Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Texas textbook review panelist: "'creation science' based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 57
    More: Fail, Texas, Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Texas Freedom Network, Texas A&M University, National Center for Science Education, Texas Education Agency, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Discovery Institute  
•       •       •

6815 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Sep 2013 at 4:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-09-11 03:32:25 PM  
11 votes:
teaching creationism as science is child abuse.
2013-09-11 02:35:39 PM  
11 votes:
Proponents should only be able to use creation science in their family medical treatments.
2013-09-11 05:04:31 PM  
5 votes:
Karen B. in TFA: "I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory.

You have no idea what scientific theory is.

As an educator,

You teach food service mgmt. How does that qualify you to decide what is/isn't science?

parent,and grandparent,

Completely irrelevant. Why do so many parents think the mere fact of them spawning qualifies them to judge what should or shouldn't be taught in a science classroom? Am I missing something? I don't have children. When you manage to reproduce, is scientific knowledge instantly beamed into your brain? Why would you think that you know much about it? What makes you an expert? When you want some idea what the weather will be like in four days, do you check a forecast from a meteorologist or go outside and stare at the sky? If your child needs his appendix taken out, do you take him to the doctor or perform the operation yourself? If your husband has a nasty toothache, does he go to the dentist or hand you a drill and tell you to get to work?

I feel very firmly that 'creation science' based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption."

It's not science. Keep it out of science classrooms, you farking theocrat.

boue67: I am a confused foreigner...Why does the US not kick out texas out of the union  again?


Oil.
Though if we kicked them out, we could invade. hmmm....

/are you pondering what I'm pondering?
2013-09-11 05:21:15 PM  
4 votes:

hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!


Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?
2013-09-11 05:21:06 PM  
4 votes:
controversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.com
2013-09-11 05:15:13 PM  
4 votes:

hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!


Science is about teaching the facts.

If it said "At one time people believed a supernatural being created all life, but science has shown that life has evolved over billions of years to arrive where it is today", that's fine.  It's similar to what is taught about alchemy when going over the history of chemistry.  Adding in "You can choose to believe whatever you want" is clouding the issue, and doing a great disservice to the student.

Yes, they can indeed believe what they want, but the facts still stand.  Creationism is wrong, and creation science is not science.

There is a lot of interesting things to cover about the history of evolution, but there is no need to indulge fantasy.
2013-09-11 03:41:45 PM  
4 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?

As long as they stay in Texas they're golden


Not the issue.... Texas buys more books, in bulk, than any other customer.  So most school districts follow what Texas does in order to get text books cheaper.  So when it comes to textbooks, where Texas leads, the country follows.  Not everywhere, but in enough places that stories like this are far more scary than they appear.
2013-09-11 03:12:56 PM  
4 votes:
Well, think about this... in just a few years these kids will be voting.  Voting for things like funding science, medicine, et al.  Congratulations Texas; you're farking up our society.
2013-09-11 10:48:40 PM  
3 votes:

Xenomech: Cpl.D: /Because bearing false witness is OK if it gets you Jesus points

"But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice" - Philippians 1:18

Deception is okay when you're doing it for Jesus.


Why don't we let the founder of Intelligent Design defend himself in his own words...

lh5.googleusercontent.com
ID is not, and has never been, about alternatives to science. It's been about slipping in a Christian message into schools, and teaching kids who may or may not be Christians about said faith, under the guise of "teaching the controversy."

You know what? I have no problem with teaching comparative religion. I have no problem with electives to study the Bible even. But to try to slip in a Christian message, when not all the kids are Christians, or even People of the Book even, that breaks the whole separation of Church and State. Do it in your private schools. I have no problem with Catholic schools, or even the half assery that winds up in a lot of Baptist schools, but don't look to the tax payers to pay for it. Fund your own damn private schools, and STOP looking for handouts to proselytize to folks who AREN'T of your faith. Pick yourselves up by your big beefy bootstraps, fund your own schools, and stop looking for everyone else to give you handout, because you love Jesus.
2013-09-11 05:52:45 PM  
3 votes:

meat0918: Science is about teaching the facts.


No, science is about:

Formulating a hypothesis - an educated guess
Testing this hypothesis - any way you can, hopefully with controls.
Does the test validate the hypothesis?  If so you have a theory!  Go you!
If not, then your hypothesis won't work.  But this might have to do with your methodology in the test.  Redo the test and confirm.
Still doesn't work?  Then write a paper saying it doesn't work.
If it works, write a paper saying it works.

People read the paper.
People test your theory and analyze your methodology.
If your methodology is good and your results are reproduced, Yay you!  Your theory is confirmed!
If not, then maybe what you did wasn't so hot.  Go re-evaluate your experiment and data.  Abandon ideas that you can't defend or at least put them on hold to be tested later with better data and methods.

Science /class/ should be about the above.  And teaching facts.  Too much of science education is about memorizing facts, IMO.

Science is a way of looking at the world more than anything.  A hunter with a spear and loincloth in the bush is more of a scientist than anyone at the Discovery Institute.  Which really doesn't discover things.

As opposed to ... religion.  Which is this:

"I have a theory about the universe!  If you doubt it, you are going to Hell!"
2013-09-11 05:38:49 PM  
3 votes:

hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.

Macroevolution is a theory based on microevolution with no hard facts or evidence.

Based on that I guess we can't teach macroevolution (dumbed down to evolution in most highschools) as a creation theory either.

For the record I do believe in macroevolution as the most logically theory, but there is no empirical evidence supporting it.


Um, yeah, there is.  There's the fossil record where, for instance, we can see land animals evolve into whales.
2013-09-11 05:17:33 PM  
3 votes:
They need to just admit that their entire belief system is founded on brainwashing children before they're mature enough to think for themselves. This is no secret. Everyone 'outside the compound' sees it. It's why kids are constantly targeted for religious exposure via books, events, activities, etc. About ten times the rate of adults. I'd put money on it.

I think the sad part is these people really believe they're doing harm to the child by not forcing Jesus down their throats every chance they get. Like Jesus is a magic vitamin.

//Imagine a world where religious influence of a minor was illegal.
2013-09-11 04:58:45 PM  
3 votes:
i105.photobucket.com
2013-09-11 03:42:05 PM  
3 votes:
If this goes thru I want them to include ancient Egyptian and Norse pagan creationist beliefs in textbooks as well.
2013-09-11 03:13:32 PM  
3 votes:
Superstitious, prancing stone age savages. And where Texas goes in education textbooks, so goes the nation.

We'd be better off letting australopithecus dictate our core curriculum. At least kids would learn some practical things about nuts and berries and shiat.
2013-09-11 05:18:28 PM  
2 votes:

hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!


Was it a science textbook? Then it did you a great disservice by putting those ideas on equal footing. The whole farking point of science is to determine what explanation objective evidence supports, not to "choose whatever you want to believe".
2013-09-11 04:56:33 PM  
2 votes:
Fundies don't like evolution because, among other reasons, it does away with the Fall in the Garden of Eden, and therefore the need for redemption, thus making the sacrifice on the Cross completely unnecessary, and invalidating the entire Bible as worthless superstition. And it pretty much takes God out of the picture.

I readily concede this argument to them. In fact, that's where I say "I'm glad we agree on this crucial point. Cocktail?"
2013-09-11 04:55:47 PM  
2 votes:

LordJiro: Of course, we should also teach homeopathy and chiropractic in med school, alchemy in chemistry, flat-Earth in geology, Holocaust denial in history...

Or, alternatively, fire these retarded farkwits. People who do not know what science is should be completely disqualified from deciding what to teach our children.


I think they should just be barred from receiving any medical care based on techniques developed after 1859.
2013-09-11 04:53:48 PM  
2 votes:
Creationism is not science, therefore it doesn't belong in a science book or class.  How hard is that to understand?  Titian's use of the color red in his painting is interesting to know, but that doesn't mean it belongs in a Biology class either.
2013-09-11 04:43:42 PM  
2 votes:
There are very, very few people I genuinely hate - but these reviewers and their perverse determination to warp the minds of other people's children are some of them.

I detest everything they stand for.
2013-09-11 04:37:08 PM  
2 votes:
The real joke is that the Creationists are also firm believers in social Darwinism.
2013-09-11 04:03:12 PM  
2 votes:

EvilEgg: netizencain: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?

As long as they stay in Texas they're golden

Not the issue.... Texas buys more books, in bulk, than any other customer.  So most school districts follow what Texas does in order to get text books cheaper.  So when it comes to textbooks, where Texas leads, the country follows.  Not everywhere, but in enough places that stories like this are far more scary than they appear.

Civilized places will reject books with such non-sense.  Or at least skip over those chapters.  I am sure that there are groups out there that would love to supply textbooks for free to school children.  But such books would be unsuitable for an education.


This country has a majority of people rejecting evolution and instead embracing some form of creationism, so it's not a safe bet.

Thankfully, any book with this in it would be rejected out of hand by the State of Oregon.

"Schools may teach about explanations of life on earth, including religious ones (such as "creationism"), in comparative religion or social studies classes. In science class, however, they may present only genuinely scientific critiques of, or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but not religious critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology). Schools may not refuse to teach evolutionary theory in order to avoid giving offense to religion nor may they circumvent these rules by labeling as science an article of religious faith. Public schools must not teach as scientific fact or theory any religious doctrine, including "creationism," although any genuinely scientific evidence for or against any explanation of life may be taught. Just as they may neither advance nor inhibit any religious doctrine, teachers should not ridicule, for example, a student's religious explanation for life on earth."
2013-09-12 03:00:27 PM  
1 votes:

Snarcasm: Thank you FloydA for the link, I will read it once I am off this tiny phone.

I had not found the replicated research on the bacterial speciation, so I just assumed.

Sorry about impuning Mendel. It took me three readings to notice that my mistake was your correction. I blame the phone or early onset dementia. You may choose. (Or big thumbs)

The main topic for discussion was the appropriate level of theory for high school science.
I stated that little theory should be discussed and that the main emphasis should be on developing scientific methods. My thoughts are that is more useful than memorization.



I'm not at all a fan of rote memorization, but that is precisely why I feel it is so important to teach theory.  Theories are the "big ideas" that help students to make sense of the little details.  Without theory, memorization is all that's left, and in my experience, students only remember memorized details until the final exam, and then forget everything.  If we give them an explanatory framework upon which to place the details, they understand how all the "pieces of the puzzle" fit together, and that makes it easier for them to remember the details.  That's precisely what explanatory theory is.

Personally I am more of a modified Lamarkian.

I have generally left out personal beliefs, but you seem a rational fellow a d will not hold it against me. :)


"Modified Lamarckian" could mean any number of different things.  If you tell me what you mean by it, I'd be happy to discuss my opinion.  Lamarck was actually brilliant in a lot of ways.  He's mainly remembered for his mistakes, but even his mistakes make sense, given the neo-platonic philosophical assumptions of the 18th century.  His major mechanism turns out to be incorrect, his notion of the "topology" of phylogeny is completely wrong, and his understanding of variation was completely antithetical to the goal he set for himself, but his work was certainly a step up from Buffon's vague "hints" and Erasmus Darwin's quasi-erotic poetry.  And in some ways, some of Charles Darwin's ideas (e.g. on the mechanism of inheritance) could be considered "modified Lamarckism" too.

So I feel obligated to ask, what do you mean by "modified Lamarckian"?
2013-09-12 11:47:18 AM  
1 votes:

Snarcasm: Right now evolutionary theory is being taught as "philosophical proof of no divine being." Commentors wonder how people can even survive in the world without evolution. Can you tell me when you used it for a practical purpose?


Actually, it's being taught similar to mathematics. Do you invoke a variety of deities when you teach quadratic equations? Do you cite Allah or Jehovah or Vishnu when you teach multiplication?

Therein lies the rub: there are a LOT of faiths out there. Not all of them are even from the People of the Book. You want to teach comparative religion and origin tales across the globe, then do so in a Comparative Religion class. Science classes don't teach God, Allah, Jehovah, Amaterasu, Burkhan, Dohitt, El, Coyote, Olorun, Glooscap, Nun, Olelbis, Taikomol, Izanagi, Jumala, Lodur, Gitchi Manito, Unkulunkulu, Wisagatcak, Yoskeha or Yu-Huang, because oddly enough, not everyone subscribes to all these Creators.

You want to teach about a Creator? Then in order to NOT endorse one faith, you'd best crack open a BUNCH of books then, because Keri, Khnemu, and Ahsonutli, Brahama, Raven and Tepeu all have their subscribers as well as Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh....

It's not that science denies God, though in fact there are a lot of scientists who deny particular origins because there is no proof that the world congealed from Niflheim nor that the Universe and all was laid out in six days, but rather, science looks at what is, and lets the faithful tend to their own knitting on matters of spirituality. The problem lies, when folks of faith DEMAND that their faith be taught over everyone elses'. And that is really what this is about: folks who want their faith subsidized and taught, and screw anyone else who happens to NOT be of their faith. Which is sort of why we have that pesky freedom of religion. If your faith demands that you be an asshat, then that is on your head, not the rest of the community...
2013-09-11 11:14:17 PM  
1 votes:
hubiestubert: words

Yeah, I'm familiar with the Wedge Document.  Hell, I've even printed it out and given it to various fundie family members, with a post-it note that had the reminder on it about bearing false witness.  Nobody ever remembers receiving it.
2013-09-11 08:11:35 PM  
1 votes:
And this is why school texts book selection needs federal over sight  and veto power to keep yahoos like these from forcing quasi religious junk science,
2013-09-11 07:09:59 PM  
1 votes:

hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.



Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

These articles have been on the web for 20 years.  For two decades, the information you requested has been available through a simple web search.  That is very likely longer than some of the people participating in this thread have been alive.

Now that information has been handed to you on a silver platter; all you need to do is click those links.  After now, you may never again make the claim that there is no evidence of macroevolution.  Please be sure to share this information with anyone else who requests it.

Glad I could help.
2013-09-11 07:02:20 PM  
1 votes:
memecrunch.com
2013-09-11 06:54:17 PM  
1 votes:
Reason #72 that religion should be vehemently opposed and Theocrats/Christo-fascists should be belittled, ridiculed, charged with child abuse for bringing their children to a church/synagogue/other "house of God," and otherwise generally ostracized from society.
2013-09-11 06:20:05 PM  
1 votes:
I know this isn't a popular opinion but science is technically the religion of the state. It didn't start that way (maybe) but once people start looking up to the institution ( any institution for that matter) to give them the "truth", it becomes a belief system and it is very dangerous to have groups of people to believe the state is the sole bringer of truth. All scientists taken seriously by the public at large were trained in institutions approved of by the state. And if you think that " well, the state approves them to protect poor fools from snake oil salesmen." I'd remind you of how the drug war started, for our protection.
2013-09-11 06:02:24 PM  
1 votes:
2013-09-11 05:47:56 PM  
1 votes:

Ned Stark: hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.

Macroevolution is a theory based on microevolution with no hard facts or evidence.

Based on that I guess we can't teach macroevolution (dumbed down to evolution in most highschools) as a creation theory either.

For the record I do believe in macroevolution as the most logically theory, but there is no empirical evidence supporting it.

Observed speciation events.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


No no no you silly fool, he's talking about macroevolution, not speciation.. Completely different things.

/yes I've seen creatards say this.
2013-09-11 05:46:28 PM  
1 votes:

hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.

Macroevolution is a theory based on microevolution with no hard facts or evidence.

Based on that I guess we can't teach macroevolution (dumbed down to evolution in most highschools) as a creation theory either.

For the record I do believe in macroevolution as the most logically theory, but there is no empirical evidence supporting it.


Observed speciation events.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
2013-09-11 05:45:42 PM  
1 votes:

hailin: rustypouch: hailin: My textbook had creationsim, but it was more of a "some people believe there was a supernatural being (God) that created earth, some think it was extraterrestrial (aliens implanted us here), and some believe it was evolution. Choose whatever you want to believe. Moving on." If it is like that I don't see what the big controversey is all about. Offering a multitude of choices and letting the students actually think for themselves! What a novel concept!

Facts and evidence don't work that way. This isn't about opinion.

It's about the best explanation we have that fits with the evidence we have. Not saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right."

Do we let the students think for themselves regarding the cause of disease? Do we let them decide between germ theory, an imbalance of the humours, or misaligned chakras?

Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.

Macroevolution is a theory based on microevolution with no hard facts or evidence.

Based on that I guess we can't teach macroevolution (dumbed down to evolution in most highschools) as a creation theory either.

For the record I do believe in macroevolution as the most logically theory, but there is no empirical evidence supporting it.


Well, here's a new species that evolved entirely in the lab:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evol ut ionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

If you want evidence for evolution, here's a good place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/

As for other explanations regarding the origin and diversity of life, name one that has *any* evidence to support it.
2013-09-11 05:39:45 PM  
1 votes:

hailin: Oh please. Show me the hard fact data on macroevolution of any species turning into a new species. Go on.


It's happening all around you, every time an organism reproduces. Problem is, you aren't going to live the half-million years it takes to see all the little changes add up.
2013-09-11 05:34:59 PM  
1 votes:
Can we just let Texas go? To hell with the cool places; losing those will be an unfortunate side effect, but we really shouldn't continue holding on to Texas.
2013-09-11 05:32:14 PM  
1 votes:
Gotta love Fundamentalist Christians.  They get to legislate religious training into the public education system, and they get a ham-fisted attempt at religious indoctrination that just maybe might help their flagging church attendance.  And all at the low, low price of reducing the quality of education and a lesser quality of life of their states' children.

Yay religion!

/Because bearing false witness is OK if it gets you Jesus points
//and more pennies in the pie tins
2013-09-11 05:29:28 PM  
1 votes:

Galius_Persnickety: 'Only a theory'

As opposed to what?


Back in the day things that were proven and thought to be immutable were referred to as "laws." So we get Newton's 3 Laws of Motion, the Laws of Thermodynamics etc. Considering what has been discovered since then, scientists stopped calling things laws as previous laws haven't exactly proven to be immutable.

/Damn you Quantum Physics!
2013-09-11 05:26:15 PM  
1 votes:
New England and California, could you kindly get off your fat asses and form a single textbook-approval consortium, so that Texas will stop mattering to national education?
2013-09-11 05:24:37 PM  
1 votes:

exick: "I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory," wrote Beathard

Well, at least your last name rhymes with an apt description of you.


She should be fired from her job if there is any science involved in her department Department of Nutrition and Food Science.
2013-09-11 05:23:37 PM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: If this goes thru I want them to include ancient Egyptian and Norse pagan creationist beliefs in textbooks as well.


And Greek. And Persian. And Hindu. And Shinto. And all the African animist religions. And Sioux. And Shawneee. And Apache. And Zuni. And Hopi. And Pueblo. And Mohawk. And Cherokee. And...
2013-09-11 05:16:58 PM  
1 votes:

MrLint: Dear Texas, you seem to be doing your damnedest in your attempt to aggressively not grasp what "Science" means.


That's the core of the problem - it's self perpetuating.  They don't understand science therefore they don't understand science.
2013-09-11 05:15:27 PM  
1 votes:

gilgigamesh: Superstitious, prancing stone age savages. And where Texas goes in education textbooks, so goes the nation.

We'd be better off letting australopithecus dictate our core curriculum. At least kids would learn some practical things about nuts and berries and shiat.


Nah, I hear that  australopithecus would have been sick of us. Debating how we're here, they're catching deer (we're catching viruses).
2013-09-11 05:12:49 PM  
1 votes:
i43.tinypic.com

/oblig
2013-09-11 05:08:36 PM  
1 votes:
I'll be real honest a moment.

This whole damn thing really depresses me, even though the law is very clearly on the side of science.

That we still have to debate this issue every freaking month it seems; when the evidence is so goddamn overwhelming regarding the fact that life evolved it may as well be the air you breath, the sun in the sky, and the ground beneath your feet.

I think I'll post funny pictures now

i457.photobucket.com

i457.photobucket.com
i457.photobucket.com
2013-09-11 05:05:42 PM  
1 votes:
Keep it up, assholes, and we're going to get our own tag.
2013-09-11 04:58:23 PM  
1 votes:
"I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory,"

You really ought to educate yourself on what the term theory means in a scientific context:

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.

"As an educator, parent, and grandparent, I feel very firmly that 'creation science' based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption."

I agree - Creation Science should absolutely be discussed in the textbooks to ensure that the students get all the facts.  Here's a good starting point:

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.  The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.
2013-09-11 04:57:30 PM  
1 votes:
To anyone with netflix, go see 'the revisionaries'.  It plods a little but really shows how Texas is responsible for editing textbooks for the rest of the nation.  It also shows some of the troglodyte personalties involved in the process pushing this country towards a theocracy, or alternative, being supressed by non-christians.
2013-09-11 04:57:24 PM  
1 votes:
Check out The Revisionaries if you want to see the end goal, it's on netflix . A lot of textbooks are used nationwide and Texas has a lot of pull with the publishers because of their large population. A couple of creationists in Texas may result in creationism appearing in textbooks across the country.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_revisionaries_2012/
2013-09-11 04:55:10 PM  
1 votes:

LordJiro: alchemy in chemistry


images3.wikia.nocookie.net
2013-09-11 04:37:42 PM  
1 votes:
America, this is why the rest of the world points and laughs at you.
2013-09-11 04:35:08 PM  
1 votes:
PS:

Dear Texas,

THIS is why you don't deserve to have a Space Shuttle.
2013-09-11 03:47:13 PM  
1 votes:
http://nfs.tamu.edu/facultystaff/faculty/beathard-karen/

She teaches a class called "Food Service Mgmt "; hence she's a perfect panelist to debate evolution.
2013-09-11 03:41:01 PM  
1 votes:
Or, as an alternative--hear me out, here--you can go fark yourself.
2013-09-11 03:40:36 PM  
1 votes:

ManateeGag: how are these children going to exist in the real world?


Apparently they get jobs at Texas A&M

Panelist Karen Beathard, who works in the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at Texas A&M University, critiqued the lack of creationism reflected in the textbooks.
2013-09-11 02:58:29 PM  
1 votes:
how are these children going to exist in the real world?
2013-09-11 02:53:11 PM  
1 votes:
"I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, [evolution] is a theory," wrote Beathard

Well, at least your last name rhymes with an apt description of you.
 
Displayed 57 of 57 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report