The Texas-ization of American Public Education
Every 10 years, the Texas State Board of Education rewrites the textbook standards for all of the public school districts in Texas — and, as a practical matter, for the entire nation, because Texas is the textbook publishing industry’s biggest market. This year, the Board is effectively controlled by a group of fringe-right Christianists who are in the process of conforming the nation’s textbooks to fit their ideology (h/t Doug at Balloon Juice).
Mariah Blake has a fascinating albeit depressing and even alarming article in The Washington Monthly about the social reactionaries who have gained so much influence over public education in Texas:
Don McLeroy is a balding, paunchy man with a thick broom-handle mustache who lives in a rambling two-story brick home in a suburb near Bryan, Texas. When he greeted me at the door one evening last October, he was clutching a thin paperback with the skeleton of a seahorse on its cover, a primer on natural selection penned by famed evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr. … With childlike glee, McLeroy flipped through the pages and explained what he saw as the gaping holes in Darwin’s theory. “I don’t care what the educational political lobby and their allies on the left say,” he declared at one point. “Evolution is hooey.” This bled into a rant about American history. “The secular humanists may argue that we are a secular nation,” McLeroy said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis. “But we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”
Views like these are relatively common in East Texas, a region that prides itself on being the buckle of the Bible Belt. But McLeroy is no ordinary citizen. The jovial creationist sits on the Texas State Board of Education, where he is one of the leaders of an activist bloc that holds enormous sway over the body’s decisions. As the state goes through the once-in-a-decade process of rewriting the standards for its textbooks, the faction is using its clout to infuse them with ultraconservative ideals. Among other things, they aim to rehabilitate Joseph McCarthy, bring global-warming denial into science class, and downplay the contributions of the civil rights movement.
Texas’s shrinking stock of educators and advocates who support reality-based teaching rather than right-wing agitprop are struggling to keep up morale, but it isn’t easy:
While the writing teams have so far made only modest concessions to the ideologue experts, the board has final say over the documents’ contents, and the ultraconservative bloc has made it clear that it wants its experts’ views to get prominent play—a situation the real experts find deeply unsettling. While in Texas, I paid a visit to James Kracht, a soft-spoken professor with a halo of fine white hair, who is a dean at Texas A&M University’s school of education. Kracht oversaw the writing of Texas’s social studies standards in the 1990s and is among the experts tapped by the board’s moderates this time around. I asked him how he thought the process was going. “I have to be careful what I say,” he replied, looking vaguely sheepish. “But when the door is closed and I’m by myself, I yell and scream and pound on the wall.”
Here are a few more examples of what they’re up against:
Barton and Peter Marshall initially tried to purge the standards of key figures of the civil rights era, such as César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall, though they were forced to back down amid a deafening public uproar. They have since resorted to a more subtle tack; while they concede that people like Martin Luther King Jr. deserve a place in history, they argue that they shouldn’t be given credit for advancing the rights of minorities. As Barton put it, “Only majorities can expand political rights in America’s constitutional society.” Ergo, any rights people of color have were handed to them by whites—in his view, mostly white Republican men.
… In late 2007, the English language arts writing teams, made up mostly of teachers and curriculum planners, turned in the drafts they had been laboring over for more than two years. The ultraconservatives argued that they were too light on basics like grammar and too heavy on reading comprehension and critical thinking. “This critical-thinking stuff is gobbledygook,” grumbled David Bradley, an insurance salesman with no college degree, who often acts as the faction’s enforcer. …
A similar scenario played out during the battle over science standards, which reached a crescendo in early 2009. Despite the overwhelming consensus among scientists that climate change exists, the group rammed through a last-minute amendment requiring students to “analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming.” This, in essence, mandates the teaching of climate-change denial. What’s more, they scrubbed the standards of any reference to the fact that the universe is roughly fourteen billion years old, because this timeline conflicts with biblical accounts of creation.
As much as I’ve quoted, there is a lot more that I haven’t, and it deserves to be read in full. Read the whole thing, here.
94 Responses to “The Texas-ization of American Public Education”
Somebody needs to get this bible thumping drivel out of the schools.
I'm speechless…
All I can think of is “Dueling Banjos”. Hopefully our education debate doesn't start with, “He got a real pretty mouth, ain't he?”, and ends with a dead body floating down a river.
If you wonder why the nation is going down the tubes, it starts at school and at home.
And one more reason why the CSA should have been permitted to secede…
Didn't we already try rewriting history, denying the findings of science and eliminating critical thinking in favor of religious dictates? And, don't we now refer to those days as “The Dark Ages”?
Ideology of all kinds weaken our capacity to make the best decisions and disrupts our decisions. Religion to me is just a particularly harmful kind of ideology that cheats and seduces in order to achieve dominance.
It does go on and on. I live in Texas, am “represented” by Cynthia Dunbar;
her profile:
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=3715
She's right up there with McLeroy in terms of rabid. Home schooled her kids to keep them away from the evils of the public school system, and has written a book with raving reviews here:
http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Under-Cynthia-Nola…
This is an un-win-able war. Resistance is considered “from the devil.” When you've got that mindset, we here in Texas need the help of boards from other states to pressure the textbook publishers to get something other than “Approved by Texas” stamps on their textbooks. The influence of these guys stretches way beyond our borders here in the Jesus-land south.
Why is it that you don't apply that same critique to humanism, that is taught in schools nation-wide?
If you want to teach evolution, teach it as the THEORY that it is – not absolute fact.
It is called the THEORY of evolution as put forth by Darwin.
Go for it.
Moderates seem to want all possible theories represented in classrooms. The theory of evolution, the theory of intelligent design, and any other theory that may be out there. Let the students decide.
You are EXACTLY like the right wing religious zealots you curse. However, instead of force-feeding religious doctrine onto students, you force-feed humanist/atheist doctrine upon them.
Schools should not be a haven of left wing OR right wing doctrine. It is the one place where moderate thought is required.
“Didn't we already try rewriting history, denying the findings of science and eliminating critical thinking in favor of religious dogma? And, don't we now refer to those days as “The Dark Ages”?”
Yes we did. And it was wrong to do so.
However, is evolution fact or theory? How about continental drift? Relativity?
My point is that it is just as wrong for humanists to teach THEORY as fact, as it is for right-wing religious to teach creationism as fact. It is just as wrong for the left to force acceptance of global warming science, as it is for them to ignore the science that refutes it. They can teach the theory, but don't present it as fact.
Does that not make sense?
I'm with you about keeping religious dogma out of school. Totally. But humanist dogma should, likewise, be kept out as well.
JD,
Thank you so much for weighing in on this subject. I was hoping you would. My prior comment, brief as it was, could not address the many nuances of this subject as I'm sure you know. Your response provides that opportunity.
A couple of opening underpinnings: First, if we allow religious belief to interfere with scientific discovery, we run the very real risk of falling behind other societies that do not place such restrictions on scientific discovery. Second, there is considerable scientific evidence for evolution among many species. There is not scientific evidence to support a 6000 year creationist theory, though there is certainly an acceptable common sense approach to intelligent design that is not based on Biblical parameters. Intelligent design, however, is belief centered, not science centered.
The concept of rewriting history, and the purpose for doing so, eludes me. I see no purpose in attempting to minimize the contributions of MLK or Chavez. That strikes me as being on a par with Holocaust denial. But, I see that as more racist based than religiously based.
Finally, to round out this preamble, the idea of discouraging reading comprehension and critical thinking is counter-productive. Both are necessities to a well rounded and properly educated public.
Now to a more nuanced position on public education. While we may disagree on this, it is my opinion that science based hypotheses should be taught in the context of science. That something is called a “theory” is often shorthand, more than reality. The “theory” of relatively is now widely accepted as fact, for example.
What I suggest, is that our schools offer courses, within the social studies cirriculum, on comparative religion. My rationale is that religion plays a large role in national and international relationships and decision making. Understanding how religious belief impacts those relationships and decisions is part of being able to think critically. TMV's commenters provide a good example. Without knowledge of comparative relgious beliefs, it is difficult to comment on this thread or on threads about Iraq (Sunni v. Shiite v. Kurd) or jihadist terrorism or any of a number of other subjects. It is knowledge necessary to function effetively in our society or in the world.
Such instruction in comparative religion does not, in my view violate Constitutional principles. The Constitution prevents the establishment of religon and discrimination based on religion. It does not prevent fair and open instruction on the subject as relates to the world in which we live. This would, obviously have to be fair, including most religious beliefs as well as agnosticism and atheism, and the line would have to be drawn at organized prayer for any religion. In that context, it could be taught, for example, that many religions do not accept evolution or “Big Bang” or whatever.
I will await your reply before proceeding further, lest I exceed the space limitations for commenting.
The theory of evolution is a fact on par with “the sun rises in the east”. If you doubt it go talk to any microbiologist, or better yet get yourself of the dose of the clap and try to use penicillin to kill it…
Or you can always ask the farmers who have been using round-up…
There is no such thing as intelligent design, just a bunch of people who are not willing to accept the fact that homo sapiens are nothing more than apes with big brains.
I agree with you more than you may know tidbits.
” the idea of discouraging reading comprehension and critical thinking is counter-productive.”
Amen.
“The theory of relativity is widely accepted as fact…”
Not necessarily. Stephen Hawkins' theories on quantum physics are in direct opposition to Einstein's.
Both are theories, and both should be taught. However……intelligent design is also a theory that should be addressed, as it is based on the physical law that life cannot spring from non-life. Presenting them ALL would encourage logical thought and critical thinking.
Science is not the end-all, be-all. All theories should be represented. Over the past 6 decades, the left has taken over the educational institutions in America. Being a moderate, that disgusts me just as much as a public presentation of religious doctrine does.
Let me give you an example. In a social studies class, the life of Mohammed is represented. The life of Confucious and Buddha are also represented. However, the life of Christ is miraculously absent. Why is that? All are historical figures that have profoundly effected the human race. Yet one is left out. Likewise in the media, it is fine to disgrace Christ (call him homosexual or a whore-mongerer), but don't dare call Mohammed a terrorist – that would get the Muslims mad. That is the part of all of this that bothers me so. The elements of humanism in America have started an all-out war on Christianity. If it's a war they want, I'm more than prepared to fight them.
So in short, we should not revise history. But GOOD history is told from several vantage points.
We should not embrace humanist dogma NOR religious dogma. But if you teach one, teach them all
“If you want to teach evolution, teach it as the THEORY that it is – not absolute fact.
It is called the THEORY of evolution as put forth by Darwin.”
Way ahead of you, preacher. My very humanist textbook said it was a theory. It also rightly said that all alternatives are pathetic sophistry that the children of rational, educated people shouldn't have to waste curriculum time on discussing (I'm reading between the lines here). Hurts, doesn't it, how easily I see through your insidious ploy to legitimize intellectual relativism and give your institutes and think-tanks as much credibility as the intellectual superiors who have vindicated evolution time and time again. No dice. The work done on ID is pathetic, as all theological sophistry white-washed as philosophy and epistemology. ID simply hasn't earned anymore time in your curricula than eugenics or dianetics has. In America, you earn your rewards rather than ask for charity and molly-coddling – isn't that how the story goes?
“You are EXACTLY like the right wing religious zealots you curse. However, instead of force-feeding religious doctrine onto students, you force-feed humanist/atheist doctrine upon them.”
You are EXACTLY like all the other glib doomsayers who say I'm an “extremist just like the people you criticize”. I have no time for jedi-style pseudo-sagacious relativism – I force-feed kids nothing but a curriculum on evolution that is proportioned as to the worth, usefulness and credibility of the different theories. And seeing as evolution is a theory and none of the alternatives have been vindicated by ahrd work, I heartily flip the bird to your accusations of “LIBERAL FASCISM” and Abrahamic identity politics disguised as “moderate and fair” schooling.
I give all the time and space in school curricula that the alternatives deserve – sweet F A. In schools, children should learn about evolution since it is the only scientifically grounded and intellectually rewarding theory, and the only one that will let their careers go towards improving man's place in the universe. I shouldn't have to pay to teach children useless bumf. Offering up ID as a credible alternative would insult their inquiring minds as deeply as telling them that evolution is perfect, unquestionable fact.
What I can give your ilk is that children should know that evolution is only a theory, and that there are other theories offered which have not earned a place in *science* class.
Then those darling children can go home and have their spirits and minds made lesser and weaker with filth and politicized idiocy. After all, a person ready to tell their children that homosexuality is immoral is probably ready to abuse their minds further. Hey, go ahead, but not on my dime.
It's so wonderful to live in a country where the Abrahamic LARPers know their place. Our problem with left-wing intrusion in schools are of a different kind, but that is another thread.
“the theory of evolution is on par with the sun rises in the east…..If you doubt it go talk to any microbiologist, or better yet get yourself of the dose of the clap and try to use penicillin to kill it.”
Wow. Once again….science and nothing but is just as bad as embracing nothing but any other discipline.
You know as well as I do that leftist theories are forced upon academia. Let's take global warming for instance. If you do not adhere to that theory and show scientific data that refutes it, you are blackballed. Instead of using the data to better understand climatic ebb and flow; they close their minds to it because it refutes a theory that they've devoted their lives to.
That is eerily the same as threatening Gallileo with death because of his “the earth is round and revolves around the sun 'theory' “.
That is my point of this entire debate. The humanist left is engaging in the very same tactics that they condemn from the right. BOTH are wrong. Science is a good thing, but both sides attempt to pervert it.
“Let's take global warming for instance. If you do not adhere to that theory and show scientific data that refutes it, you are blackballed.”
See now you too are taking a theory and perhaps a few anecdotes, then projecting it all onto a big screen to create a conspiracy. I'm no statistician, but I can say this is why you don't have your say about science curricula – you are not thinking scientifically.
“That is my point of this entire debate. The humanist left is engaging in the very same tactics that they condemn from the right. BOTH are wrong. Science is a good thing, but both sides attempt to pervert it.”
Now this is true, of course. You are just wrong about evolution.
Hard Science is Hard Science, either the facts support the theory or they don't, when the facts don't support the theory, either the theory gets modified to take account of the facts or it gets dropped.
As far as Global Warming is concerned, every major climatology research center on the planet is telling me that it's happening and every Oil financed think-tank is telling me that it's not happening, who do you think I should believe? The people who have billions on the line or the scientist who have theories and models that they are willing to modify if the facts change. (This whole Global Warming rigmarole reminds me of the Tobacco & Cancer rigmarole, the Tobacco industry spent thirty years denying a link between cigarettes and cancer despite the fact that they knew beyond any reasonable doubt that smoking caused cancer.)
JD,
You and I could have a six day debate on this subject and never come to complete agreement or complete disagreement. For now, I'll take issue with a couple of assertions, acknowledging all the while that we do agree on several key points.
You said, “The elements of humanism in America have started an all-out war on Christianity.” I profoundly disagree. First, I'm not sure what you mean by “humanism”, and hope you will define that in your reply. Most importantly, no single subset of the American poplulation has had greater impact on American society over the past 30 years than fundamentalist Christians. They have swamped all other subgroups in their influence. That the pendulum is moving slightly in the other direction now does not constitute an all out war. If anything, other groups may simply be fighting back after 3 decades of being repressed by the influence of the Christian right (which may admittedly be different than Christianity generally). It is possible that, after years of political and social dominance, Christian fundamentalist feel somewhat defensive as the pendulum begins to move the other direction.
You also said, ” In a social studies class, the life of Mohammed is represented. The life of Confucious and Buddha are also represented. However, the life of Christ is miraculously absent.” If true, that would be inappropriate and would violate my condition of fairness in teaching comparative religion. My problem is that I don't know whether your assertion is broadly factual or whether there are simply a few anecdotal instances where that has happened. If you have an unbiased reference that shows more than anecdotal incidents, it would be helpful.
As to intelligent design, and not meaning to beat a dead horse, it is a belief based theory, not a science based theory. Most scientific inquiry begins as a science based theory that is either proven or disproven by further discovery and experimentation. That it continues to be called a theory has more to do with the popular media and press than anything. Evolution has been tested repeatedly since first presented by Darwin, and that testing has produced results verifying and substantiating Darwins initial scientific observations.
Intelligent design is an attractive belief system. It makes sense, from a belief perspective, to look at the complexity of the world/universe and believe, even logically believe, that it could not have come about by pure happenstance. But, there is no science in it. There are no credible scientific studies or experiments to support it. It is a theory of belief, not a theory of science. But, as I said before, I have no objection to it being pointed out in comparative religion instruction, nor do I disparage the belief system. BTW, there is also the idea that intelligence created an evolutionary system, but I'll make no comment on its efficacy.
[...] The Texas-ization of American Public Education Posted by KATHY KATTENBURG in Education, Politics, Society. Jan 18th, 2010 | CommentsEvery 10 years, the Texas State Board of Education rewrites the textbook standards for all of the public school districts in Texas — and, as a practical matter, for the entire nation, because Texas is the textbook publishing industry’s biggest market. This year, the Board is effectively controlled by a group of fringe-right Christianists who are in the process of conforming the nation’s textbooks to fit their ideology (h/t Doug at Balloon Juice). [...]
Better late than never, Kathy. I brought this to readers' attention back when the original battle was making the news between the righties and the lefties who wanted extra representation of Hispanics and women in the revised history — the righties were saying that the proposed material was “biblical enough.” Just be sure you're putting things into the right context, not just whining about righties and bashing Texas again. (Don't forget “the South.”)
* * *
“You know as well as I do that leftist theories are forced upon academia. Let's take global warming for instance.”
In fact, this is politics substituting for science (notably with policy) and a political movement that has developed into a quasi-religion. Heretics like you will be persecuted by the ignorant fanatics. (Which you'll see happen again, including here…)
“In fact, this is politics substituting for science (notably with policy) and a political movement that has developed into a quasi-religion. Heretics like you will be persecuted by the ignorant fanatics. (Which you'll see happen again, including here…)”
If I dragged you to Colosseum in Rome and sic'd some lions on you to really fulfill your pathetic martyrdom fantasies, would you finally be happy?
What are you talking abut, “humanism”. These are labels you people make up. They have no meaning in the world, only your world. You just make crap up as you go to fit your happy horsecrap superstitions. Not worthy of secular education. IT DON'T MEET ANY STANDARD. I can guarantee you that there will not be any christian version of wahabi fundamentalism taking root in our public schools. You stay in sales mode all you like but you ARE NOT going to force your superstitious crap down people’s throats.
The theory of evolution is what it is. It is NOT taught as anything else.
This is kinda funny and programmed to backfire too. If there's one thing besides loathing of school that galvanizes kids, it's gaining access to the internet [even if, and sometimes ESPECIALLY if their parents aren't aware they are..lol..]. So on top of just hating having to go to school [my son and his friends nicknamed their highschool "prison"], they'll now have the christian zealot version of the books they hate to read to mock when they discover how much BS they are in comparison to what they learn about the world on the internet.
The real losers will be the schools and the kids dropping out in higher numbers as they further reject the piping-bag strategy of adults they're rebelling against trying to force the idea of creationism down their throats.
The thing is that even brainwashed kids aren't stupid at the rebellious age of adolescence. All it takes is one of their buddies, one snake in the garden of mis-leaden, showing them evidence of evolution that they cannot ignore. It will be like trying to get a whole village to agree the naked emporer has fine clothes. One little boy will speak up and the gig will be over, everyone from then on totally galvanized against the hoodwinkers..
Have at it Texas! Meanwhile I'll go take my kids to the Natural History Museum near us and show them the extinct millions of years old 6,000-year old dinosaur bones that are realy just weird rock formations. I forget. The “christian scientists” keep changing the story every five years as someone shoots them out of the sky.
Just to add a little “fun” to the mix. What people are calling Intelligent Design (ID) is really two separate movements. ID was started by an agnostic that got upset about how much science the Darwinists were trying to ignore. The creationist movement comes from the religious people working on proving the bible. Also, evolution still has a LOT of work to do on their creation story (abiogenesis), because there's a long, mostly unexplored path from simple chemicals to the ribosome, which is the core of what is essentially a programmable regulated chemical assembly manufacturing system required for DNA life.
I spent a few days looking into it at one time, but gave up worrying about it. The age of dirt (as in the saying “as old as dirt”) just isn't that important to me. The science behind morality is a different story.
Hey JD — Long time no talk; hope all is well with you.
Anyway, I wanted to clear up something that may be part of the problem here, and that is the definition of the word “theory”. In fact, there are 3 or 4 definitions that are very different from each other, and you seem to be confounding them. One definition, the definition for a scientific theory, is as such:
“a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.”
A theory can be disproven, but not proven. For example, the idea of gravity is a theory in this sense. So is evolution. It is in essence predictive, and once the theory stops making testable predictions, it ceases to be useful and is discarded.
Other definitions of theory include:
“a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.”
This would be like when Sherlock Holmes has a theory about who the murderer is.
” guess or conjecture. “
This is the common-use definition.
Mixing up these three definitions makes the conversation extremely difficult. When you talk about evolution, I hope you realize that you're talking about the first. Global climate change might be more in the second category. I do hope you realize that when you say that “evolution is only a theory”, you are showing that you don't actually understand that the evidence for this theory is as strong as (and actually better understood than) the theory of gravity. There really aren't any holes in it, and there has been not one iota of evidence against it, or it would have been dropped long ago.
To respond to Jefferson Davis: I'd just like to add a bit to what roro80 explained so well.
In science, a “law” merely states what we observe. For example, Newton's law of gravity states that the force due to gravity between two bodies decreases with the square of the distance between those two bodies. It gives no explanation; it is simply an observation.
A “theory” explains HOW something works, BASED ON OBSERVATION. It is a model which fits the observations (laws). As roro80 explained, if observations do not fit the theory, the theory is either modified or discarded. Richard Feynman (a Nobel-winning physicist) said it well: “It doesn't matter how beautiful a theory is; it doesn't matter how smart you are; if it doesn't match observation, it's wrong.”
In other words, a “theory” is not a guess or speculation. It is a framework which explains what we observe. Scientifically, it is as nonsensical to say one does not “believe” in evolution as it would be to say that one does not “believe” in photosynthesis. Faith and belief have nothing to do with it; only observation.
Wow! Lots of fun here I'm missing out on here.
Looks like my case is being made by others though, so I'll only say this: There is NO war on christianity coming from the secular community in the US, although there is certainly alarm and a great deal of concern about all the nonsense that springs from certain so-called “christian” quarters. There IS however a war on ignorance, illogic, and acceptance of unsupportable beliefs, whether they have to do with evolution, ID (which has been debunked so many times it isn't funny) AGW, or what have you. Is that war being won? I surely hope so or we are going to end up with a new generation that falls well behind the curve when it comes to rational thinking ability.
Kids have the right to have access to the best knowledge available, and they are being done no favors when adults are working to undermine that in the name of religion or anything else.
Another thing, people should try to be more careful about how they portray and characterize those they disagree with. It's easy, just imagine you are talking with that person face to face. My war is not with people, it is with faulty ideas, ignorance, false prophets, dishonesty.. I know many christians with whom I have nothing but respect and love. In my view the problem comes in when religious folks don't think BIG enough, and they start trying to fit everything into neat little boxes so they can start with the judging and the dogma, which is bound to translate into a society that has learned how to think less critically. And that is where the concern comes in with regard to education.
Thank you to Roro and ScienceGirl for the clear articulation of what theory and law mean within the scientific context, as well as non-scientific uses of the word theory.
“If I dragged you to Colosseum in Rome and sic'd some lions on you to really fulfill your pathetic martyrdom fantasies”
Stickings is still the clear owner of “fulminant” on here, but you may have usurped the title to “florid.”
“ID was started by an agnostic that got upset about how much science the Darwinists were trying to ignore.”
I'd love a source on that — both who this supposed ID agnostic was, and what science Darwinists were trying to ignore.
“evolution still has a LOT of work to do on their creation story”
Evolution is not a theory of genesis of life. There are a bunch of other theories about that subject (tough to test a process that may require billions of years), but evolution isn't one of them, in and of itself. The theory is predicated on life beginning in some matter, but the theory does not rest on how that might have happened. If it were proven that God touched down a few bacteria 4 billion years ago, that wouldn't be any problem for evolution. It would likely touch off a bunch of mid-life crises among the atheist community, but evolution itself would be just fine, and would continue on…evolving.
This excellent NOVA program on ID (intelligent design) is a must see for anyone who is interested in becoming more informed about the genesis (sorry bout that
intent, and validity of the concept:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/int…
JS I watched that NOVA episode and it was pretty informative. I too would suggest it as a starting point to understand the “debate” about evolution versus intelligent design, some of the terminology, a little about the key players. It's a little dated too, but there's an excellent book by a guy named Peter Irons called God On Trial, you can find it on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Trial-Landmark-Religi…
“ID was started by an agnostic that got upset about how much science the Darwinists were trying to ignore.”
LOL!
Let's look at the goals of the biggest ID advocacy organization, the Discovery Institute. The “Wedge Strategy” authored by Phillip E. Johnson and Stephen Meyer (author of “Signature in the Cell”) says the strategy's goal is to:
“- To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
- To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.”
Yeah, sounds REAL agnostic to me.
All I ask of the ID/Creationist proponents is exactly what Judge Jones asked in the Dover trial: PLEASE STOP LYING.
“Why is it that you don't apply that same critique to humanism, that is taught in schools nation-wide?”
Related note, something neglected: The title of this thread extends criticism of Texas to public schools nation-wide, but nothing after the title does this.
The term “secular humanism” was coined in the 20th century, and was adopted by non-religious humanists in order to make a clear distinction from “religious humanism”. Secular humanism is also called “scientific humanism”. Biologist E. O. Wilson claimed it to be “the only worldview compatible with science's growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature.
This is not MY made-up word, bro. Humanism rejects religion of all types. Our nation was founded as a pluralist society with a government that was secular for a people that were believers. Now, HUMANISM (you and your kind) are at war with those of us who wish to maintain our cultural roots and moral base. Once you succeed, our nation will perish. I'll keep fighting until then.
Intelligent Design is a SCIENTIFIC theory.
“The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.”
“The life of Confucious and Buddha are also represented. However, the life of Christ is miraculously absent.” If true, that would be inappropriate and would violate my condition of fairness in teaching comparative religion”
This has basis in ACLU cases where the ten commandments (a historical document) was taken out of the curriculum of a high school social studies class, but those of other faiths were not touched. I believe it was a Texas case, but I don't remember exactly. Perhaps someone could help me out with that one.
As far as intelligent design is concerned, the science behind it attempts to answer questions that older scientific disciplines cannot. Life comes from life.
“When Darwin wrote his book On the Origin of Species, the scientific world widely accepted the belief that bacteria could form themselves out of inanimate matter. (See also Abiogenesis View, the.) But the fact is that five years after the publication of Darwin’s book, the French biologist Louis Pasteur demolished this belief that represented the cornerstone of evolution.54 Pasteur summarized the conclusions he arrived at as a result of lengthy research and observation: “The claim that inanimate matter can originate life is buried in history for good.”
“Pasteur’s opinion that “life can emerge only from life” is described as biogenesis.
For a long time, adherents of the theory of evolution held out against these findings of Pasteur’s. However, as science progressed and increasingly revealed the living cell’s complex structure, the idea that life could form itself spontaneously faced an ever-worsening impasse.”
http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/produ…
“See now you too are taking a theory and perhaps a few anecdotes, then projecting it all onto a big screen to create a conspiracy. I'm no statistician, but I can say this is why you don't have your say about science curricula”
Since you're new here…. I'll repeat what I myself experienced. While pursuing my degree in Climatology; I was faced with several G.As that attempted to subvert my research. That didn't bother me as much at the time, since I attributed it to competition (backstabbing). After further pursuing my research, which by the way dealt with solar and terrestrial cycles and their effect on climate, one of my mentors suggested that I switch subjects. No problem there either. I dropped it and pursued something else, but kept my research. About a year later, while pursuing my second degree in Political Science, I was afforded an opportunity to serve as an intern in the State Senate. While there, during many Committee on Education meetings, I was able to see the funding structures of our state-funded universities. Lo and behold, those that adhered to specific agendas were funded better. Upon further digging, I found out that the geography department of my own university was slated to get a pretty big research grant. And as you may guess, the research dealt with carbon and its effect on long-range climate. You already know the results of all of these “unbiased scientific” efforts. It's the present scam being sold to us. But I digress.
I have since bounced the research I have off of geologists, climatologists, and physists. The present research is politically biased. Period. If you want to accept it, go for it. As for me…. I know that man has an effect on his environment. I also know that, if unchecked, we can do irreparable harm. Overwhelmingly, the harm we do is localized. Our long-term climatological outlook still relies on cycles – ones that are predictable.
We need to get something straight.
I really am not interested in what you have to say and I am not your bro.
JD — The problem with ID is that it attempts to answer unanswered scientific questions with “a designer did it”. It's the artist formerly known as “God did it”. It offers nothing new, no evidence, no testable hypotheses — sorry, irreducible complexity just doesn't meet this criterion. It's basically a hoax. Seriously, give me any example of “irreducible complexity”, and I can give you an example of why it's not irreducible. We can all believe what we want to — if you believe God created everything, just as it is now, that's fine. It's not science, though; it's faith. It belongs in a religious studies class, or even a philosophy class, not in a science class.
“The claim that inanimate matter can originate life is buried in history for good”
Well, no. The fact that we've been unable to do so up until now does not mean that it's impossible. In fact, there were on the order of billions of years of Earth time, during which the chemical make-up was essentially the same, before life was ever here, meaning the occurance of such an event is highly unlikely. Besides, as I said before, the theory of evolution does not portend to offer an explanation for the origin of life. It offers an explanation for how life can go from very simple to very complex. Right now, scientists do not say that they have an explanation for the origin of life on Earth (or the universe). This argument is not an argument against evolution.
“We need to get something straight. I really am not interested in what you have to say and I am not your bro.”
Coward. YOU are the one that replied to ME.
If you can't cook….stay out of the kitchen….BRO.
I know where you're coming from on ID, roro. I didn't say I was adhering to it. I really don't know all of what it has to offer. I love science. You probably wouldn't have guessed that.
I'm also a man of deep faith. I stand against religion shutting down science (dark ages) just as much as I stand against science shutting down faith.
“Well, no. The fact that we've been unable to do so up until now does not mean that it's impossible. In fact, there were on the order of billions of years of Earth time, during which the chemical make-up was essentially the same, before life was ever here,”
The last time I looked, we didn't have a book that chronicled that far.
I guess you're taking that “billions of years” on FAITH?
LOL
(thought you'd get a kick out of that)
Someone said: “Intelligent Design is a SCIENTIFIC theory”
No IT IS NOT.
Intelligent Design (ID) offers none of the characteristics of a scientific theory:
- It is not observable. We have never had a single observed instance of design happening.
- ID is not testable. We cannot set up a series of conditions that will be true if there is an intelligent designer, and then test those conditions. The most thorough and recent book on ID offers simply the test that if it looks designed, it must be. That is NOT science. The hexagon on Saturn looks designed. The snow rollers in Utah look designed. And they ARE – they're designed by undirected natural processes, not by some superhero in the sky.
- ID cannot be falsified. There is no piece of evidence anyone could possibly produce that would prove 100% that life wasn't created by a magical creature. Similarly, you can't prove we're not living in the Matrix. You can't prove that everything we know wasn't created instantly last Thursday and made to LOOK like it's all been here for billions of years. A scientific theory MUST be falsifiable, ID is not.
- ID makes no predictions. A scientific theory makes predictions, and the reliability of those predictions demonstrates the strength of the theory.
By contrast, biological evolution IS a scientific theory.
Evolution is testable:
(e.g. if evolution is true, we should find a fossil for this unknown species in this location)
Example: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html
Evolution is falsifiable:
29 examples: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section…
Evolution has known mechanisms: genetics, DNA, natural selection
http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/
Evolution is observable:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_…
What Intelligent Design IS is a religiously-backed public relations strategy whose promotion is funded largely by Young Earth Creationists who wish high school science classes to teach Genesis. Look it up. Google all recent press releases attacking evolution and promoting intelligent design. 90% of those come from the Discovery Institute. Then read the mission statement of the Discovery Institute right here:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
So, in conclusion, Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory, and the people who say that it is are running a dishonest PR campaign.
Ah, I neglected to mention that Intelligent Design offers no mechanism – another feature of scientific theories. How does “design” get into a feature?
How does an irreducibly complex feature (there is no such thing, but just for kicks, let's say there is) – how does such a feature get into an organism? Does most life evolve naturally without a designer's intervention, but when it comes time to stick a spinning whip on a bacteria's bum, out comes The Designer to glue on an irreducibly complex gizmo?
What is ID's mechanism for making design?
As I offered above, we've known at least a few parts of evolution's mechanisms for 150 years, and we've learned more along the way. THAT is the mark of an actual scientific theory.
ID fails that test, just as it fails the tests I outlined above.
And, ID fails the honesty test because its funding and promotion and constant presence in the press is driven ENTIRELY by people who have no interest whatsoever in actual science. They just want evolution destroyed for religious reasons.
If public school classrooms were allowed to teach Genesis as an alternative “theory” for the creation of life, do you think ANYONE would have ever promoted “Intelligent Design”? Would we ever have heard of “Intelligent Design”? Of course not.
If the goal is to teach students scientific theorizing, which I presume it is…. Why would you not show them all theories? The theory of relativity is directly refuted by Stephen Hawkins' quantum theory. Does that mean we should stop teaching Einsten? No. One is time relative and the other is position relative. Teach them both. The Intelligent Design theory uses scientific method (as far as I can gather thus far) to explain that which cannot be explained. The law of biogenesis itself goes directly against other widely-accepted “laws” within science. Do we continue to teach it? Of course.
I agree that ID is a new science. I will stay skeptical about it, until I find out more. I will make up my mind accordingly. I just want the same priviledge to be extended to the students. Let them decide that it is rubbish or science.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV, Learn Intelligence. Learn Intelligence said: #SKP The Texas-ization of American Public Education http://bit.ly/7BCZx2 [...]
JD, PLEASE be honest. There is no alternative theory. Please explain to me what other scientific theory exists for the variety of life? I just explained how Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory, and you've conveniently dodged that and gone right back to referring to it as science.
As Michael Behe himself said, Intelligent Design in its current form has exactly the same stature in science as astrology. Should we teach astrology to your kids or nieces and nephews in their school science classes, JD?
Your disdain for science is disturbing. Your comment on the “Law of Biogenesis” indicates a lack of understanding of what evolutionary theory actually is and says.
How about this. Let's at least make sure people like you learn enough about established scientific theories like evolutionary theory before we introduce religious creation myths (however cleverly disguised).
“Let them decide that it is rubbish or science.”
Yes, let's teach kids everything that has a book written about it. Let's teach white hole cosmology, flood geology, Krishna cosmology, astrology, Holocaust denial, lunar landing denial, and we can even introduce David Icke's giant lizard theories to political science classes. Then we can let the kids decide. Then they can go home and watch whatever they want on TV with no filters, and decide what they should believe.
Or, we can apply standards of quality to what we teach our children. We can honor the Constitution and NOT teach your religious faith in science classes. And maybe, just maybe, if we put some effort into it, our children will stop falling farther and farther behind their Asian and European counterparts, and maybe our kids will be able to get jobs in laboratories doing something other than CLEANING them.
If the goal is to teach students scientific theorizing, which I presume it is…
Perhaps you should start by questioning that premise. I believe the idea is to teach students biology.
For what it's worth, no, relativity isn't refuted by Hawkings's black hole information paradox. No, we don't teach either to high school students, much less hope they'll sort it all out on their own. If by the “law of biogenesis” you mean the theory that life must come from other life rather than from lifeless matter, that's no law at all. That's the principle of intelligent design again, and we don't teach it, at least not as science. Even that court in Pennsylvania a couple years ago figured out pretty quickly ID isn't science.
Your hit rate on this topic is not good, Jefferson. You claimed ID follows the scientific method. Rick laid out clearly and in detail out what the scientific method is and where ID falls short. You didn't even swerve in reasserting that it's science.
So let me turn it around. What evidence would it take to convince you it isn't science?
I just saw a beautiful little pink pig fly by…
You made me look up my old stuff.
Denton, Michael Evolution: A theory in crisis 1985
There actually was a small movement that tried that, but with extraterrestrial origins instead of divine ones. Of course, that would just kick the can down the road, or in this case, onto another planet.
http://biology.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_lif…
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227104….
There are several sites for each group, such as the Intelligent Design, and more religious Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Answers in Genesis (AIG), but the site that seemed to have the most responses to Talk Origins was EvolutionFacts. If you find the same topic on both of those sites, you can often structure a dialog between them.
I have a sincere question for the ID proponents:
As roro80 pointed out, we know considerably less about gravity than we do about evolution. The current idea is that gravity is caused by the exchange of particles called gravitons. (As I recall, that's one of the things the LHC is looking for).
So if your concern is that students should learn both what we do and don't know in science, why is no one concerned about teaching gravity? Why is it evolution – and ONLY evolution – that everyone gets so upset about?
In response to Jefforson Davis: “I guess you're taking that “billions of years” on FAITH?”
As I said before, science has nothing to do with faith. Feel free to believe whatever you like – but that's not science. Faith, by definition, is understanding based on something that can never be observed or disproven (God). Science is understanding based on observation and experimentation. From observation, we know that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old.