In the teaching of our children, we need to avoid indoctrination tactics within the classroom. The scientific approach to learning should be to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of any position. Respond to our poll and let us know what you think. Should both the strengths and the weaknesses be taught when teaching evolution?
From the THE CARGILL CONNECTION, March 2009
It is critical that we continue to hear from parents, students, teachers, and other stakeholders about how science is taught in our state.
You may e-mail the Board at sboeteks@tea.state.tx.us. For your information, this is the January vote tally concerning TEKS 3A.
The final vote is March 27th.
These State Board members voted FOR retaining the "strengths and weaknesses" language:David Bradley (Republican)Barbara Cargill (Republican)Cynthia Dunbar(Republican)Terri Leo (Republican)Gail Lowe (Republican)Ken Mercer (Republican)Don McLeroy (Republican)
These State Board members voted AGAINST retaining the "strengths and weaknesses" language:Bob Craig (Republican)Pat Hardy (Republican)Tincy Miller (Republican)Rick Agosto (Democrat)Lawrence Allen (Democrat)Mary Helen Berlanga (Democrat)Mavis Knight (Democrat) (Rene Nunez [Democrat] was not present for the vote.)
Another way for you to take action is to testify before the Board.
A six-hour public hearing is scheduled to begin at noon on Wednesday, March 25th in the William B. Travis Building in Austin. Testifiers are given three minutes; if you were at the January meeting and did not have a turn due to time constraints, you will be scheduled at the top of the list.
Please sign up by calling TEA early on Friday, March 20th. The number is 512-463-9007.
From The Texas State Republican Executive Committee (SREC)
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING RIGOROUS EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS FOR SCIENCE IN TEXAS
WHEREAS, The State Board of Education is charged with oversight of the publiceducation system of Texas in accordance with the Texas Education Code;
WHEREAS, For twenty years, the State Board of Education has promulgated a science standard mandating the teaching of the “strengths and weaknesses” of all scientific theories and hypotheses in the curriculum;
WHEREAS, the long-standing “strengths and weaknesses” standard has recently come under attack by Darwinists as unscientific;
WHEREAS, Even Charles Darwin endorsed a “strengths and weaknesses” standard for evaluating theories, stating, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts on both sides of each question....” Darwin, C., Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life; therefore
RESOLVED, The Republican Party of Texas, consistent with the 2008 State Republican Platform, opposes abandonment of the longstanding “strengths and weaknesses” science standard and calls upon the Republican members of the State Board of Education to support the retention of the “strengths and weaknesses” standard in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be delivered to each Republican member of the State Board of Education. Adopted by the Republican Party of Texas this 7th day of March, 2009.
I think it is a shame that we are stripping objectivity out of science. Even after all this time, the Theory of Relativity still receives scrutiny. Physicists are constantly checking to see if the theory holds up. Why should the theory of evolution be different? To not discuss the weaknesses of a theory is to remove the scientific credibility from it.
ReplyDeleteChris, Congratulations on the blog. I participated in the POLL but I think it should have at least one more category, "Only the weaknesses and corrupion of Evolution should be presented". Also I always urge people to use the full and correct title of Darwin's deparaved book. "On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life."*
ReplyDeleteI think that just about sums up the value of such a depraved and humanistic theory.
We need to keep religious views in church where they belong. As a scientist and a Christian, I see no conflict between evolution and creation. Teach science and the scientific method in public school, let our churches take care of creation.
ReplyDeleteDon't teach your religion to my kids - "Intelligent Design and Creationism" are preposterous religious ideas. Evolution is not a refutable theory (in the same way that gravity or relativity are not refutable theories). I'm sure you don't want me teaching my views to your kids - so don't teach yours to mine!
ReplyDeleteThe primary 'weakness' of evolutionary theory is that it contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis. Perhaps science teachers should also explain the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of Bibical literalism as well.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, we do want our students to be critical thinkers, right?
More importantly, please keep science in the classroom and reserve religious "indoctrination" for Sunday school. Separation of church & state! Our children need preparation for the 21st century and Texas needs to become more progressive and at par with other states, especially northern states, academic excellence. The church is the place for an evolution discussion, not our schools that are paid with by taxpayer dollars! Why doesnt the state school board really do something beneficial and have mandatory recycling? What a great teaching opportunity for our children to learn green solutions that help themselves as they save the planet. Texas needs to stop falling behind the times! It's 2009!
ReplyDeleteThere is no debate about evolution within the scientific community. The 'debate," such as it is, is wholly manufactured by creationists seeking to add religious indoctrination to the public school curriculum. I want my kids to be scientifically literate when they enter the work force. My church and I will see to their religious education, thank you.
ReplyDeleteYes rpackrat1, you are right on ... the creationists are out of touch, clinging to an agenda that is passe, and irrelevant for today's students and especially with what we need to be educating our kids about in science IN SCHOOL...it is a thinly veiled attempt to promote a Christian agenda, based on religious dogma and "indoctrinate" students to Christianity and its principles, instead of hard science. Critical thinkers are sick of this arrogance and CHANGE has come to the USA, and it is now time for Texas to turn the page on these ways of old that have not served our students well and embrace a future of scientific discovery. This was the same camp that denied global warming was even an issue until a year ago! REALLY???? Give me a break and leave my child's mind free from religious dogma ...church and home is the appropriate venue for these teaching moments.
ReplyDeleteStrengths and weaknesses of any scientific theory should be discussed in school, as long as any competing ideas can be proven scientifically. If this whole post is just to try to get Intelligent Design, a non-scientific, unproven belief, in the classroom, then this whole "strengths and weaknesses" concept is an attempt to deceive and you should be ashamed. I look forward to my children learning about science and religion in their respective classes separately, but I will pull them out of any science class that tries to put beliefs ahead of facts. I would appreciate it if you don't force me to do that.
ReplyDeleteScience is actually History. It is the study of the past as it is discovered, and the use of what is discovered to help understand the future.
ReplyDeleteI have traveled extensively with the military and have served in 2 combat zones. In both of them, I saw people killing people with religion involved.
So how does that pertain to what some on the TEC are trying to do?
First:
Religion or no religion is a private choice. This country was founded on religious freedom, BUT………….
We forced our beliefs on the Indians and killed those who did not conform.
Now that I think about it that happened when the Conquistadors came to the Americas.
Gee, let me think, The Crusades.
So somewhere in there, the leaders of this FREE Country talked about a little thing, separation of church and State.
So say we did teach what Cargill and a few others want.
Will you teach my Christian children the Quran?
Or the Jewish beliefs, or even the Atheist?
Push this through and you will unleash a flood of lawsuits.
The money meant for our kids will be tied up in litigation.
Separation will be gone along with tax exemptions for churches.
Science is already taught with theories and facts, with possible different possibilities.
What Cargill and her followers want is painfully obvious and not well thought out.
I suggest she and her followers use her freedom of religion to enroll their children in private religious schools. I did, my daughter is going to Baylor.
If you try to teach your beliefs to my other daughter in a publicly funded school, I’ll file the first suit.
It is my job, not the government to teach our religious and moral values to my children. In countries we condemn the government forces children to belief the way the government wants them to believe.
Think long and hard.
This is NOT about promoting "creationism", "intelligent design" or religion. Nothing here does that. In Texas, ALL scientific theories are to be covered even-handedly -- both strengths AND weaknesses. Evolution is just a theory -- like relativity. It may be right. It may not. Relativity is being pushed, prodded, stretched, and tested in physics all the time. Why does evolution need to be protected from the same scientific examination? If it holds up...fine. If not, we'll figure out a better theory. That's science. Suppressing questions, doubts and shortcomings of a theory is indoctrination, not science.
ReplyDeleteAlso, to Michael Donnelly... I just read your profile. Thanks for your service.
ReplyDeleteI second Ted M's post--there is nothing wrong with testing scientific theories. It is, in fact, essential to further our understanding of our world and science. But unfortunately, Chris Gober is mistaken, and this most certainly IS a front for seeping Creationism into the schools--and this whole "strengths and weaknesses" question is a SHAMEFUL attempt to mask their agenda. It's long been known that certain members of the board, especially CISD, have been trying to get I.D. in the classrooms.
ReplyDeleteWell, Chris Irish, thank you for the link to the TEA board. Here's what I wrote to them:
As a parent of a pre-schooled aged child in Conroe ISD, and a school nurse for Houston ISD for 11 years, I am absolutely appalled at the idea of creationism, or the “weakness of evolution” being brought into our science classrooms. I have never before considered private school for my daughter, but if this change takes place, she will certainly NOT be attended the Texas Public School System. This is absolutely unacceptable and a sad indication of what is happening to our public schools. Even the consideration of such a measure makes it terribly embarrassing to be a Texan.
I wonder about the constitutionality of such a proposition.
ReplyDeleteIs the school board prepared to teach ALL creationism theories? I think it's telling that the board is considering challenging the theory of Evolution with the "theory" of Creationism as if there are only two sides to the coin. If we are going to discuss strengths and weaknesses, are we prepared to extend that argument to the strengths and weaknesses of Creationism as a religious theory (because it certainly is NOT a scientific theory)? Are we prepared to contrast the theory of Creationism with all of the other creation stories? Brahma emerging from a giant lotus flower that spontaneously appeared from Vishnu's navel as he floated on a giant cobra is just as plausible and scientific as some egocentric omnipotent deity building things with mud in a mythical garden. Are we prepared to REALLY offer alternate possibilities to our children? ALL the alternate possibilities?
If we are only interested in sharing this ONE alternate view then certainly this has more to do with a Christian agenda of indoctrination and less to do with "strengths and weaknesses". So lets be honest and call a spade a spade.
Keep religious indoctrination out of the classroom and leave that up to individual families and their places of worship. Last I hear, parents still had free will to challenge evolutionary theory all they want on their own time and in their own ways.
I actually think the public schools have been too sanitized of the discussion of religion. There is nothing wrong with objective, scholarly classes about the role of religion in history. That is where the discussion of creationism belongs, not in a science class.
ReplyDeleteMy God is big enough and powerful and smart enough to have given his people an allegorical story for Genesis that his then non-scientific believers could understand and learn the underlying truth that God is the creator of all. The fact that Genesis may be allegorical, and not literally true, does NOTHING to damage its message. Rather it actually helps to prove to me the genius of my God, as it displays his ability to reach his people wherever and however they are found at the moment. Does the story of the Prodigal Son have less power because it was a parable (i.e., an allegory)? I think not.
My God is powerful enough to have used evolution as his actual tool of creation. The constant nagging of the ignorant mobs of Creationists that still say Evolution is evil must have a much smaller God than I have. They are trapped in their literalism and kept their God trapped with them. My God can do it however he wants. And of this discussion by me is stated to make the point that is a religious discussion, NOT SCIENCE.
I support the repeal of this backwards law that mandates the teaching of a religious belief as if it is science. Creationism is religion dressed up to look like science - and apparently dressed by its Mother, because it is dressed up rather poorly.
Bravo, so many excellent points AGAINST teaching creationism as science in our schools...the poll is with us too. Let's see if the Texas School Board IGNORES, as they have so often in the past done, at the expense of the wishes of the taxpayers, teachers, & school administrations. Dont they understand that they work for us? Their jobs are not guaranteed by any means! I dont think the public will tolerate this blatant disregard for the rights of students to be free from religious bigotry and arrogance at school! Separation of church & state....uphold the constitution and stop relegating our Texas students to second class science education embarrassments AND keep science in Texas free of the religious rights' agenda !!!!
ReplyDeleteOne other point - Evolution does not address how life was created, but only how it evolved. My own religious belief is that both the creation and the evolution of species had a Divine guiding hand behind them. But, again, that is a religious belief that does not belong in a science curriculum.
ReplyDeleteI am somewhat confused about how this whole thing became focused on "Stop trying to teach creationism in schools". The resolution itself exists because Darwinists have attacked the "strengths and weaknesses" standard as unscientific. But the very nature of the scientific process is to question. There are scientists who even question things that we consider natural laws (some study antigravity for instance).
ReplyDeleteThe idea that relativity and evolution (and by that I mean transistions from one species to another) are irrefutable just doesn't make sense. If the scientific community considered then irrefutable we would be talking about the Law of Relativity and the Law of Evolution. But they are still termed theories which exist to be questioned until proven irrefutably.
When you stop considering the weaknesses of a position then the position itself becomes dogma (in this case, essentially the Religion of Evolution).
Taking the link down was a moot point. It has already gone out to the board, email list, and the media.
ReplyDeleteIf your afraid to let all the facts out. Then maybe you shouldn't be where you are.
Transparency is essential, as legitimate rulings cannot be made without all the facts. Isn't that what this blog is about? Makes you look like you have your agenda and not that of the people you are supposed to represent.
People are really getting tired of secrecy in government.
How about it Mr. Irish?
I am a graduate of Oak Ridge High School and didn't know anything about "intelligent design" until about a year ago when my husband and I got into a discussion about it. He is a graduate of Katy High School and likewise knew nothing about it until after graduation.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes me so bitter and angry about the whole thing is why is it that our school system has taken so much care and precautions to hide from us any weaknesses that may be present in the Evolution Theory? I thought the purpose of school was to create individuals who can think for themselves. If so then we should be teaching them the scientific processes so they can show evidences that support or do not support the theories. If the findings support the theory then GREAT, if not, then what? Do you hide it or give the student an F?
People are becoming so livid about the "indoctrination of their children" by so-called religious fundants. Well I'm angry no one bothered to trust me with my own education! At least at the high school, and surely at the college level, I was mature enough to make my own rational decisions pertaining to my education. I was an honor student in all AP classes. I was ready and willing to learn.
We should be giving the students the freedom to explore and learn for themselves. If there are weaknesses, then the students deserve to know what those weaknesses are.
The only people who are questioning evolution and saying it is no more than a mere "theory" are creationists. I do not want my children being taught religious dogma and since there are SO MANY fundamentalist Christians ALSO teaching...it is a sneaky way for them to have been given the nod to talk about THEIR religion in a tax payer funded school system. Their agenda is so obvious. THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
ReplyDeleteIt is the same group that believe we've only been around for 1200 years, no global warming exists and that we should teach abstinance (even Sarah Palin's daughter says this isnt "realistic") to our kids instead of the responsibility both boys and girls have in the context of a age-appropriate discussion of sex education. Since republicans have become the party of "NO"...just say "NO" to ignorance, manipulation and irrelevance! Keep religion where it belongs, in the churches and in homes, parents teaching children NOT IN THE SCHOOL
But evolution IS a theory -- not because "creationists" say it is, but because it has not been proven. That's how science works. A hypothesis becomes a theory. If it can be proven, it becomes a law.
ReplyDeleteWanting it to be scientific law does not make it scientific law. In fact, refusing to see the weaknesses of ANY theory actually weakens the scientific advancement in that area. We NEED to identify the weaknesses of a theory (ANY theory) so the next generation of scientists (who we are teaching in public and private shcools today) can advance our knowledge by filling in the gaps of the theory.
Scientists almost never get a theory right the first time. Not for lack of intelligence or effort, but more often for lack of information. Most scientists once thought the earth was the center of the universe, until a remarkable scientist name Copernicus realized the weaknesses of that theory and forever changed the way we view the universe.
So I say... Don't protect any theory from scrutiny. TEST, EXPLORE, HYPOTHESIZE, THEORIZE, TEST AGAIN, AND ADMIT WEAKNESSES. The odds are likely that we are wrong in our understanding of science today, and we'll never know the right answer unless we are willing to put political agendas aside and be truly objective scientists.