Darwinists in Texas are seeking to remove a science standard that requires schools to teach both the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution.
Under current standards for the state's science curriculum, students are expected to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."
But when the Texas Board of Education look to update state science standards this summer, some committee members will ask the board to remove the "strengths and weaknesses" phrase, according to The New York Times.
Among those requesting the board to drop the phrase is Kevin Fisher, a committee member who told the NY Times that questions left unanswered by evolution shouldn't be regarded as its weaknesses.
Other critics include Texas Freedom Network, a group that has opposed state proposals for Bible classes and Bible textbooks in the past.
Several board members appear to favor the current standard, saying it maintains a balanced debate on evolution.
"Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven," Board Vice Chairman David Bradley told The Houston Chronicle. "Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions."
Bradley also dismissed concerns by critics over the board's intention to sneak religion into the classroom.
"The only thing that this board is going to do is ask for accuracy."
Barbara Cargill, the vice chair of the board's Committee on Instruction, said giving students the freedom to discuss both sides of evolution will ensure them a "well-rounded education."
"It prompts them to be critical thinkers, and it also helps them to respect the opinions of other students even if they disagree," she told The Houston Chronicle.
Meanwhile, Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank, has rejected allegations that the group is using the "strength and weaknesses" rhetoric as a new strategy in pushing intelligent design in schools following the 2005 Dover case – when intelligent design was barred from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms.
On the organization's blog site, staff member Robert Crowther points out that the "strengths and weaknesses" language was adopted by the Texas Board of Education over a decade ago, long before the Dover case, and that debate over it has been going on across the nation since then. In 2003, the Texas Board of Education was asked to enforce its previously adopted "strengths and weaknesses" language in biology textbooks but has yet to fully comply, according to Crowther.
RSS
Comments
... . . . ... I've got 6 kids....
This seems to be an echo of the La. Senate Approves Bill...page. :-) John Marcus Doe--ibid my posts there.
"At least now I have the modern miracle of AIR CONDITIONING! The man who come up with that just didn't get enough credit." Just FYI, it was someone in the printing industry who needed to fix the humidity in the room because the paper was turning into a ruffles potato chip want-a-be. The cooling effect was just a by-product of the effect. How do I know this? I spend quite a few years in the printing industry (my first work computer was a Mac IIsi with 8megs of ram and an 80mg HD...we were HOT to TROT...).
I was a single parent for about 5 years with the first 4 (I got custody of them for some very good reasons). I experienced some quite remarkable things during that time which even the die hard non-Christians had to admit must have been 'my God watching out for me'. I don't understand all the science, math or logic in this world (after all, the only people who think they do are nuts) but I do understand God loves His children and takes care of them. It is something I cannot rationally turn my back on simply because there is no other explaination.
"Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven," That is the worst BS I have ever heard. In science, and not in day to day language, a theory is a hypothesis that has wide range of acceptance as a result of the breadth of evidence and prroof. For example, The Electromagnetic throry and Maxell's Equation... However immense the evidence for a hypothesis might be, science forbids it from being a dogma, and thus it will still be considered a theory. So advice to the Vice-Chairman, careful on the word choice.
Hi runningdoc
While Newton and others believed in a creator does not mean they believed in what is today called ID. I believe they would have rejected this particular expression of a belief in a creator as not supported by the evidence and contrary to rationality. Believing in a creator is not the same thing as accepting pseudo science as valid.
runningdoc,
I believe your post Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:49 am gets to the heart of this matter. It demonstrates that your belief in a designer is a matter of faith and your view of the designs perfection is a matter of your personal opinion. This must be accepted in the way it is stated since you claim it only for yourself. By your own analogy of Tolkien (when he was refuting some literary critics of how far off base they were on his writings) shows that submission of such belief to objective or scientific analysis is fruitless.
What this shows is that while I have no basis for opposing your belief in these things as matters of faith (in fact I do not) the I.D. and creationist people have no buisness and no right to ask that faith based beliefs be accepted as science (which they do).
I in fact do happen to believe in a designer of the universe and all of its natural workings, processes and dynamics, including gravity and evolution. I simply see no conflict between science and that belief. I personally do not believe that every organism is perfect if the standard is that it does its function perfectly and has every possible design advantage to the environment and its function. However I see this issue of perfection or complexity (which the ID people make much of) as being irrelevant. I believe as C.S. Lewis described in his writings that the miracle of rationality and God reaching into his creation through us everyday is a far greater miracle than any legendary stopping of the sun in the sky, or world wide flood, etc.
Sorry that should be "their" not "there"..
Runningdoc (checking I got that bit right!!)
I think his belief in a creator (which was most likely of the deistic sort) and his understanding of gravity (and of which on some points he was wrong but thats quite understandable) are totally seperate, it would be quite possible for Newton to be a agnostic/atheist/ druid etc... and stilI come to the same conclusions.
I'm certain that some intelligent people believe in intelligent design but all that tells me is that some intelligent people believe in intelligent design, it tells me nothing about the correctness of there conclusions, I might as well state (though I would not as I see how weak an arguament it is) that evolution must be correct because some intellignt people believe in it.
Stay cool
Steve
SteveH2O
The point about gravity and Newton was not about his orthodoxy or his lack thereof. I think he also like alchemy. The point was that he believed in a creator and understood gravity and described it without the aid of computers and lots of other toys.
Some very intelligent people have and do believe in intelligent design. That is the point.
Grace and Peace, runningdoC
Agent, IT huh that is interesting.
One last comment on interpretation. From JRR Tolkein, Interpretation of allegory belongs to the author. What a person meant by what they said or did belongs to them not to us. Unless you are clairvoyant, you cannot decide why I answer posts. I could just be a plant with CP trying to run up their hit numbers for ads. You wont know unless I tell you.
You can only speculate on what God's motive, kindness, goodness are unless you ask HIm and He tells you. You cannot deny the existence of a designer by criticising the design based on your interpretation of His motive.
I think everything about the human body is an elegant design. No one on this planet could have done better.
Grace and Peace, runningdoC
The software our company uses just went from a unix based platform to .NET framework. It's funny you should ask about open source,as I am downloading the latest Fedora distro as we speak. I do not work with it on my job, but I do enjoy dabbling with it on the side. Thankfully, our authority only covers the northeast corner of the state at this time. I am also having to learn how to do web development. We just got our website online last week. It's pretty basic, but it's a start. So I'm pretty much like a swiss army knife to my job, I have to know some of everything. I'm not complaining though, prior to this I was building steam turbines at power plants.At least now I have the modern miracle of AIR CONDITIONING! The man who come up with that just didn't get enough credit.Yeah, the kids can be tough, but they're worth it at the end of the day.I have enjoyed our conversation tonight,but I think my bed is calling my name,it's been a long day. Take care, and maybe I'll catch you on here this weekend. Until then I'll be keeping you in my prayers(that's just what I do)and will hopefully catch you back on here later this weekend. Good night my friend.
" 5 kids, so it's a miracle I have any remaining sanity. "
No kidding man, no kidding. you know what day it is better yet what month? =)
In your work, do you deal with open source, like unix or linix variants, or is it a strictly windows operation? the envioronement I work in is massive too, it's global really, office locations all over. But the systems I cover are only windows based, I dable in some Linux like Ubuntu or Red Hat, but generally the support for apps on their OS isn't what production integrity generally calls for. Don't get me wrong, I do study some in IT, but where I am at, I work with many of the latest tools, so for the most part I just review emerging technolgies instead of an educational overall like taking classes.
The IT market is still pretty good despite a slumping economy, I think I recall reading as many IT jobs are available now as during the height of the Dot.com era. Generally this part of the the workforce is cut as businesses look to reduce costs, but the demand is still high. You of all people should know how lacking the USA is in terms of training adequeate and enough people for our types of jobs, this is why HB-1 visas continually come up before congress as companies simply can't find enough people here. If we want to keep the good jobs here in the USA for us, our kids and generations to come it's important to back measures that ensure we are practicing the latest trends in science. And, equally as important, that our populace become more and more technologically and scientifically literate. It's either become literate in these new forms of knowledge or forsake a better quality of life and let other countries take your dominance in such areas. If you want a decent biology book, which is mindfull of christian theology, I would recomend Ken MIller's 'Finding Darwin's God'. It's not overly technical, but enough. His new book 'Only a Theory' just came out too, I'll have to see how good this one is.
agentorangex,
Didn't mean to get your handle wrong below.
regioagentorangex,
Wow, I had you figured for a biology professor at some major university. Amazing what we can learn about each other if we just take the time. I to grew up being fascinated with science. I was always more into astronomy than anything else. Many nights were spent gazing through my telescope into the heavens. I will never forget the thrill of seeing the rings of Saturn with my own eyes. I miss those days, and I think I may buy another telescope and start stargazing again.
Many years later, I started playing with computers as a hobby. It just progressed from there,I guess. Turns out I was a natural with them. Today, I am the IT manager for a state agency in South Carolina. We have a WAN that spreads over 4 counties, and I am the only IT person in our region.
I became a Christian 2 years ago, and I pray one day that I will be called into the ministry.I will not preach at you because you get plenty of that here already,lol. I spend most of my time studying the Bible and end times prophecy.(very interesting) My wife and I have 5 kids, so it's a miracle I have any remaining sanity. Top it all off, I'm a full time college student as well. So, do you see why I don't engage in prolonged arguments?I just don't have the energy. I do enjoy our conversations very much though.
kboswell,
Fair enough., no grudge. I work in IT as well (about 10 years), so I am not a biologist and wouldn't want to lead you on as if I was. No person is really any 'one thing', so even if I were a biologist, it wouldn't be the only domain in which I had something to add. I do however study and read the science journals from many fields in science as its what I enjoy: biology, paleontology, cosmology, astronomy and Science in general is my passion. I don't work in the field of biology or paleontology, but I have some friends who do, some I met through the MN University which I graduated from and others from science fairs and such. On any note, I agree with you, the acceptance of science and god shouldn't be and aren't IMO mutually exclusive domains. I accept evolution as the best theory at present time (it could be partially wrong like Newton’s view of gravity), generally I follow biologists like Ken Miller or Kevin Padian as they are two of the most well respected members in molecular biology and paleontology. Dawkins, PZ Myers and other famed 'godless scientists' have their moments, but at times it's hard to get reasonable people to read or listen to them as sometimes their impression of them and their lacking faith erodes any chance of compression.
I grew up studying dinosaurs/paleontology, but after finding how the jobs sector wasn't very, shall we say, financially lucrative, I opted for other work I was also interested in - computers. I grew up the Silicon Valley, till only some years ago, so being involved with computers and technology was fate I suppose. I work with a very large private corporation based in MN but they are global as are the operations we support, and earlier I worked with IBM doing very much the same thing. What about you?
(flagged self)
agentorangex,
I'm not buying that book, I just wanted your opinion. I am a computer geek (network administrator) Don't have time to rack my brain on evolution. As far as the platypus, I was only commenting on how awkward it is, not trying to use it to argue any point. To me, it seems to be a cross between a duck and a beaver. These guys have you on the defensive. I don't have an alterior motive, just some conversation? I know what you believe, and I know what I believe. Does that mean we have to be at each others throat? I would hope not, as I respect your wisdom in the scientific field,and enjoy reading many of your posts.
“http://www.humandevolution.com/”
Lacking any details on what exactly ‘de-evolution’ entails, and how its backed up. I think just on face value and the lacking science publications this guys looking to make a buck, but go for it have at it and read it, I'll see if I can find a copy on the Internet. Sure the platypus is weird, so what? I mean, take a look at any of the earlier animals that lived and are no longer around. The mammal like reptiles and reptile like mammals were weird as were early tetrapods like Tiktaalik or some weird dino/birds like Arhceopteryx, microraptor and others. As are the marine reptiles and flying reptiles, weird! Many very interesting species and types of life have come and gone on this planet, what are getting at? That evolutionary can’t account for a species like the Platypus? A recent genetic analysis on the platypus demonstrated their closest living ancestors and genetically how old they are, you can find it in the archive articles at pandasthumb.org and I’ll let you do the rest for yourself, I don’t want to spoil the excitement. Here's a hint though, they aren't marsupials and aren't placental mammals and lay leathery eggs (as opposed to hard shelled reptialn/bird eggs) and lack lactating nipples and instead lactate from modified pours and glands which are roudimentary nipples.