submitter: Chairman of Texas Board of Education endorses book calling Christians who accept evolution "morons"

At least he didn't call them "retards".

FredaDeStilleto: submitter: Chairman of Texas Board of Education endorses book calling Christians who accept evolution "morons"

At least he didn't call them "retards".

If a sitting politician made fun of people with special needs his political career would be finished over night.

Since this is a repeat more or less:

Don McLeroy DDS (yes, really), Cynthia Dunbar ("public education is tyrannical, unconstitutional, and the Satan-following Left's 'subtly deceptive tool of perversion'") , David Bradley ('this critical thinking stuff is gobbledygook") and the rest of the Texas SBOE radical right have already proven that they can completely ignore the years of dedicated work, the results of painstakingly collected data, and the professional prescriptions of teachers, scientists, universities, and even the public at large in their quest to force their Christian fundamentalist values upon the Texas public schools.

They already have done it with the travesty of justice that was allowed while adopting the new English/Language Arts standards, and they'll try to do it again with the science standards. McLeroy literally substituted his own list of standards for the professionally prepared ones at the last minute when they voted on the ELA standards, and then refused to allow a review of the legitimate ones (references available...check out the reports by other committee members)

For some idea of what I'm referring to this is a good place to start:
http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Magazine/CC0183_TeachAdvoc.pdf (new window)

If you're a fellow Texan, &/or if you care:
http://www.google.com/search?q=texas+State+Board+of+Education+teks+standards&i e= UTF-8 (new window)

shiat like this is possible. Why is there still a farking debate about evolution? Seriously, if this thread makes it anywhere, I want a creationist to tell me how this fits into their view of reality. God testing us is not a valid answer btw.

Why is it always about evolution, astronomy is even more damning of young earth creationism but they never attack it.

Contents of a Space Wasp's stomach: If a sitting politician made fun of people with special needs his political career would be finished over night.

In Texas though?

RainWhenIDie: shiat like this is possible. Why is there still a farking debate about evolution? Seriously, if this thread makes it anywhere, I want a creationist to tell me how this fits into their view of reality. God testing us is not a valid answer btw.

This debate continues because Creationists are great at politics. They have an uncanny ability to cherry-pick quotes and misrepresent scientific data while presenting zero evidence to any alternative ideas. They're a lawyer's wet dream.

Contents of a Space Wasp's stomach: If a sitting politician made fun of people with special needs his political career would be finished over night.

Not bad. I almost responded seriously and then reread your post.

One more reason to be glad I don't live in Texas.

swaniefrmreddeer: Why is it always about evolution, astronomy is even more damning of young earth creationism but they never attack it.

I asked my dad (thinks the universe is about 6000 years old) how he explains the fact that we both know how far away stars are and the speed of light and therefore can pretty well guess the age of the universe. He says the scientists that tell us that stuff are all making it up.

RainWhenIDie: shiat like this is possible. Why is there still a farking debate about evolution? Seriously, if this thread makes it anywhere, I want a creationist to tell me how this fits into their view of reality. God testing us is not a valid answer btw.

Because the Bible doesn't say anything on the subject of Tau Ceti. Therefore Tau Ceti is just some made up name for small dot of light on the opaque crystal orb in which we spin.

swaniefrmreddeer: Why is it always about evolution, astronomy is even more damning of young earth creationism but they never attack it.

Beyond the scope of most creationists. You need half a brain cell to understand the logic that threatens their little bubble.

I sent a note to one of the board members a while back asking a few pointed questions. I got this in return: (my question in reply below)

__________________________________________
Darwin Would Not Have Supported Censorship



by Terri Leo - State Board of Education



In the article (Houston Chronicle, "State Board of Education Must Be Held Accountable," February 12, 2009), the Texas Legislators, who were quoted, misstated the current debate when they said, "The SBOE continues to engage in narrow theological debate about the validity of evolution." These Senators obviously have been getting their information from far-leftwing groups and from many in the liberal news media.



The Legislators did not name any specific SBOE members because no such statements have been made by any of us. All SBOE meetings are recorded, and I invite the public to go to www.tea.state.tx.us to verify the accuracy of my statement. No SBOE members are seeking to remove evolutionary theory from the science curriculum standards. Evolution is a major theory, and any standards without the theory of evolution included in them would be substandard. There is also no Board member who is seeking to implement religious beliefs into public school science curricula.



For the past twenty years, students in Texas have been required "to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to the strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information." This standard has been applied to all scientific theories. Pro-Evolution Advocates, however, want evolution to be singled out and taught differently from the other theories. They want evolution to be taught without including the weaknesses of this theory.



The evolutionists want the time-tested standard to be removed from our Texas standards and, hence, from our textbooks and teaching materials. The twenty-year old standard does not state nor imply the teaching of religion, just "scientific explanations and scientific evidence." If a teacher in our state had used this twenty-year-old standard as a "backdoor vehicle" through which to teach students religion, the ACLU most certainly would have sued by now.



The Houston Chronicle article goes on to say that if the SBOE does not remove this standard that it will "impact the economic progress of our state." The facts tell otherwise. According to a recent press release by the Governor's office, Texas has shown increases in both economic growth and jobs while the rest of the nation has shown a decline. In the 2009 State of the State Address the Governor stated that 70% of the jobs created in the U.S. were in Texas. All this has occurred in Texas during the time that this twenty-year-old policy has been in place.



A new Zogby poll released on 2.3.09 states, "A large majority (80%) agree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory, with more than half (54%) saying they strongly agree. A sixth (17%) disagree." (http://www.freemarket.org/Img/2009%20Zogby%20Poll%20Findings%20Report.pdf)



The open and vigorous public debate on controversial issues is one of the hallmarks of America. As a people, we cherish and defend academic freedom, political freedom, freedom of association, freedom of movement, and freedom of thought.

The 17% (i.e., Zogby poll) want to censor out all credible science that opposes Darwinian evolution.



If our public-school science standards censor out scientific weaknesses, we limit our educators by directing them to avoid scientific controversy. As U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (a Democrat) has wisely pointed out regarding science education, "If students cannot learn to debate different viewpoints and to explore a range of scientific theories in the classroom, what hope have we for civil discourse beyond the schoolhouse doors?"

Because education is truly a vehicle to broaden horizons and enhance thinking, varying scientific viewpoints should be welcome as part of the school experience. In the words of law professor David DeWolf, "By presenting this scientific controversy realistically, students will learn how to evaluate competing interpretations in light of evidence -- a skill they will need as citizens, whether they choose careers in science or in other fields."



Darwin himself would not have supported censorship of the scientific weaknesses of his own theory. Indeed he wrote a whole chapter in his book, On the Origin of Species, about the difficulties with his theory. Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."



The 17% who would thwart critical thinking, particularly in light of recent advances in science, can only be described as censors, no matter what their organizational name may say.

As Charles Darwin so aptly stated in On the Origin of Species, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."


Terri Leo
State Board of Education District #6
___________________________________________

Would you be so kind as to spell out what some of the "weaknesses" are? I would assume that you have some science to back this up with.

(I have not received a reply. Bonus: her email address ends in @aol.com)

Dancin_In_Anson: Would you be so kind as to spell out what some of the "weaknesses" are? I would assume that you have some science to back this up with.

(I have not received a reply. Bonus: her email address ends in @aol.com)

Oh man, that's a laugh!

The Ice Age was probably caused by the Great Flood. During the Ice Age, glaciation spread inland as far as Kansas and Germany and France, but the Arctic Ocean was ice-free. When God opened the great fountains of the deep, it not only put hot water into the earth's oceans, but also released volumes of volcanic ash. That ash thrown into the air caused the sun's warmth to be shot back out into outer space, lowering earth's temperature. Creation science has the best scientific explanation of the Ice Age. The evolutionists do not have one for how it occurred.[5]

At the peak of the Ice Age, maybe 200 years after the Great Flood, when so much water was caught up in glaciers, the sea level was down by over 300 feet from what it is today, exposing the continental shelves. People could just walk across these. Great migrations of people were possible during this time.[5]

Link (new window)

Oh, if anyone wants to read the book for themselves, I've mirrored it Here; if you should care to up the download count for the publisher, they have it also.

spamdog: Oh man, that's a laugh!

I just sent it to her again. I would really like to know what she sees as scientifically weak.

creation science=oxymoron

CDP: Creation science has the best scientific explanation of the Ice Age. The evolutionists do not have one for how it occurred.[5]

So what caused the other 3 major ice ages? Oh, right, those never really happened because the universe didn't exist yet. Hey, wait, the universe didn't exist for the last ice age either! I'm confused now.

swaniefrmreddeer: Why is it always about evolution, astronomy is even more damning of young earth creationism but they never attack it.

Actually, the Texas nuts were also undermining that, too. This moves them even past the caliber of nutjobbery previously displayed in and .

Dancin_In_Anson: I sent a note to one of the board members a while back asking a few pointed questions. I got this in return: (my question in reply below)

[Wall of whaargarbl omitted...]


Would you be so kind as to spell out what some of the "weaknesses" are? I would assume that you have some science to back this up with.

(I have not received a reply. Bonus: her email address ends in @aol.com)



I imagine if she replies it will start with "Evolution is the tinfoil atheists use to keep God out of their brainwaves". Duly hyperlinked, of course.



abb3w: Oh, if anyone wants to read the book for themselves, I've mirrored it Here; if you should care to up the download count for the publisher, they have it also.

You always think of us. Perhaps I'll peruse it and come up with some of the more compelling arguments. Done. Didn't come up with any.

So for astronomy to be wrong god must have placed every single photon in place to deceive us into believing that they have been traveling for billions of years. Sounds logical to me.

swaniefrmreddeer: Why is it always about evolution, astronomy is even more damning of young earth creationism but they never attack it.

Not to mention basic observations about the planets contradicting the model with space-sky spheres and earth unmoving at the center.

Newton magazine had a special on the Solar System this month, it started with earliest observations and goes to the present day. The relevant part is it has BEAUTIFUL illustrations in modern style complete with labels, explaining the workings of the Earth-centered model (which then gets replaced with the modern models on subsequent pages). I need to scan that puppy in and make some photoshop goodness.

But... the Bible was all about the Earth-centric goodness, yeah? The magazine explains part of that, and the problems the early observers had when they disagreed with the Church.

So why (honest question here) do we not see more complaints about that? Is it just that the planet observations are done currently all the time? What about calculations on the ark, etc?

Still, if you accept one area where the Bible isn't a literal description, then... surely other parts aren't either?

/not a Christian

RainWhenIDie: CDP: Creation science has the best scientific explanation of the Ice Age. The evolutionists do not have one for how it occurred.[5]

So what caused the other 3 major ice ages? Oh, right, those never really happened because the universe didn't exist yet. Hey, wait, the universe didn't exist for the last ice age either! I'm confused now.

It may come as a surprise to many people, but there is strong evidence there was only one fairly recent ice age.3

In an earlier chapter, I showed just how meteorologically difficult it is for any ice age to develop using present processes. For snow to survive a summer in the northern United States, summer temperatures would have to drop to an average of about 20°F (-7°C), 50°F (28°C) below normal, and the snow needs to be regularly replenished. According to uniformitarianism, this abnormal climate has to persist for thousands of years. If one ice age is difficult to produce, how much more difficult would it be to form 2, 4, 15, or 30 ice ages in succession?

When we examine the glacial debris called till, we learn that it was deposited predominantly from the last Ice Age even within the uniformitarian paradigm. Moreover, most of this till is from the last advance of the last ice age.4 Sugden and John5 state in reference to ice ages other than the last:

We shall not, therefore, consider these [previous] glaciations in any detail - a task which would in any case be difficult because of the scarcity of supporting evidence.

The glacial deposits themselves point to only one ice age.
When you compare the till to the bedrock below, you usually discover that the debris is the same as the bedrock material and, therefore, was not transported very far. Feininger6 writes:

Earlier in this report, the nearness of most glacial boulders to their source was cited as evidence that glacial transport is generally short. Even stronger evidence to support this view can be read from the tills themselves. Where the direction of movement carried a continental ice sheet from one terrain to another of markedly different rock type, the tills derived from each terrain are predominantly restricted to the area of their corresponding source rock.

A short distance of transport would be expected in one ice age, but in multiple ice ages, the debris should be bulldozed farther and farther from its source. Since most glacial till is from local bedrock, one ice age is a more straightforward deduction.

A few areas within the periphery of the ice sheet in North America were never glaciated at all. These are called driftless areas and have been mentioned in a previous chapter. Sandstone spires (that were not planed off) are evidence that the driftless area in southwest Wisconsin was never glaciated (figures 11.2 and 11.3). How can a thick ice sheet over a 100,000-year period in the uniformitarian paradigm have missed these areas? Even more puzzling is how 30 or more ice ages could have missed these driftless areas. A thin ice sheet that formed and melted rapidly has a much greater chance of leaving a few areas unglaciated at the margin than many long ones.

With the many presumed glaciations of Canada, Canada's bedrock should be heavily eroded. However, the terrain, in truth, shows little erosion.7 The bedrock under the local cover of sedimentary rocks is of the same topographical roughness as that found on the exposed crystalline bedrock.

The characteristics of ice age animals points to a single ice age. During the approximately two to three million years that uniformitarian scientists allot to multiple glaciations, the animals remained much the same.8 There is very little fossil information available to differentiate between various glacials and interglacials. Their explanation is that very little evolution took place because the many ice ages apparently did not stress the animals to change. Then for some mysterious reason, dozens of large mammals and birds went extinct after the "last" ice age. This appears doubtful within their evolutionary paradigm. One ice age with characteristic plants and animals is a more reasonable deduction.

If there were multiple interglacials, animals such as reindeer and woolly mammoths would successfully recolonize previously glaciated territory. Their bones should be abundant in these areas, but they are rare and are found mainly at the periphery of ice sheets and in non-glaciated areas.

Lastly, if the uniformitarian version of multiple ice ages were true, at least 1 of the 30 ice ages should have glaciated the lowlands of Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon. Could it be there really were no interglacials?

The broad-scale evidence for only one ice age is summarized in table 11.2. When it comes right down to it, the uniformitarian scientists actually assume there were multiple ice ages. Young and others9 admit:

Glacial reconstructions commonly assume a multiple-glaciation hypothesis in all areas that contain a till cover.
It all adds up to a strong case for one recent Ice Age.

Link (new window)

dahmers love zombie: "Evolution is the tinfoil atheists use to keep God out of their brainwaves"

Had a conversation with a local yesterday. I used to be pretty active in our little Methodist church here in town...I was asked why I haven't been in almost 10 years.

"The religion kept messing with my faith."

I got the quizzical dog look in reply.

Crap, did I reply to a Bevets alt?

Ah, religion. Is there anything you can't make shiattier?

Timecube and Geography mixes together!

This thread has a lot of potential. Where's all the nutjobs?

/hotlinked

Please, keep this up.

1) It will create many more job openings for children from the other 49 states.

2) It is guaranteed to ensure that liberals will can full control of the Texas State government

Really, if you think about it, these people are simply ensuring the best possible future for humanity.

Texas tag. Make it happen, Fark.

RainWhenIDie: Crap, did I reply to a Bevets alt?

I think its a reverse-Bevets.

Chairman of Texas Board of Education endorses book calling Christians who accept evolution "morons" and parents that teach children evolution "monsters." Texas, it's the new Kansas

Now with more tornadoes

kaminariko: They already have done it with the travesty of justice that was allowed while adopting the new English/Language Arts standards, and they'll try to do it again with the science standards. McLeroy literally substituted his own list of standards for the professionally prepared ones at the last minute when they voted on the ELA standards, and then refused to allow a review of the legitimate ones (references available...check out the reports by other committee members)

For some idea of what I'm referring to this is a good place to start:
http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Magazine/CC0183_TeachAdvoc.pdf (new window)

Reading now. Sounds like more of the phonics debate... which has annoyed me for a long time. Yes, there's a place for teaching phonics rules. And as far as I know, most teachers use them, even the ones who don't identify as being with that certain "phonics" side of the debate.

But all the people who insist that English is actually phonetic? Please. Plenty of English is 100% arbitrary, so even with the rules you have a wide variety of possibilities for a word and you're just picking the one you know is a word. That's all fine for fluent speakers of English, but for foreigners, it's not so easy.

Not to mention hordes of Chinese-character-land kids who learn to read just FINE.

It's become a 100% political culture-war thing, complete with fetishization of old spellers and all of it.

James F. Campbell: This thread has a lot of potential. Where's all the nutjobs?

Church?

swaniefrmreddeer: So for astronomy to be wrong god must have placed every single photon in place to deceive us into believing that they have been traveling for billions of years. Sounds logical to me.

God is photons without a higgs boson.

CDP:With the many presumed glaciations of Canada, Canada's bedrock should be heavily eroded. However, the terrain, in truth, shows little erosion.7 The bedrock under the local cover of sedimentary rocks is of the same topographical roughness as that found on the exposed crystalline bedrock.
Maybe you should read this Landforms of Glaciation (new window)

Dancin_In_Anson:

Would you be so kind as to spell out what some of the "weaknesses" are? I would assume that you have some science to back this up with.

It's something about Cylon/human hybrids.

slobarnuts: God is photons without a higgs boson.

Get a Higgs boson, photans.

/Not mine.

Donald_McRonald: James F. Campbell: This thread has a lot of potential. Where's all the nutjobs?

Church?

But its Saturday.

Hey, where's that guy who logs in as the Bevets account? He'll get this thread quoting..I mean going.

Super.
Now head-burying ignorance (creationism) is being combined with brazen egotism (Texas), so we'll get more "You pussy libtards better stop with all that fancy book sciencin' and get with God or we'll learn ya somethin' real good, with our guns."

Should be neat. Can't wait.

It's so scary to consider that a couple of the best universities in the country are in Texas.

How does that happen?

James F. Campbell: /Not mine.

Occam's principle of limited imagination?

Favorite. Quote. Ever.

:D

kaminariko: Since this is a repeat more or less:

Don McLeroy DDS (yes, really), Cynthia Dunbar ("public education is tyrannical, unconstitutional, and the Satan-following Left's 'subtly deceptive tool of perversion'") , David Bradley ('this critical thinking stuff is gobbledygook") and the rest of the Texas SBOE radical right have already proven that they can completely ignore the years of dedicated work, the results of painstakingly collected data, and the professional prescriptions of teachers, scientists, universities, and even the public at large in their quest to force their Christian fundamentalist values upon the Texas public schools.

They already have done it with the travesty of justice that was allowed while adopting the new English/Language Arts standards, and they'll try to do it again with the science standards. McLeroy literally substituted his own list of standards for the professionally prepared ones at the last minute when they voted on the ELA standards, and then refused to allow a review of the legitimate ones (references available...check out the reports by other committee members)

For some idea of what I'm referring to this is a good place to start:
http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Magazine/CC0183_TeachAdvoc.pdf (new window)

If you're a fellow Texan, &/or if you care:
http://www.google.com/search?q=texas+State+Board+of+Education+teks+standards&i e= UTF-8 (new window)

What you need to understand is that there has been a conspiracy among hardcore evangelicals for at least a dozen years to get their members elected to public school boards nationwide so as to "destroy the system from within".

This isn't tinfoil but documented fact (new window)

Cass urges conference-goers to stack school boards with Dominionists. "The most humble Christian is more qualified for office than the best-educated pagan," says Cass, an anti-abortion activist who led a takeover of his school district's board in San Diego. "We built quite a little grass-roots machine out there. Now it's my burden to multiply that success all across America."


While they hate public schools as a rule, they know that few people vote in school board elections so they can easily get the memebers elected with an organized campaign (you can spot these types because they are on the school board but their kids go to private schools or are hom eschooled)

Another stupid idea coming out of Texas is not news.

When a smart idea comes out of there THAT will be news.

SherKhan: slobarnuts: God is photons without a higgs boson.

Get a Higgs boson, photans.

I lol'd.

FredaDeStilleto: submitter: Chairman of Texas Board of Education endorses book calling Christians who accept evolution "morons"

At least he didn't call them "retards".

Technically, he did. Not too long ago, 'moron' was the word used to describe the mentally challenged.

what else can you expect from a state that would host the bush presidential library propaganda center?

fark the Texas board of education. I wouldn't care if they farked up their own state, but they mess with education in the rest of the country, as well. Part of the reason why American History textbooks are so awful is because publishers have to appease the Texas BoE. Texas is such a large market that they can't include anything remotely negative (even if it is true) about America. If they offend any of the jingoistic assholes on the Texas board they risk losing a lot of money, so they deliberately make textbooks as bland and uninteresting as possible, historical accuracy be damned.