Tag Archives: ID

Texas Rejects God in the Science Classroom

I am still being surprised by my adopted state. I have had to reject my preconceived notions about Texas and recognize that, while some stereotypes do apply, when it comes to politics and sociological views, it’s as diverse as my home state of California.

Today Texas stepped firmly into the 21st century and embraced science without religion. Although it isn’t final, the fifteen member board voted to remove the “strengths and weaknesses” clause in the state’s science curriculum as it applies to evolution. The clause has previously been used to open the door to the “alternative theory” of Intelligent Design.

The article states:

The new science curriculum standards will take effect beginning with the 2010-2011 school year and last about 10 years.

[snip]

Instead of allowing teachers to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolutionary theory, the proposed science curriculum standards would encourage students to apply critical thinking, scientific reasoning and problem solving “to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing.”

In other words, YES, question evolutionary theory. YES, look for gaps in reasoning and facts. But use facts to get there. The original wording of the “strengths and weaknesses clause” reads as follows:

(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and

(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.


Never mind that were science simply taught as science, there would BE no controversy, or that religion and philosophy have no place in a science classroom, or even that the US Senator who originally proposed the clause was a huge proponent of intelligent design and felt religion should be re-instituted into public schools. Just go ahead and teach the kids that not everyone “believes in” evolution because we need them to know God’s there, too. No. If you want your kids to know that God’s there, too, YOU teach them that. Let the science teachers teach science. It isn’t their job to remind them that they need to feel guilty for learning there’s more to the universe than was covered in the Bible/Torah/Qu’ran.

So I think it is an astounding and wonderful and courageous move by the Texas Board of Education that in the face of knee jerk reactionaries and politicians who are too afraid of not getting re-elected and the near omnipresent church (you can’t go three blocks without seeing a church in Texas), they agreed to let the kids learn how to apply logic and reason in their studies. Of course there are those who disagree:

Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, who voted to keep “strengths and weaknesses,” said he wouldn’t rubber stamp recommendations from the experts.

“This is a battle of academic freedom. This is a battle over freedom of speech,” Mercer said. “It’s an issue of freedom of religion.”

No, Mr. Mercer. It is not an issue of freedom of religion, because there IS no religion in our classrooms. It is an issue of teaching science in the classroom without fear of religion being inserted. It is an issue of teaching our children to be competitive in a global market. Because we owe them that. We owe our country that. The US is falling behind in scientific development, and the blame can be laid squarely on the shoulders of those superstitious uber religious fundamentalists who have been allowed to push their agenda in our schools and our government. No more.

Today I can honestly state that I am proud of my adopted state; happy to be a Texan.

Advertisements

And because Ben Stein gets on my ever lovin’ last nerve….

And I actually had an email argument with someone about it this morning (my god-fearing cousin), so I’m ranting.

It’s been fairly common knowledge for a while now that the movie distorts facts and sneers at any scientific theory that doesn’t have God in it, but I had no clue it would resort to Godwinizing itself.

That’s right. Ben Stein actually said that Darwin’s theory of evolution is responsible for the Holocaust. “What, the Ben Stein?” you ask, all flummoxed at the idea of an obviously intelligent individual actually making such a ridiculous assertion. Yes, I respond, the same. He’s been making silly assertions for quite a while now. The Scientific American article states:

Ben Stein acts grief-stricken and the director juxtaposes quotes from evolutionary biologists with archival newsreel clips from Hitler’s Reich

Oh, the HUMANITY!!! How can scientists ever look god in the face? If he had one. Or even existed.

The main issue with the movie is, of course, that it isn’t actually science. It’s a propaganda film for ID, and doesn’t really bother to refute any scientific evidence with scientific evidence of its own so much as it mislabels evolutionary theory (Darwinism…I guess Mendelism or an -ism on the end of any of the other half dozen better known evolutionary scientists’ names just didn’t sound as good) and scientists (Darwinists. Because, y’know…that’s all any science that adheres to verifiable fact is really about. Darwin) and attempts to paint their work as faulty for lack of a deity.

At any rate. My cousin was trilling praises to the movie in her monthly newsletter to the family. She took her daughters to see it so they could know just how science “misleads us and attempts to lead us away from our father.” I’m still not sure how, exactly, since all science really does is present facts, but she was fairly insistent that science attempts to divorce us from god.

It went rapidly downhill from there. I hit “reply all” to make sure I had everyone in my entire family on the cc line as well as hers (after all, if you’re going to start a family war, do it big, I always say…) and sent a few links showing the critical flaws in ID, the absurd flaws in Expelled, and kindly requested that she take me off her mailing list if she was going to insist on sending out patently wrong information with which she knew very well I would take issue, as I would just have to call her out in front of the entire family again.

So far only two responses. One from my brother, who accused me of timing my email to perfectly coincide with his ingestion of his morning coffee and a request for $25 for a new ergonomic keyboard, and one from my sister who called me evil. But I think she meant it in a good way.