Texas School Board Invites Critique of Scientific Theories

By The Christian Post on March 30th, 2009

imagesbannerscp_120x1201Reprinted by permission of the Christian Post

By Audrey Barrick
Christian Post Reporter
Sat, Mar. 28 2009 04:10 PM EDT

In a final vote, the Texas Board of Education approved on Friday new language that requires science teachers to encourage students to “critique” and examine “all sides” of scientific theories.

In adopting the new science standards, the board dropped a 20-year requirement that teachers address both the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories. The vote was 13-2.

The new curriculum will be in place for the next decade.

“Texas now has the most progressive science standards on evolution in the entire nation,” said Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank, in a statement. “Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned.”

(Credit: Pearson Scott Foresman)

(Credit: Pearson Scott Foresman)

Although critics of evolution praised the move, it wasn’t a total victory for them.

The Board rejected two amendments that were written by Chairman Don McLeroy. They required students to study the “sufficiency or insufficiency” of common ancestry and natural selection of species, according to The Dallas Morning News.

“Science loses. Texas loses, and the kids lose because of this,” said a disappointed McLeroy, as reported by the Dallas publication. McLeroy believes many aspects of Charles Darwin’s theory are not supported by fossil records.

Pro-evolutionists were pleased with the decision to drop McLeroy’s proposals. However, some questioned the board for adopting compromise language in the areas of fossil records and the complexity of the cell. New language also requires students to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning those two areas.

“Through a series of contradictory and convoluted amendments, the board crafted a road map that creationists will use to pressure publishers into putting phony arguments attacking established science into textbooks,” said Kathy Miller, president of the watchdog group Texas Freedom Network, according to the Associated Press.

The newly adopted standard states: “In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”

Board member Barbara Cargill, however, said the new standards were “more clear in the language and using words that aren’t seen as code words” that helped convince the board to “agree that this is how we’ll teach all sides of scientific explanation, using scientific evidence,” as reported by AP.

Discovery Institute’s West also responded to the concerns by pro-evolutionists, assuring them that the new curriculum does not open the door to teaching religion.

“Contrary to the claims of the evolution lobby, absolutely nothing the Board did promotes ‘creationism’ or religion in the classroom. Groups that assert otherwise are lying, plain and simple. Under the new standards, students will be expected to analyze and evaluate the scientific evidence for evolution, not religion. Period.”

The new science curriculum standards will take effect with the 2010-2011 school year. Texas is one of the largest textbook purchasers in the nation and thus has significant influence nationwide as publishers adapt their material to its standards.

Copyright 2009 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: News
Tags: , , , ,

  • bobxxxx
    Believing in magical creation is as insane and childish as believing in a flat earth. All creationists are idiots and a disgrace to the human race.

    Don McLeroy, the chairman of the Texas Board of Education, and John West of the Christian creationist Discovery Institute, are scientifically illiterate retards who are trying to destroy science education in America. They're no better than terrorists and if it was up to me they would be put in prison for treason.
  • Creationists don't believe in "magical" creation. They believe this highly-complex universe which operates according to specific scientific laws was created by an intelligent designer.

    Do you believe the computer you're sitting at right now is the product of millions of years of miscellaneous parts that formed out of nothing and eventually organized themselves into a functional device? That would be silly wouldn't it?

    People who don't believe in the silly anti-science positions of "something from nothing" and "effect without cause" and a host of other unscientific notions one must believe in order to accept evolution theory are "terrorists"? They're the same as those guys who flew airplanes into the WTC?

    You truly are delusional, bobxxxx. Perhaps even dangerous yourself, if you genuinely believe that someone who doesn't accept unscientific ideas that are flatly impossible within the framework of materialism/naturalism/evolution should be imprisoned (for treason against what I'm still left wondering).

    Thanks for making every creationist out there look 30 IQ points smarter.
  • bobxxxx
    "Creationists don't believe in "magical" creation. They believe this highly-complex universe which operates according to specific scientific laws was created by an intelligent designer."

    You're full of it mister. "Intelligent design" are just fancy words for magically created. If you deny this then you're not just stupid. You're a liar. You should be ashamed of yourself. It's bad enough you have a childish belief in supernatural magic. Pretending it's something different from magic just makes you look more stupid and very dishonest.

    The treason I was talking about are the never ending attempts by morons like yourself to dumb down America's science education. You Christian retards are causing more damage to the future of this country than the 9/11 terrorists.
  • I think we already established which side (at least in your case) has greater credibility...and the case is only getting stronger with your subsequent appearance here.

    You apparently have not taken the time or opened your mind just a crack to consider the logic, reason, and scientific viability of creation or intelligent design evidence and arguments. If you did, you might be surprised...but then, you might also have to abandon some pretty comfortable presuppositions you've been holding for quite a long time.

    You've probably conveniently forgotten (or perhaps never knew) that many of the great scientists to whom we owe our modern understanding of the universe were in fact believers in creation. People such as Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Sir Francis Bacon (who developed the Scientific Method), George Washington Carver, Robert Boyle, Joseph Lister, Lord Kelvin William Thomas, Gregor Mendel, Johannes Kepler, Samuel Morse, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Leonardo da Vinci, and many more. If belief in an intelligent designer is "stupid," I'm still in pretty good company.

    It is rather dogmatic adherents to the religion of materialism/naturalism/evolution who are dumbing down education in America. They are so insecure about their own religion (perhaps they know how thin the evidence is, and how illogical and inconsistent many of its tenets are) that they can tolerate absolutely no dissent whatsoever; the slightest challenge to the thin veneer of their worldview could tear apart the whole thing.

    Rather than welcome an atmosphere of scientific curiosity and rigorous debate, they seek to control the venue and dominate the field, quashing any expression that might expose their weakness.

    As the impressive list of scientific achievers above illustrates, belief in an intelligent designer obviously isn't holding back scientific and educational advancement. But the intellectual Bolshevism of many materialists/naturalists/evolutionists quite obviously is.
  • Brett Allen
    You can't discuss scientific design without a scientific description of the designer. Until aliens or God are scientific provable concepts then you can't claim anything about design carried out by these agents. Everything else is rationialising and cherry picking evidence which is nothing like having an open mind. Quoting people form history who think like you just puts your thinking back to those times and thus you can ignore fossils, genetics and all modern biology. Materialism sound like you shop too much. Another better word is 'real'. Science only deals with whats real it cannot deal with faith (imaginary) based constructs.
  • Brett, your comment is far more intelligent and reasoned than bobxxxx, but you're still missing quite a bit.

    God will likely never be proven--at least in the foreseeable future--because he exists for the most part outside our physical universe, and as the creator of the universe and the scientific laws that govern it, he is able to supersede those laws (just as a computer programmer is able to supersede the programming that the average application user is limited by).

    But claiming that anything outside the scope of our senses or anything "unproven" is unprovable and should therefore be ignored denies both the reality of scientific curiosity and the history of scientific inquiry.

    You also dismiss the great scientists who believed in an intelligent designer far too quickly (perhaps it's easier to cling to a bad theory, that way). The reality of fossils, genetics and biology have no bearing whatsoever on what those scientists or other scientists believe.

    No one disagrees about the real fact of fossils, genetics, biology, etc. What people DO disagree about is the interpretation of how those things came to be as we see them. And the materialist/naturalist/evolutionist has no more proof than does the creationist/ID adherent.

    Your statement that "Science only deals with whats real it cannot deal with faith (imaginary) based constructs" is inaccurate and disingenuous. The reality of an existing fossil is undeniable; when that fossil was buried and the circumstances of that burial are uncertain, unverifiable, and based on faith--even for evolutionists. There is no verifiable documentary record concerning these things, so they....guess, based on faith that their guess is correct.

    By the way, "materialism" is essentially the belief that matter is the only thing that can truly be proven. It is an essential doctrine (not fact) that the universe came to exist through entirely naturalistic causes, with no supernatural causation or influence.
  • Steven Riley
    Bob,

    The sign of true inteliigent design is simplicity, not complexity. Human designers of the computer try to make it simpler. Jet propulsion engineers try to make power sources with fewer moveable parts. An all-knowing Inteliigent Designer of the universe would find it quite easy to make the human cell simple, but still achieve its goals and function.The idea that such a powerful, intellectual designer would make things complex is absurd. Man has chosen to use the phrase Intellidgent Designer so man must admit that real intelligence seeks to simplify. If you want to use a descriptive word, just use God if you want to invoke the supernatural in design

    Steven
  • Show me a federal program that's simple and not complex--these are ostensibly "intelligently designed" programs.

    Is the tax code simple?

    Is a computer server simple?

    Is the space shuttle simple?

    Simplicity is not necessarily a sign of intelligent design, especially when the term is relative. If intelligently designed life should be so simple, why have humans not even been able to make the first microscopic step toward creating life?

    And even supposing humans were able to create life, can you imagine how much more incredibly complicated our effort might be than Gods?

    Consider flight. Birds have been doing it for thousands of years, quite effortlessly. Meanwhile, the notion of flying captivated humans for thousands of years without success. And even when we succeeded, now much more complicated is even a simple biplane or Piper aircraft than one of God's birds?

    On the other hand complexity is not proof of an intelligent designer...but it's pretty darn compelling evidence for the position--especially when considering the scale of complexity of even a simple cell.
  • Steven Riley
    The tax code is not simple, the computer is not simple and the space shuttle is not simple. But the sign of a really good, smart designer is simplicity. Thats what they stive for.Bill Gates would love to make a computer program simple and still effective.If he had a choice to make a computer complex or simple, he would opt for simplicity as does any good designer.A car engine with 3 moveable parts would be preferable to one with 1000 moveable parts, but man cant due it yet. but a designer of the magnitude you are giving your designer DOES have the intelligence and power to make things simple. What i am saying is that we STRIVE for simple design on earth and the man who comes up with a simple design for a computer will be considered intelligent. But then we call the supernatural designer intelligent if it makes something complex. It is a contradiction. We consider man intelligent if he can simplify and still achieve function and a supernatural being intelligent if it makes things complex.. Steven
  • Steven Riley
    Let me try to simplify(sorry about the pun). Lets say you have two supernatural designers. One makes a very complex human cell and the other makes a very simple cell. Both achieve the same goals because this designer is all powerful and can do this.The complex cell, like we have now, makes replication errors, breaks down and can even turn cancerous. The other designer makes a simple cell that doesnt make errors. As humans, which one would we consider the more intelligent?We would marvel at the simple cell (and its designers intelligence) that still achieves what the complex cell does with less errors. Complexity is a poor argument for design intelligence
    Brian
  • I think you're making the assumption in your scenario that the complexity is a factor in the cause for the errors. But that isn't necessarily the case.

    And in the case of the creation worldview, there is an explanation for the errors, etc. we see in creation: The Fall.

    The Bible says that God put creation under the dominion of humans; it was under their control and under their sphere of delegated authority. When Adam and Even chose their way over God's way (and in doing so brought the curse of sin into the world), they became fallen, broken creatures. And with creation under the dominion of humanity, that curse, that degradation from the perfection God originally created, extended to creation. It is all now fallen, broken, error-prone and subject to degradation and eventual death.

    The original design is not flawed, any more than a brand new and perfectly functioning PC you get off the shelf is flawed. But if you pour Pepsi into the CPU, then you have a problem. Or if you foul up the programming by injecting a virus or other erroneous code into the operating system registry or the BIOS. The flawed state of the machine is not the fault of the designer, but the one who messed it up. The original design was as simple as the designer could make it and still achieve the desired functionality, and it worked correctly...until someone mucked it up and treated in a manner the designer never intended. :-)
  • Steven Riley
    Bob,

    You got me on the ' mucked it up ' comment. I am not particularly religious, but that made all my arguments evaporate. Humor is a wonderful defuser ! Still laughing.
  • Thanks, Steven. I'm smiling at your response and glad I could provide a good laugh--and hopefully facilitate understanding in the process.

    Have a great day! :-)
  • And as I said, "simplicity" is relative. Perhaps what we see in the universe is as "simple" as it can be and still maintain the flexibility and functionality God wanted it to have.

    It is not a contradiction to consider the complexity of the universe (or the genetic code, or a single cell for that matter) strong evidence for an intelligent designer...any more than it is a contradiction to see intelligent design in a watch while not seeing it in a random pile of chunks of iron ore.

    Again, it is quite likely that God made things as simply and efficient as possible...while allowing for the functionality and complexity he wanted. What looks complicated to us (as cooking a meal or changing the oil in a car may look complicated to a 4-year old) is probably pretty simple for God.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »