Subscription Center
Mar 27, 2009 06:42 PM | 45
The Texas Board of Education voted today by a 13-to-2 margin to change controversial language in the state's curriculum, making it harder for creationism to creep into public classrooms. For the past 20 years, the state's curriculum has instructed teachers to present the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories, opening the door to nonscientific, faith-based alternatives.
Today's vote strikes the old language and replaces it with instruction to "analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing," according to Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a pro-evolution non–profit based on Oakland, Calif. Other curriculum amendments proposed by social conservatives failed today, according to the Dallas Morning News, including two that called for biology classes to dissect the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of evidence for aspects of evolutionary theory.
Texas' curriculum can have a major impact on what's taught nationwide because it's such a big buyer of textbooks. "It's kind of like the Wal-Mart effect," says NCSE spokesperson Steven Newton. "If they won't carry your product, you modify your product so they will buy it." The Texas changes are set to take effect next year and remain in place until 2020.
Image courtesy of iStockphoto/DigitalOtter
Tags:
creationism,
evolution
More News Blog:
Next: Can water fountains fight fat?
Previous: Russian-born mathematician wins math's version of the Nobel
See what we're tweeting about
erbrod Some movement on making Penn Station a, well, station? Maybe. http://t.co/IX06Lnwjei
BoraZ RT @roseveleth: A brief history of robot birds - http://t.co/UVnJMZDsgF
ChristiansenJen Many thanks to the organizers & attendees at #URMA2013. Enjoyed convos abt communicating research science. Wish I could've stayed longer!
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
45 Comments
Add CommentThis article is completely incorrect in its implication. Texas has merely replaced some controversial language with completely different, arguably worse, controversial language. The door is still wide open for pseudoscientific crap to masquerade as "alternative theories" to accepted science, and the door is still wide open to write in straw man arguments that cast doubt on evolution for completely baseless reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank God that Texas did the right thing with teaching evolution in the classroom!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine if scientists could force the teaching of evolution in the churches of the social conservatives in the name of alternative theories. Oh the wonders of separation of church and state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Imagine if scientists could force the teaching of evolution in the churches of the social conservatives in the name of alternative theories. Oh the wonders of separation of church and state."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mean if they saved children from being brainwashed? That sounds great!
Imagine all professing Christians admiting that evolution is not denied biblically, and actually not presuming to know the mind of God!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther proof that evolution is alive and well!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a friendly warning on the wall of our local public swimming pool: "We don't come and swim in your toilet, so please don't relieve yourself in our pool." Evolutionary theory does not get taught in church. Creationism should not get through the door of the science class.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdear ballsnbat-- actually evolution is denied in the Bible by the account of the 6 day creation---- the whole point of the Bible is so we can know the mind of God~~~~ oh and not all proffesing Christians ARE Christians
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's let God decide which of us deserves to be "Christian". The fact that you and I disagree about something doesn't count.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen Einstein protested to Neils Bohr about the randomness in quantum theory, saying "God doesn't play dice", Bohr replied, "Albert, stop telling God what to do." I put creationism in the same perspective.
A victory for reason over pseudoscience. I applaud the decision, and hope this is the end of the line for Creationism in Texas science classes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishey y'all,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe must first recognize that evolution is a scientific 'model' - not a scientific theory.
we should, also, admit that evolutionism is 'faith' based ; as is all of science - the belief that the laws of physics (chemistry included) will faithfully continue as they have.
we should note that the new wording by the texas board demands that all scientific explanations be CRITICIZED - actually 'think' about both sides of each argument.
How Orwellian! We are not allowed to encourage science teachers to teach the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories? This is not just intellectual censorship, this is a kind of thought control so repressive that even the Soviet Union would balk at it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople - atheists - think what you are doing here! You are forcing science teachers to unthinkingly regurgitate the latest scientistic dogmas, handed down infallibly by the high priest of the ivory temples, and force-fed into the minds of children who are hereby and officially forbidden to think critically about it. Whatever happened to an open climate of free thought in science education - in academia?
This is as chilling a piece of Inquisitionist regulation as has ever been promulgated within these shores. Why aren't the so-called "free thinkers" screaming about this? Where are the civil libertarians?
By the way, I teach evolution in the church all the time - and encourage the students to think critically about it. My experience in doing this explains this travesty against education: When you teach students to think critically about evolution - they walk away from it!
Well, at least the mask is finally off: American scientism can now no longer pretend to have any vestige of intellectual freedom. The Though Police have arrived!
Sick.
9This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2 Thessalonians 1
5All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.
"By the way, I teach evolution in the church all the time - and encourage the students to think critically about it. My experience in doing this explains this travesty against education: When you teach students to think critically about evolution - they walk away from it!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this another way of saying that it's easy to mislead naive people by carefully presenting misleading and false arguments? I'd bet your "critical thinking" about creationism is strangely selective.
9This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2 Thessalonians 1
5All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.
OneEye: "By the way, I teach evolution in the church all the time - and encourage the students to think critically about it. My experience in doing this explains this travesty against education: When you teach students to think critically about evolution - they walk away from it!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBen_Lawson: "Is this another way of saying that it's easy to mislead naive people by carefully presenting misleading and false arguments? I'd bet your 'critical thinking' about creationism is strangely selective."
I reply: What I teach them is, first of all, the orthodox dogma of evolutionism - evolution "as such". Then I teach them a question which is prohibited in the classrooms: Did evolution happen? (As opposed to the set-up question offered in modern classrooms, "HOW did evolution happen?") I teach them not to assume that evolution happened and thereafter to fit the evidence into the philosophy, but rather to ask whether the evidence leads us inescapably to the conclusion that evolution happened. (Guess what the answer is!)
Second, I teach the forbidden knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory - the very questions which are censored from our classrooms. (Contrary to Eugenie Scott's pontifications, evolution is crushingly overburdened with weaknesses.) A little critical thinking goes a long way. But critical thinking is not allowed within the sacred precincts of the science room - when discussing evolution, that is!
Atheists and evolutionists are making a serious mistake when they take their "all-or-nothing" approach to what can be taught in the classroom. They will end up with nothing - and serves them right!
<a title="دردشة" href="http://www.flh7.com">
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisدردشة</a> <br> <a title="شات" href="http://www.flh7.com">شات</a><br><a title="فله" href="http://www.flh7.com">فله</a><br>
OneEye: "A little critical thinking goes a long way."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOneEye (why do I seem to find your account name so curiously apt?), in encouraging your students (why students? Is your congregation a recognised college?) to think critically about evolutionary theory, do you also apply the same commendable even-handedness to your faith?
Do you also encourage your students to examine what serious grounds there are, whether scholastic, academic, historic, or even geological, for such events as those in Genesis? Or, indeed, that several portions of Genesis (notably the story of Noah) were actually derived from Sumerian and other pre-Christian Middle-Eastern sources? Or that much of the Septuagint makes little sense without the ex-canonical Book of Enoch? Or that Christianity as it is now practiced was largely a product of Paul, rather than Jesus (you will know, I am sure, that the whole concept of Jesus' sacrifice, and that he died for the sins of all humanity, was a concept found nowhere in Jesus' ministry, but was dreamed up by Paul to counter Jewish traditions). Or that the many translations and retranslations which Scripture has undergone have been the cause of considerable textual errors?
Well, I could go on, but I think that the point is made. Before you crow too loudly about Orwellian overtones and make use of other somewhat over-colorful verbal flourishes, consider to what extent you present your own beliefs to your students as objectively 'factual'. Or is it more that you exercise critical judgement in all areas apart from these beliefs?
And don't try to polarise the debate into Christians versus atheists, as you seek to. This debate is, and always was, about unaccedited beliefs leapfrogging their way into the curriculum to be taught alongside accedited science.
accredited science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps we are on the verge of new period of enlightenment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf critical thinking would be applied to religion it would die out on a generation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTEACH CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS!!!
One eye,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is encouraging to read thoughtful commentary on this issue.
A significant amount of research suggests that the "feeling of certainty" is much more powerful than rational argument. People of otherwise normal intelligence can be absolutely positive about irrational things (such as "my wife has been replaced by an exact duplicate"- there are many examples). There is an adaptive benefit to a strong feeling of certainty, but it should not be confused with actual truth because "it feels true".
My question to you is: why is it important that the Bible be literally true? Are you aware of the crisis in the Catholic Church that forced them to abandon the literal truth of the Bible?
One Eye: clearly you don't understand science and the evidence for evolution. If you did, you could teach it accurately, and you would get a different reaction from your "students". When you don't understand something properly, then attempt to teach it, it isn't suprising that you get an odd result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou talk as if people who believe evolution are just some kind of crazed science fans believing it blindly for its own sake. Even if you ignore all the evidence, why would people take such a position? Just for fun? To be contrary? No, people believe in the conclusions of science because the conclusions are clearly and rationally self evident to those willing to put the time and thought into examining the evidence and logic carefully, without bias.
Religion only survives when people are indoctrinated in it. Scientific conclusions survive on their own. You can take someone from any part of the world, raised in any faith (or lack thereof) and walk them through the scientific process and evidence that led to a specific scientific conclusion, and if they can be rational and put aside any previous bias, the conclusion they reach will be the same as a scientist from any other background. The science is independently true.
You can't do the same for religious beliefs. If you take people from two different faiths and take some very specific part of their belief (not something big and vague like "does god exist") the best you can do is show them what you believe and why, but it won't have any persuasive power to change their belief to yours, since both are equally rooted in the imagination.... ie, they are both equally false. Neither has a rational truth beyond the other to make belief in it a better choice than belief in something else. However, scientific ideas have a real root in evidence and logic that makes them transcend the playing field of the simply imaginary. Sure some faiths my focus their myths around real ideas that may be better or worse than the ideas focused on by other religions, for example focusing on love and forgiveness over fear and brutality. But be careful, since those are just real concepts that have been highjacked by religions and woven into their myths.
For example, love and forgiveness are independent concepts from religion, even if one religion favors them more than another as a result of its particular mythology. So you can't say "Christianity is correct or better because it focuses on love", since it is equally possible to focus on love without any Christianity involved at all!
All of the discussion of the religion of evolution and faith based science and scientific dogma aside, all of it being soporifically worn out, we must recognize that the decision was, after all, made by politicians. They are driven by the need to be all things to all people to appease every side. I would be truly shocked to hear them say what needs to be said. Namely, that creationism, in all of its various iterations, has absolutely no place in education - least of all in the science classroom. This is obviously not going to happen while politicians are forced to genuflect at altar of political expediency. Sadly, the majority of the American voting public still expects to see a cross wringing the necks of its elected officials. The language of the guidance, watered down though it is, is probably as to the point as we can expect from them right now. We still have a long way to go before the teaching of religious ideas is prohibited in science curriculum, as it should be. This argument has never been about the teaching of alternative points of view; it has always been about religion being forced into the public education system. If evolution were not the most obvious target, something else surely would be. Any language in the guidelines that allows some form of non-scientific alternative to evolution is utterly scientifically irrelevant and a complete waste of time. Scientific dissent is, of course, welcomed and encouraged! The testable scientific model that legitimately challenges evolutionary theory would be nothing short of earth shattering! But, after a century and a half of full on, broadside attack the evolution has not even developed a leak. The barnacles on the hull have hardly been disturbed (pun intended). While there is always room for discussion within the well-founded framework of evolutionary theory, the basic structure is solid. The intellectually honest person knows that creationism is not even a part of the discourse. Any comment here that states otherwise is pointless yammering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry for the long post, I kinda wandered off topic there at the end... :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder how many of you have ever been to church or asked a preacher if he or she believes in evolution. Your ignorance of the beliefs of Christians is equally absurd as the rejection of evolutionary theory that some Christians proclaim. And to whom are you writing here? Do you think the "ignorant Yexans" you so despise will be here to banter back? You have made the cognitive error of magnification - that some portion that you are focusing on represents the whole. More importantly, you are reinforcing an "us vs them" mentality which serves to break communication instead of enhance it. Shame on your hypocrisy. Religion and science can coexist without conflicts. It is the turning of science into a religion and the rejection of science by religion that are dangerous. Read your own comments - the language you choose, the way you defend your own viewpoint, the way you search for validation instead of enlightenment is reminiscent of many a Cool-Aid drinking club. I'm ashamed to condescend into this discussion, as it is so trite and predictable, yet I beg you to stop and actually think -- that thing you prodigiously claim that only your kind can do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's time to replace delusional fantasy with reality and truth and it's long past the time to tax the arrogant, greedy money grabbing frauds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEspecially the lying con artists selling miracle water, prophecies and other come-ons with promises to cure cancer, MS and every other illness they think stupid scared people will send them money for.
It's time to realize that gods are the product of the most powerful force in human history; the human imagination.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout the imagination, we would not have the wheel, the football, the space shuttle or gods.
The imaginary gods are the primary cause of violent death for the last 5,000 years and those that sell them are frauds and liars.
The worst gang of criminals in the USA (except for congress) are the televangelists, who take advantage of stupid, scared, sick people to rob them and they don't have to account for their stolen money or even pay taxes.
The two most arrogant, lying words in the english language are "god says".
asra850, televangelists are Darwin's minions at work, they prune out faith based defective gene pools in favor of better ones, That is the way I stopped going angry at those hominids (to call them apes or something else would be insulting to that something else).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the key here is to ask for empirical evidence instead of talking about strengths and weaknesses, because you can't go anymore saying "if you are evolutionist you will go to hell!", now first you need to have some evolutionist (preferably big D in person), that has been evolutionist instead of religious, died and gone to hell, somehow been brought back and agree to cooperate, or at least to say "yes, I was in hell". If you want to "debunk" evolution, you need to find the fossil of Fred Flintstone with Dino on top, and then date it to less than 5000 years old, which is rather hard to I might say.
On the other hand, it leaves you free to say "the quantum mechanics model of physics is favored because of this <list of experiments like the wave particle duality of electrons>, but it's detractors state that <list of experiments a la Schr�dinger's cat>", which is the basis for science and academic freedom, instead of just chanting formulas like it was a prayer (ugh!)
- We all came on the back of the Great Turtle (northwest coast Native Americans)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- We just arrived after the Dreamtime (Australian Aboriginals)
- We fell off a comet (some American cults)
- We came from a lump of clay (guess who)
- We lost some limbs after Vishnu (Hindu)
- We descended from a common microbial ancestor
- The prophet predicted us?
No wonder some are confused! If any form of creationism is to be taught in schools, at least pick the one with some science behind it, or there will be no time left for readin' and writin'!
As much as I applaud the better language in the Texas Science Curriculum guidance, what is really needed in all of our High Schools is a class in logic and philosophy which would give students some training in how to evaluate evidence and differentiate between BS and fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs much as I applaud the better language in the Texas Science Curriculum guidance, it would be even better if the High School curriculum would include a course in logic and philosophy that would teach students how to rationally evaluate evidence and differentiate fact and BS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is almost laughable to listen to a few of the ministers/priests that I have talked to when you ask them about the evolution of their bible and the history of the Christian religion. My limited experience demonstrates to me that most of them have a lot of words about what they believe but cannot explain who wrote the bible nor do they know very much about the written history of their religion. Anyone familiar with the history of mythology will find that most concepts in the bible were previously included in those myths and in many cases long before there was such a thing as a christian. I impression that the prevailing attitude is "my mind is made up so don't confuse me with the facts".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuite correct. And many of the Christian celebrations have no direct link with Christ, and in fact many are remakes of older pagan rituals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, the very first comment by nuhuh is correct: the article is incorrect. The State Board members inserted new controversial, unscientific, and poorly written standards that MAY allow pseudoscience to get into science textbooks unless the publishers and authors possess scientific integrity and courage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSteven Schafersman, President
Texas Citizens for Science
I went to an RC christening for my grandson last year. It really bothered me to watch the mumbo-jumbo indoctrination of children not old enough to understand what was going on. I would have got up and left but for not wanting to offend people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI won't go to another.
Wayne in Ottawa
The decision does not sound as like an end for Creationism in
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTexas science classes. It sounds more like the neanterthals won.
At last the Baptists are no longer to dictate what my children are to be taught.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo Baptist is going to tell my children to believe in fair tales!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI completely disagree with the implication of this article that evolution was handed a victory. The Texas BOE managed to add loopholes to the Science and Biology standards to make it easy for creationist hacks to fill science textbooks with half truths and unmerited doubt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile the creationist preferred attack phrase strengths and weaknesses was rejected, other artificial doubt inspiring language was introduced where no legitimate doubt currently exists. Language such as is thought to or proposed transitional fossils has been added to intentionally misrepresent established evolutionary concepts to make them seem uncertain.
The new biology standard now includes the debunked creationist ideas that sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record somehow disprove evolution. The new standard also overtly implies doubt by directing students to analyze and evaluate the sufficiency of scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil records.
As dentist Don exclaimed Somebodys got to stand up to experts!
Yeah, because we wouldnt want people who actually know what theyre talking about teaching our kids would we now?
It boggles the mind, that in the 21st century, in an otherwise advanced country, we are even having these debates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr, that a large portion of the population, really believes that a hairy man with a booming voice, toiled for 6 days, and made Light, and Heaven and Earth, and so on.
Seriously, these people should be on medication, and should not be allowed to drive..., or to vote, for that matter.
Another reason to feed your head wisely!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
The language of the statement is not objectionable to a scientist. The real test will be whether public school teachers in the United States will have the skill and courage required to present the obvious with respect to reproduction, genetic recombination, mutation rates, cell division and differentiation. Students who understand these processes are unlikely to be confused or moved by the arguments from authority presented by religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine all creation being in just one book - regardless of how highly anyone wants to place the Book, it cannot encompass the (nearly) infinite glories of all the universe, nor can it reveal the entireties of an infinite mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe don't need to be so small as to presume the show is over just because we have seen the last page in that Book.
This is dated March 2009. I would guess it's been superseded by the crazies latest take-overs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it being resuscitated now?