someone tries to bulldoze scientific education with their narrow-minded unimaginative worldview that does truly derive solely from a n-thousand-year-old book, it makes me cringe.

If I want to teach my kids religion, I'll do it, or I'll send them to temple, or a religious school. Please don't teach them YOUR version of a specific world view in public school.

Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518889)

Actually it would be an excellent case study on the scientific method.

You could use it to demonstrate the importance of peer review, how/why scientific theory changes over time, and to develop the skill of evaluating sources.

It also demonstrates why science education is important even if you don't plan to be a scientist, and why the scientific method is so important.

Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (1)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | about 10 months ago | (#45519043)

It would also be a case study in how many things can interfere and derail science - religious, economic, or governmental interests.

Unfortunately the history of science is full of these kinds of things. It really slows down progress and always hurts those who choose to do it.

Ask Galileo.

Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. (5, Interesting)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 10 months ago | (#45519055)

This is bullshit taught to children with tax dollars in a secular environment. Kill it with fire.

I think you'll find that the sentiment is pretty equally shared by Christians who are willing to actually study and think about their scriptures. After all, it makes it pretty hard to talk to someone about what one finds important (i.e. religion) when you're called by the same name as a vocal group which is (rightly) identified as deniers of reality. Augustine (an early church father and pretty universally acknowledged formalizer of Christian doctrine) wrote in AD 400:

If we think of these days which are marked by the rising and the setting of the sun, this was perhaps not the fourth but the first day, so that we may suppose the sun to have risen at the time it was made and to have set at the time the other luminaries were made. But those who understand that the sun is still shining somewhere else when it is night with us, and that it is night somewhere else when the sun is with us, will search out a more sublime manner of counting these days."

AUGUSTINE - UNFINISHED LITERAL COMMENTARY ON GENESIS 14 (43)

This literal 24 hour reading of Genesis is not a new phenomena, but it will continue because it is natural for people to either lazily read, or to avoid questions which may fundamentally challenge their faith (they would say: better a saved ignoramus than to face the dangers inherent in asking questions). The latter can be recognized as an attitude which is actually strongly criticized by the New Testament writer Paul.

Re: Alternate explanations (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518573)

Because Aliens.

I hope they include .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518581)

They best include the great spaghetti monster, that too is an "alternate explanation for evolution"

Re:I hope they include .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518771)

I am waiting for the glorious day when the Invisible Pink Unicorn kills all Pastafarian heretics.

Re: I hope they include .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45519039)

Ahh yes the we hate Christianity so let's insult a different religion crowd.

The irony is that. . . (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | about 10 months ago | (#45518603)

These critical viewpoints that have been injected into school curriculum for decades now probably have the side-effect of strengthening the rigor to which the study of evolution has in the end benefited.

Re:The irony is that. . . (1)

rikkards (98006) | about 10 months ago | (#45518937)

Critical thinking should be considered mandated. Without questioning and confirmation we wouldn't be where we are. This is true in both science and medicine.
Just because something gets published it is critical that it gets peer-reviewed and validated.

Re:The irony is that. . . (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 10 months ago | (#45519041)

Critical thinking should be considered mandated.

Thou shall not question critical thinking!

(ducks)

Re:The irony is that. . . (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 10 months ago | (#45518993)

"These critical viewpoints that have been injected into school curriculum for decades now probably have the side-effect of strengthening the rigor to which the study of evolution has in the end benefited."

I doubt it.

When the concept of "critical thinking" is deliberately distorted to include mythology, rather than theory, I very much doubt that pretty much any science benefits.

But then, the New York Times demonstrated its own lack of critical thinking when it conflated the theories of evolution and climate change. (Obviously, they meant the phrase "climate change" as the common euphemism for AGW.)

Regardless of your position on whether current AGW theory has merit, the similarity ends there. The theory of evolution has very consistent, strong evidence, gathered over a period of around 130 years or so. It is about as strong a theory as anything we have. "Climate change", on the other hand, is a collection of weak evidence collected over a few decades, and it is still being hotly debated. Rather like evolution was, more than 120 years ago. In addition, there is a great deal of scientific counter-evidence, which was rather lacking during the evolution debates. (Granted that there was evidence that was felt to be scientific at the time, but which has since proved false.)

Evolution is long and strong. It probably deserves to be put in textbooks representing the strongest theory we have. AGW is a lot less so; putting it in textbooks as though it were fact is... well, "premature" is a bit of an understatement.

Science isn't critical thinking... (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 10 months ago | (#45518615)

Well it is, but should be better considered as methodological thinking.

If you want creationism in science, Then give us something we can test and verify to prove it. Otherwise we will stick to what the evidence shows us.

If it is wrong, then we are wrong, however there isn't evidence to show that yet.

Re:Science isn't critical thinking... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518791)

"A mysterious force lacking any scientific explanation for its underlying causality is responsible for the origination of all historical genetic modifications, from which all biological change has resulted."

Backing for claim: All of science

More common term for the "mysterious force": "Randomness"

Re:Science isn't critical thinking... (-1, Flamebait)

cseberino (3443929) | about 10 months ago | (#45518873)

You do realize that evolution can't be verified and proved? Macroevolution isn't reproducible testable science like newtonian physics or the germ theory of infection. A lot of these contrarians are just wanting that acknowledged rather than having Macroevolution presented as gospel truth.

Re:Science isn't critical thinking... (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45518913)

What are you on about?
Macroevolution? It is evolution, we can watch organisms change. We have seen them change. Do you deny the existence of drug resistant bacteria?

Re:Science isn't critical thinking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518967)

Yes it can and yes it has.

Re:Science isn't critical thinking... (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 10 months ago | (#45518975)

You do realize that evolution can't be verified and proved?

Last book about evolution (and strongly against retards like those that seem to be on the loose in Texas) remarked "they will always tell you there is no proof for evolution. But if they say that, they are either lying or clueless. Here's a few examples..."

Re:Science isn't critical thinking... (4, Insightful)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 10 months ago | (#45519033)

Are you serious? By that token large swathes of astrophysics, geology, biology and more are also "unverifiable". I'll disregard the "proved" point since science isn't about proving things.

Look, it's not because you can't run an experiment in a lab that you can't verify a theory. There is a colossal body of work around the study of genetics and the relationships between species (including extinct ones thanks to paleontology). If you think that all of this work isn't enough verification, then you probably don't think anything science has ever done is verified, either. The truth of the matter is that evolution is one of the most verified theories we've ever conceived and the only reason it's still disputed to this day is because it contradicts a book of parables written thousands of years ago.

Re:Science isn't critical thinking... (1)

kwiecmmm (1527631) | about 10 months ago | (#45519079)

You do realize that evolution can't be verified and proved? Macroevolution isn't reproducible testable science like newtonian physics or the germ theory of infection. A lot of these contrarians are just wanting that acknowledged rather than having Macroevolution presented as gospel truth.

If evolution can't be proved, how do you explain this: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38325/title/Ever-Evolving-E--coli/ [the-scientist.com] ? Basically at Michigan State they have been letting E.Coli bacteria reproduce in constant conditions over 58,000 generations. And amazingly, the bacteria reproduce more quickly now than they did in the original 1988 version.

Re:Science isn't critical thinking... (2)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 10 months ago | (#45519099)

Check it: A long-term study on evolution [wikipedia.org] which observed E-Coli develop the ability to eat Citrus.

Long story short: We've reproduced meaningful evolution changes. Suck it, "contrarians".

See also: Panda's thumb, whales with vestigial hip-bones, and equines splitting into horses and donkies. If the addition and lost of appendages isn't enough for you, then specification really should be. (That's where one species splits into two different ones that can no longer inter-breed) .

(p.s. you just made up "contrarian" didn't you? I like it.)

Double standards... (1)

jfbilodeau (931293) | about 10 months ago | (#45518623)

Sure, creationist do not want student to think critically except when it comes to 'debunking' evolution.

Maybe students should be given a list of proofs for evolution and a list of proofs for creationism and let them draw their own conclusion. But I guess that is unfeasible. How would you squeeze the equivalent of thousands of pages worth of proofs in a student science textbook? At least, the creationist side would add no more that 0 page of proofs to that manual. Maybe half a page if you include bananas and crocoducks.

Re:Double standards... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518685)

And evolutionists do not want students to think critically when it comes to evolution.

Cuts both ways, that knife does.

Re:Double standards... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518715)

The knife does not cut both ways. Saying "God did it" is unacceptable, and that is not critical thinking; it's idiotic thinking.

Re:Double standards... (0)

jfbilodeau (931293) | about 10 months ago | (#45518747)

Really? Citation please?

Re:Double standards... (-1)

zixxt (1547061) | about 10 months ago | (#45518835)

And evolutionists do not want students to think critically when it comes to evolution.

Cuts both ways, that knife does.

So true.

Re:Double standards... (5, Insightful)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 10 months ago | (#45518977)

Why did you reply "So True" to something deeply stupid said by an anonymous creationist nutjob?

"Evolutionist" makes about as much sense as "round-earthist." It's just derp from religious nuts who can't deal with reality. There is no scientific conspiracy to pretend that gods don't exist. It's just that zero gods have presented themselves, so we're pretty sure that they're imaginary just like the rest of the supernatural.

Re:Double standards... (2)

Creedo (548980) | about 10 months ago | (#45518851)

And evolutionists do not want students to think critically when it comes to evolution.

I wonder, how many of these evil "evolutionists" can you dig up who actually want less research and thought put into it by everyone involved?

Oh, and where I come from, they are called "biologists," not "evolutionists."

Cuts both ways, that knife does.

Apparently not...

Re:Double standards... (3, Insightful)

supercrisp (936036) | about 10 months ago | (#45519061)

I have no problem addressing theories of divine creation in a humanities class. It's an appropriate topic for religion, philosophy, history, etc.. But it's a problem in a science classroom. There's a limited amount of time, and students in science class should be investigating ideas that are falsifiable, amenable to the scientific method. If we want to do creationism, AWESOME! Let's bust out Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Roger Bacon and the whole fat lot and throw up against Lyell and his gang. It'd be an awesome scrap. But, again, today's public school curricula really give very little time to science, and I'd frankly rather students learn the mechanisms of science in science class. SCIENCE. Which is based, in terms of the history of ideas, in skepticism and materialism--granted, with fat doses of mostly counterproductive hoo-ha metaphysics, but SCIENCE!!! (The last two instances of all-caps should be performed in the voice of Thomas Dolby.)

Re: Double standards... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45519063)

Don't you mean biologists?

Re:Double standards... (4, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 10 months ago | (#45518691)

They also have double-standards when they say "teach creationism" because they want THEIR version of creationism taught and not an American Indian, Norse, Greek, Islamic, Wiccan, or any other creation myth.

Is a pair of double-standards called quadruple standards?

Re:Double standards... (5, Funny)

jfbilodeau (931293) | about 10 months ago | (#45518781)

"Is a pair of double-standards called quadruple standards?"

If you can't make Creationism a science, then make it a standard. AIG should go to ISO instead of the Texas school board.

ISO-6000BC, here we come!

Re:Double standards... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 10 months ago | (#45518919)

Personally, I think the world has not yet been created. We're all just echos of things that have not yet come to pass.

Re:Double standards... (1)

cseberino (3443929) | about 10 months ago | (#45518971)

Actually many folks just want it acknowledged that macroevolution is not the rock solid and proven law of nature some claim it to be. Not necessary to replace with another theory but even just mentioning there are alternatives that some believe would be an improvement.

Why not include alien seeding as well? (1)

kaka.mala.vachva (1164605) | about 10 months ago | (#45518627)

After all, we should keep an open mind to alternate explanations.

Re:Why not include alien seeding as well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518811)

Alien seeding fits a lot more facts than anything else, even evolution. And it doesn't move the question to another galaxy, where Aliens are simply the result of natural evolution.

Re:Why not include alien seeding as well? (1)

jfbilodeau (931293) | about 10 months ago | (#45518855)

"And it doesn't move the question to another galaxy, where Aliens are simply created by God."

--FTFY ;)

Yeah, evolutionary is just a theory... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518641)

Thanks to modern genetics, it's right up there with the theory of gravity. I want to see these bozos go roof-side and test that one out for us. After all, it's just a theory.

I'm Okay With This (5, Interesting)

KermodeBear (738243) | about 10 months ago | (#45518645)

I'm okay with any theory being in a science textbook as long as there is some kind of scientific backing.

Evolution has some scientific backing. It should be in a science textbook. It's science, after all.

If someone can find some real scientific support for creationism, that's great. You can put that into the science textbook, too.

Until then, whether you believe in creationism, intelligent design, evolution, some kind of mixture of that, or something else entirely, you have to accept that only science should be in a science textbook.

You don't have to agree with the science. It is just a way of understanding the world, after all, but a science book should have science in it, and not have non-science.

As an analogy, it probably doesn't make a lot of sense to drop the teachings of Hinduism into a new revised copy of the Koran. The Koran is an Islamic text; the Hindu teachings really don't have much of a place there. Doesn't matter which one you believe to be correct, if any. It's just information existing in its proper context.

So please, Texas education people, it doesn't matter what you believe. It's all about putting things where they belong. You can believe whatever you want, I really don't care (unless you want to kill me or something, then there's a problem), but don't put non-science into a science book. It just doesn't belong.

Re:I'm Okay With This (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 10 months ago | (#45518721)

Creationism is nonsense. But so is a lot of social science and history that you currently do find in text books.

Ultimately, if you insist on a standard curriculum for everybody, that curriculum is going to become a political football and it's going to be abused by politicians.

Re:I'm Okay With This (4, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 10 months ago | (#45518729)

And if you really want to teach a religious creation myth in a public school, put it in a World History, Comparative Religions, or Philosophy class - preferably alongside some other creation myths so you can compare and contrast.

Re:I'm Okay With This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518961)

That is exactly what my high school did. Integrated Social Studies or something like that, basically had a religion section for a month where we covered christianity, islam, judeaism, hinduism, and buddhism. Good class.

Re:I'm Okay With This (1)

cseberino (3443929) | about 10 months ago | (#45518929)

How do you define "science"? The scientific method demands that a theory be testable and reproducible in the laboratory. Macroevolution isn't testable and reproducible. It is arguably more like a theory of HISTORY.

Re:I'm Okay With This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45519025)

Wrong. A scientific theory is as high as proof of anything you can get in the field, it is the highest accolade available. You clearly have no idea what a scientific theory actually means. Low education by any chance?

As to your false assumption, perhaps you need to read up on genetics. Predictions can be made, experiments observed. Selective breeding has been going on for centuries. Indeed, you really are a 'tard.

Rename it.. (3, Funny)

craznar (710808) | about 10 months ago | (#45518657)

.. just like the Christians renamed 'creation' to Intelligent Design, maybe it is time to rename 'evolution' to something else.

Note - that just like the Christians renamed their's to 'sound' more scientific, we have to rename Evolution to sound more 'religious'.

Maybe "God and Nature's Excellent Adventure" or something.

Suggestions anyone ?

Re:Rename it.. (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 10 months ago | (#45518707)

God Codes All Life Using DNA?

Re:Rename it.. (1)

TempeNerd (410268) | about 10 months ago | (#45518773)

Trying to keep the science while sounding religious may be good.
The "Invisible hand of selective adaptation" ?

Of course, we don't want to create a new -ism by so doing.
Test and verify is a requirement to any system of "trust".

Re:Rename it.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518829)

Nature's first miracle

Re:Rename it.. (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 10 months ago | (#45518843)

How about the "God is really an Alien and created us all with DNA manipulations" theory?

Re:Rename it.. (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 10 months ago | (#45518847)

Maybe we can get some Spinozans on the board to put an end to the idea that God and Nature are distinguishable.

Re:Rename it.. (4, Interesting)

femtobyte (710429) | about 10 months ago | (#45518869)

"Intelligent Metaprogramming"?

side note --- I do object to the overly-broad generalization that "Christians" renamed came up with the "Intelligent Design" name. Pathological lying scum who are a small subset of Christianity came up with the "Intelligent Design" obfuscation. As a Christian, and one with no qualms about calling out intellectually dishonest politically motivated liars for what they are, I don't like getting reflexively lumped in with those frauds.

Re:Rename it.. (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 10 months ago | (#45518951)

For every creature you can argue in favor of intelligent design because of some cool, complex and very useful trait, there are a dozen species that make you go "What in the bloody hell? How is that thing still alive?"

The State Board in question is known to contain at least six of the latter creatures.

6 of 28 (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 10 months ago | (#45518669)

So the point of the story is that creationists are a small minority on the Texas Board of Education?

Re:6 of 28 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518731)

The point of the story is lots of clickbait for DiceHoldingsDot.org

Re:6 of 28 (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about 10 months ago | (#45518769)

The 6 are only those their position firmly on the anti-science side. Presumably, creationism gets pushed through the process by a larger majority who silently sympathize, publicly advocating for a "neutral" stance that gives the view of these six equal footing with scientific knowledge. Recall, also, that a lot of "intelligent design" proponents are proven pathological liars, who will go to great lengths to intentionally obfuscate their views and aims, in order to avoid direct "separation of church and state" challenges.

Re:6 of 28 (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | about 10 months ago | (#45518777)

Creatonists hold 21% of the vote yes, which is technically a minority, but you are assuming that the other 79% of the board is at the complete other end of the of the ideological spectrum from them.

The End of Texas' Reign (1)

cbybear (256161) | about 10 months ago | (#45518693)

I think this will create backlash and before you know it, Texas is no longer the gold standard for text books. Sigh, Texas is becoming more and more of a joke every day.

Re:The End of Texas' Reign (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | about 10 months ago | (#45518749)

Do you have another state on your list that is willing to be trend setting bulk purchaser of the quantity of books the likes of which a population such as Texas requests?

Re:The End of Texas' Reign (1)

jeff4747 (256583) | about 10 months ago | (#45518909)

There's this one out West somewhere....Cali-something-or-other.

I believe in both. God, and evolution. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518703)

I believe in both. God, and evolution. Science and religion do not have to be at odds.

Re:I believe in both. God, and evolution. (3, Interesting)

KermodeBear (738243) | about 10 months ago | (#45518733)

For those with the inclination to read it, The Universe in a Single Atom [amazon.com] is a great book about where science and faith meet, how they can learn from each other, and how they're really not at odds. One of the more interesting books I've read in a long time.

Re:I believe in both. God, and evolution. (1)

Creedo (548980) | about 10 months ago | (#45518939)

I doubt that Texas creationists are going to find the interpretation of science from a Buddhist viewpoint very compelling.

Idiots ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518753)

Anybody who insists creationism and 'alternatives' to evolution is a real thing is patently unqualified to be a part of the process of selecting text books for students.

Your being a drooling idiot doesn't mean you should be inflicting that on everyone else.

There is precisely ZERO science behind creationism and intelligent design.

Congratulations America, you have become controlled by idiots who don't have a basic grasp of science.

Texas Won't Allow Creationism in Their Texts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518763)

This is a non-issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/texas-textbooks-creationism_n_4124692.html

I really don't understand this (0)

DrXym (126579) | about 10 months ago | (#45518765)

Why are states allowing themselves to be blackmailed like this? Why can't they just release "open source" text books and hand them out for free in EPUB format? Buy the kids an e-reader or a cheap tablet instead and load it up with the books. I bet it would work out far cheaper than physical books and would mean that neither publishers or one particular state (with a high % of idiots) could interfere with their curriculums.

Re:I really don't understand this (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45518865)

Why the scare quotes? If they're not going to be open source, then what do you suggest?

Re:I really don't understand this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518907)

Used to be some states had their own publishing houses and produced their own books. Then it got privatized.

Re:I really don't understand this (1)

Creedo (548980) | about 10 months ago | (#45518915)

There are some options in that area. Here is one: http://www.ck12.org/about/freetextbooks/ [ck12.org]

However, you also have to overcome the occasional stupid rule. For example, my son was issued two books that his teacher told him they would not even crack open this year. Both were replaced with other sources(digital books and such), but state law dictates that they receive a physical book for these classes. So, the district is forced to buy and distribute(and maintain) books that they never actually intend to use.

NYT red state hate-fest stories (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45518823)

Release the Kraken!

Seriously. Am I expected to believe that Texas somehow dictates what books are available to, for instance, California educators?

LOL

One wonders if the NYT has a calendar where they schedule these sort of recurring op-ed-masquerading-as-news "stories."

--
Soaking up libtard mod points since 1997

Look, there is peace in Slashdotland! (1)

Biosci777 (2785273) | about 10 months ago | (#45518867)

Aaaaaaaaaand it's gone.

Theory vs. Hypothesis (2)

joelleo (900926) | about 10 months ago | (#45518877)

Many of the critics of the theory of evolution fall into the trap of misunderstanding the definitions of 'theory' and 'hypothesis'

Scientific Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory: [reference.com] )
"scientific theory
noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; 'scientific theories must be falsifiable'"

Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t: [reference.com] )
"theory [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural theories.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine."

Hypothesis (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis: [reference.com] )
"hypothesis [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA
noun, plural hypotheses [hahy-poth-uh-seez, hi-] Show IPA .
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts."

Here's where things become more interesting:
Scientific Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory: [reference.com] )
"scientific theory
noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; 'scientific theories must be falsifiable'"

So, a scientific theory must not only explain the phenomenon, but also be well supported by empirical evidence and experimentation and be falsifiable yet proven. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is only a proposed explanation for given observations.

Here's a nice comparison between the concepts: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory [diffen.com]

Well, here is proof... (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about 10 months ago | (#45518887)

... that God does not exist. We all know God is almighty, and that he created the Universe. What is the summit of being almighty ? That is: being able to do anything in spite of the largest possible handicap. What is the largest possible handicap ? To not exist. God, now, is sheer actuality: no possibility in him remains unactualized. ( If it were not so, he would not be perfect, and we all know he is perfect. If he were not so, he would not be God, and our argument would be somewhat moot. ) Hence, the possibility of him not to exist does not remain a mere possibility: he actualizes it. Hence and therefore, he does not exist.

( Free after Thomas of Aquinas )

Explanations? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 10 months ago | (#45518999)

I think that; right there; is a big part of the problem: They don't have any intertest in teaching science, just teaching explanations.

I think back to my own science classes, and we didn't just sit there listening to lectures about how things worked. It was about why we think we they work the way they seem to. It was about the "plumb pudding" model of the atom, and why the bohr model was better, and why the bohr model turned out to not really cut it...etc.

Creationism has a place as an "alternate" to evolution when it becomes a full fledged theory and makes useful predicitons that can be tested; not when the explanation makes sense to somebody.

Explanations are not science, not until they do just that....make predictions which can be tested. "God did it" means nothing until you can tell me what "God did it" predicts that is different from other theories in a way that could be tested with the right conditions.

Until then, all you have is bullshit.

Texas, a Gangrenous Pustule on the Body Politic (1)

mendax (114116) | about 10 months ago | (#45519027)

I am wearing my asbestos underwear so I'm prepared for the flames. I will now unload the vitriol.

There are times that I wish that the Republic of Texas, the entity that was created in 1836 after a war of revolution against Mexico, had remained an independent nation. Texas politicians are a national disgrace and I wish they would have just remained independent. They are the American Quebec, a province that many in Canada despise but cannot be gotten rid of without harming and hamstringing the rest of the country.

That Texas is governed by morons is evident in this article. A quick look at its current governor and its previous one, who also just happened to steal an election to become the President of the United States should remove any doubts as to the veracity of that statement.

I am an Athiest: kids should talk god in school (2)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 10 months ago | (#45519045)

I don't believe in any type of god, and therefore nothing that would follow from that. However, as a measure of exercising critical thinking, I believe high school students should debate all sorts of theism vs. anti-theism purely for the philosophical and intellectual merits of dissecting existence through logic. This is provided that such curriculum not be biased in either direction, by the material or by the direction of the teacher. At the end of the day, the kids can believe what they choose.

Creationism on the other hand amounts to teaching young people that fairy tales are true. There is a point where parents stop lying to their children about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. The educational system has no place re-introducing blind belief in nonsense. The study of evolution does not hide that it is woefully incomplete on some important details, but it does teach how the objectivity of the scientific method led us to what we do now understand and shows us how one day we will unravel the whole lot of it. When you introduce creationism as a valid alternative to science, you must also introduce a creator god and that's where the buck stops - rendering critical thinking unimportant.

I welcome any debate this comment produces. I can already guess what some of them will be : p
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>