Academia, Politics, Religion, Science, Society

Science Marches On . . . Even In Texas
Charles Darwin

Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

Last Thursday, July 21, the Texas Board of Education in an 8-0 unanimous vote opted to keep teaching evolution in high school biology classes using approved scientifically accurate textbook supplements from established mainstream publishers. They did not approve of the creationist-backed supplements from International Databases, LLC. Four times as many people showed up to testify in favor of the scientifically accurate texts as showed up to oppose them.

Although a creationist member of the Board objected to the supplement from textbook publisher Holt McDougal by releasing  a list of Holt’s supposed errors involving evolution and common descent, the Board responded by noting that the list had not been signed off on by the Board of Education’s review panel in full.  The Board went on to approve the Hold McDougal supplement, but submitted it for review by Commissioner of Education Robert Scott to look at the supposed errors and suggest changes to the Holt McDougal supplement.  Local educators and the National Center for Science Education are confident any of Director Scott’s revisions will show the current state of evolutionary biology.  In a statement released by the NCSE, NSCE Director Dr. Eugenie  Scott praised the Texas Board of Education, saying “These supplements reflect the overwhelming scientific consensus that evolution is the core of modern biology, and is a central and vital concept in any biology class. That these supplements were adopted unanimously reflects a long overdue change in the board. I commend the board for its refusal to politicize science education.”  This is squarely a victory in the battle to keep public education educational over the forces that would make public education into religious and/or political indoctrination.

Source: NCSE

~Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

222 thoughts on “Science Marches On . . . Even In Texas”

  2. Howdy kderosa! Since you apparently miss being thrashed by the Buddha, I thought I would point out what an ignorant moron you are.

    You said:

    The sad part about this whole affair is that neither side appears to know what constitutes science.

    For the record, I AM a scientist. You can check out my (scant) publication history under the name Kevin Kesseler. Gene (and the others here – except for a few other idiots like Tootie) has a very good grasp of what science is – unlike you. I’d ask you what you think constitutes science, but I’m sure that I’d just get some word salad mixed with crap, so I’ll just explain it to you. Science, the scientific method, in particular, is a way of predicting, gathering, and interpreting empirical data which has proven incredibly successful at understanding the physical universe.

    (And neither apparently does Gene “Buddha” Howington.) The school board talks about “scientific consensus.” If it were really science you wouldn’t need a consensus. And if you are relying on a consensus, then you don’t have science.

    Science DEPENDS on a consensus – that’s how the scientific method works. Someone makes a (falsifiable) hypothesis, figures out how to test it and revises it based on the results. If a test can be repeated by multiple scientists, then a consensus develops. If that consensus grows so strong that overturning it is nearly inconceivable then that hypothesis becomes a theory – like the theory of gravity. While it is possible that the theory isn’t correct in every detail (relativity, for example), it is the next best thing to impossible that Newton’s laws will be found to be incorrect regarding things in our daily experience (or anything that isn’t really heavy, really small, or moving really fast). The theory of evolution has a similar consensus (and needs similar tweaks) and a similar usefulness in describing an aspect of the physical universe, which is why it forms the backbone of biology just like Newton’s laws form the backbone of physics.

    Based on the links, the bone of contention appears to be the origins of life. And on this point the science is hardly settled.

    Abiogenesis is distinct from evolution. While there are still many gaps in our understanding of Abiogenesis, a “god of the gaps” argument is doomed to be indistinguishable from atheism as eventually the gaps converge to zero. In Evolution the gaps are already pretty much closed.

    Certainly, the theory of evolution breaks down at this level and at best we are left with a naked hypothesis.

    No, the theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life – it explains how the observed multiplicity of species came about.

    It appears that old Buddha and the school board have marched toward Lysenkoism, not science.

    Do you always use big words that you don’t understand? Why don’t you explain how “old Buddha and the school board have marched toward Lysenkoism, not science”? – I’ll bet you can’t do it.

    (Which doesn’t make the intelligent designers right either by the way.)

    The cintelligent designists are both demonstrably wrong (see Kitzmiller v. board of education) and not scientists. They have no falsifiable hypotheses, so they are incapable of using the scientific method.

    Hope that helped. Don’t worry, though, I’m sure you still have many shortcomings to point out. Now go away, or I will taunt you a second time.

    Sorry, Charlie! There’s proof that you’re a monkey’s* cousin in every cell in your body. And god didn’t say it – some guy said that god said it. And he was lying. The Flying Spaghetti Monster told me so – he reached out with his noodlely appendage and I just knew.

    * a great ape, acutally

  3. “If it were really science you wouldn’t need a consensus.”

    Actually science not only requires consensus but independent falsification or validation. Clearly you don’t understand the peer review process and the value of independently repeatable and verifiable (or falsifiable) experimentation. This comes as no surprise that you don’t understand the scientific method as your understanding seems to be limited in general, kderosa. Limited to what your handler feeds you to be precise.

  4. OS,

    There is nothing quite like a good book to hold in your hands…and if you want to remember a page…just dog ear it if you want to go back and reread it….

    Slarti,

    I have an Ipad2….I find that I read newspapers from around the world and locally…it works best…if you have a iphone its basically the same except its bigger…it is kind of awkward to get used to, to start….same touch as an iphone…same design…get a sleeve to hold it in and then it is not near as cumbersome…They have some fairly good ones….get one that has a leather sleeve that sticks somehow….Stay away from the gel ones…

    Something like this one:

    http://www.ipadcasefinder.com/featured/ipad-2-executive-premium-kickstand-leather-case.html

    or one that I have my eyes on is this one…it has a bluetooth keyboard….These come in leather, plastic and metal…each has its advantages and disadvantages:

    http://www.zagg.com/accessories/logitech-ipad-2-keyboard-case?gclid=CIa8iq21m6oCFYHs7QodbBvOxQ

  5. And if science textbooks stuck to that account, I think there’d be a lot less resistance from the religious types. Instead they try to overreach.

  6. Actually Charles, monkeys are a parallel evolutionary development in the Hominid line. Humans are closer to chimpanzees than monkeys in the evolutionary tree. We did not “descend” from monkeys. The common ancestor, Hominidae, lived about fourteen million years ago. Hominidae had separated from the earlier common ancestor, Hylobatidae, about twenty to twenty-five million years ago. “Modern” humans, as we now know ourselves, have been around for about a quarter million years. Humans are one of four existing Hominid lines.

  7. mespo,

    I think kdponzi et aI have flushed a big one and I heard it all the way in Texas…..

    Thanks for the info SWM…..I was not aware of that…

  8. Charles Barfield:

    “I didn’t say this God said it.”

    **************

    How could you possibly know that unless She told you. Everything else is relying on the words of someone else. In this case, a First Century fellow who knew about 1/10000 of what you know about the world HE lived in.

    Well, how do you know?

  9. There’s one thing that I never do,and that is to try to convince someone who thinks that they came from a Monkey,and serve no other purpose in life, than to eat,drink,reproduce,and then die, otherwise.

    If one believes in Science,do they believe in history?If they believe in History,than do they believe in the Bible?

    If not, then they should at least read the book of Revelation to see the evidence for themselves that in Chapter1:3 “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of prophecy,and keep those things which are written in it ; for the time is near.”

    I didn’t say this God said it.

  10. I must confess that I was surprised when Texas voted the Luddites out.

  11. The sad part about this whole affair is that neither side appears to know what constitutes science. (And neither apparently does Gene “Buddha” Howington.) The school board talks about “scientific consensus.” If it were really science you wouldn’t need a consensus. And if you are relying on a consensus, then you don’t have science.

    Based on the links, the bone of contention appears to be the origins of life. And on this point the science is hardly settled. Certainly, the theory of evolution breaks down at this level and at best we are left with a naked hypothesis.

    It appears that old Buddha and the school board have marched toward Lysenkoism, not science. (Which doesn’t make the intelligent designers right either by the way.)

  12. The new State Board of Education Chair, Barbara Cargill,has been a science teacher for 25 years and has been nominated for prestigious awards. Caught some of the hearings on TV when I was in Austin last week and was surprised at the testimony. The religious conservatives on the board were voted out in the republican primary last year.

  13. Wow, Gene, great story. I was aghast at the previous blog article that seemed to suggest that the fundies were having their way in Tejas. I see more sober heads have prevailed. A welcome ray of hope in a storm of concern.

  14. OS,

    Personally, I agree (there’s nothing like reading a good tome), but objectively I think that, yes, this is progress, and we shouldn’t stand in its way (I’ll be getting my first e-book reader [an iPad] this week, by the way…).

  15. AY, look for glossary, index and ToC to be replaced by a search bar. Is that progress? Who knows. I hate electronic books and it is harder for me to read one than a real book. But to each his own, as they say. Within a generation, we will have people going all the way through college without ever reading a real book from the library.

  17. Slartibartfast,

    “Good for the Texas board of education! (Never thought I’d be saying that…)”

    My thoughts exactly and you’re welcome.

  18. Welcome to the twentieth century Texas. The rest of us hope you can join us in the twenty-first in the next 50 or so.

  19. Wow. Good for the Texas board of education! (Never thought I’d be saying that…) Thanks for the post, Gene.

  20. Fortunately or unfortunately…depending on your view points…Texas has a lot of clout in the School Room because of the number of textbooks purchased…I am not sure how much weight this will hold once the textbooks become electronic…which is another issue…how do you teach about the glossary and ToC….if they never see one?

Comments are closed.