Teaching of evolution to go under microscope

[Mekorig]

Teaching of evolution to go under microscope

Director's departure opens door for changes in Texas' curriculum

12:08 AM CST on Thursday, December 13, 2007

By KAREN AYRES SMITH / The Dallas Morning News

kayres@dallasnews.com

LEANDER, Texas – Science instruction is about to be dissected in Texas.

At stake is the way teachers present evolution, the biological theory that humans and other species evolved from lower forms of life.

Former science director Chris Comer says she resigned from the Texas Education Agency to avoid being fired after officials told her she had improperly endorsed evolution. She had forwarded an e-mail announcing a speech by a prominent scholar on evolution, which the state requires schools to teach.

Source - Dallas News

[truethat]

"Emphatically, we are not trying to 'take evolution out of the schools,' " said Mark Ramsey of Texans for Better Science Education, which wants schools to teach about weaknesses in evolution. "All good educators know that when students are taught both sides of an issue such as biologic evolution, they understand each side better. What are the Darwinists afraid of?"

That's what I've always wondered.

[chaoszerg]

That's what I've always wondered.

Because one has more proof pointing to such things while the other ( God made it) has nothing but a book.

[truethat]

Because one has more proof pointing to such things while the other ( God made it) has nothing but a book.

DING DING DING we have a winner every single time. God its so annoying that people still argue with me 50 pages of the debate about the way people argue this point and I was told over and over again its all in my head.

What does GOD? Have to do with the flaws in evolutionary theory that aren't taught in schools?

this is such a typical answer. Over and over and over and over again. Its so annoying.

[Michelle]

God comes in there soooo fast...

[Cradle of Fish]

What weaknesses? All I can think of are gaps in our knowledge(and there are alot of them). I fail to see how this is news, they're just revising how its taught.

I guess it also adds another layer of defense against ID being taught in schools, because teaching the weaknesses of Intelligent Design would make it fall apart.

[tipsy_munchkin]

DING DING DING we have a winner every single time. God its so annoying that people still argue with me 50 pages of the debate about the way people argue this point and I was told over and over again its all in my head.

What does GOD? Have to do with the flaws in evolutionary theory that aren't taught in schools?

this is such a typical answer. Over and over and over and over again. Its so annoying.

You honsetly see no religous agenda in those who wish to alter the teaching of evolution? Why are they not then trying to alter the other scientific disciplines also. Many of which have an equal amount of evidence of evolution? Why single out the only one that confilicts with some fundamentalist views of creation?

Evolution is currently taught as exactly what it is, a well established scientific theory. there is curretly no other scientificly verified theory to teach beside it.

The quote you agreed with stated that when "both sides of an issue" are taught..... then you attack a subsequent poster for bringing God into it. Do you not see that the post you so heartily agreed with is the one that bought God in. After all what do you think the other side of the issue that they wish compared is? the statement 'both sides of the issue' refers to intelligent design/creationism being taught as an opposing argument. As you have agreed in the past they do not belong in the same subject. Are you sure you want these things taught as science in schools?

[tipsy_munchkin]

What weaknesses? All I can think of are gaps in our knowledge(and there are alot of them). I fail to see how this is news, they're just revising how its taught.

I guess it also adds another layer of defense against ID being taught in schools, because teaching the weaknesses of Intelligent Design would make it fall apart.

very true, but lets face it who is it thats arguing that evolution should be taught differently? For some reason some think reducing the argument for evolution will increase the argument for their beliefs. As you so nicely pointed out this is a fallicy but that doesn't stop some.

[Neognosis]

Good Lord...isn't Texas embarassed enough about what it's given this country? Are they intentionally churning out morons?

[Michelle]

Why shouldn't the flaws/gaps, whatever you want to call them, in the knowledge of evolution be pointed out? It's not a perfect science and shouldn't be taught as such.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Michelle

[truethat]

You honsetly see no religous agenda in those who wish to alter the teaching of evolution? Why are they not then trying to alter the other scientific disciplines also. Many of which have an equal amount of evidence of evolution? Why single out the only one that confilicts with some fundamentalist views of creation?

Evolution is currently taught as exactly what it is, a well established scientific theory. there is curretly no other scientificly verified theory to teach beside it.

The quote you agreed with stated that when "both sides of an issue" are taught..... then you attack a subsequent poster for bringing God into it. Do you not see that the post you so heartily agreed with is the one that bought God in. After all what do you think the other side of the issue that they wish compared is? the statement 'both sides of the issue' refers to intelligent design/creationism being taught as an opposing argument. As you have agreed in the past they do not belong in the same subject. Are you sure you want these things taught as science in schools?

The fact that you only think that Creationists and IDers are the "other sides" of an issue SHOWS that you don't understand the theory at all.

Parts of the theory are pretty much given as fact. But among the science community themselves there are many different views and criticisms that aren't allowed to be taught.

Like um

Punctuated Equilibrium???

God has NOTHING to do with the FACT that there are many different criticisms of the theory as it is presented today.

Because people are blind to this fact, the only thing they can think of is GOD GOD GOD

Its ridiculous.

[tipsy_munchkin]

Why shouldn't the flaws/gaps, whatever you want to call them, in the knowledge of evolution be pointed out? It's not a perfect science and shouldn't be taught as such.

Why such a focus on teaching evolution differently, it is as well established as other scientific theories. there is no valid reason to single it out for critisism

[Michelle]

Why such a focus on teaching evolution differently, it is as well established as other scientific theories. there is no valid reason to single it out for critisism

Can you give me a few examples of other scientific THEORIES?

[Stixxman]

sounds to me like someone is trying to go throught the back door, on the end around

[Neognosis]

Why shouldn't the flaws/gaps, whatever you want to call them, in the knowledge of evolution be pointed out?

Becasue there are very few flaws. There are a few gaps, but they are not significant.

The very fact that some of you think that there are flaws and significant gaps points to the misinformation that has been pushed by Intelligent Design proponants for so long, now that misinformation is making it's way into schools via some very ignorant parents who have been fed misinformation for so long they don't know what's real or not.

this is ridiculous and embarassing.

[truethat]

Becasue there are very few flaws. There are a few gaps, but they are not significant.

The very fact that some of you think that there are flaws and significant gaps points to the misinformation that has been pushed by Intelligent Design proponants for so long, now that misinformation is making it's way into schools via some very ignorant parents who have been fed misinformation for so long they don't know what's real or not.

this is ridiculous and embarassing.

Says who? That's certainly not true at all. They are ignored and disregarded by SOME as not significant but quite a few others take it seriously.

[Michelle]

Becasue there are very few flaws. There are a few gaps, but they are not significant.

The very fact that some of you think that there are flaws and significant gaps points to the misinformation that has been pushed by Intelligent Design proponants for so long, now that misinformation is making it's way into schools via some very ignorant parents who have been fed misinformation for so long they don't know what's real or not.

this is ridiculous and embarassing.

But there are some, as you admit. If you're going to teach something, teach the whole truth about it.

ID did not even enter my mind, as I dismissed it some 30 years ago.

[tipsy_munchkin]

Can you give me a few examples of other scientific THEORIES?

Theory of gravity

The Theory of Plate Tectonics

Big bang theory

The Theory of Special Relativity which subsumes The Theory of General Relativity which subsumes Newtonian theories of motion

The Photon Theory of Light Energy and its speed of

The Theory of Radioactivity or Nuclear Theory

The theories of self and development of mental processes in the brain.

Geology plate tectonics

err well pretty much every concept withint a scientific discipline is a theory from sociology through pshychology geology archeology genetics astrophysics. I can't really sit here and list every single scientific theory for every subject.

[truethat]

Tipsy, do you suggest that the theory of Gravity is the same as the Big Bang Theory?

I don't think there are people who disagree with the Theory of Gravity but there are quite a few scientists who disagree with the accepted view of the theory of Evolution.

PARTS of the theory are accepted but other parts are not.

That's the difference. Its not just the Goddies that have criticized Evolution's accepted theories.

Edited December 19, 2007 by truethat

[Michelle]

I basically wanted to see where you were coming from. I don't believe some of those are considered theories any longer.

At any rate, evolution is the topic at hand and we have no way of knowing if it is being singled out. All we know is that this article singled it out.

[tipsy_munchkin]

Tipsy, do you suggest that the theory of Gravity is the same as the Big Bang Theory?

I don't think there are people who disagree with the Theory of Gravity but there are quite a few scientists who disagree with the accepted view of the theory of Evolution.

PARTS of the theory are accepted but other parts are not.

And they are all taught with the information availiable as a theory. they are still all classed as scientific theories. The level of evidence is taken into account in how they are taught. Fomr some a simplistic view is given at first and at a later date the more detailed view is presented. For example we do not explain quantum physics before laying the foundation of physics although the former can call into question in certain ways the latter. We do not explain the entirety of the role of literature in society before first going for see spot run. You not not go into debates about the tiny details within evolution that are being discussed and all the possible options before you teach the basics of how it works and then why we think it works. the gaps many allude to are not in the fact that evolution occurs but in the exact passge it has taken through history. This I think is what is confusing some.

[Neognosis]

Says who? That's certainly not true at all. They are ignored and disregarded by SOME as not significant but quite a few others take it seriously.

The overwhelming vast majority of scientists who study this say there are no significant gaps. People who think there are significant gaps are overwhelmingly not scientists in the field.

It's propogandous misinformation that there are serious gaps in the theory. The theory is pretty airtight. The gaps that do exist are not "hidden" or ignored. They are part of the theory and are taught as such.

there are quite a few scientists who disagree with the accepted view of the theory of Evolution.

Not really. That's misinformation fed to you by IDers. The percentage of scientists that contest the theory is extremely infinitesimal.

err well pretty much every concept withint a scientific discipline is a theory from sociology through pshychology geology archeology genetics astrophysics. I can't really sit here and list every single scientific theory for every subject.

EVERY past event that we did not observe is "theory," no matter how much evidence we have. You cannot observe a past event.

[tipsy_munchkin]

EVERY past event that we did not observe is "theory," no matter how much evidence we have. You cannot observe a past event.

hehe you do realise i was agreeing with your stance when making this point. Evolution is being singled out as part of a specific agenda. While as we agree it is no different to the many other scientific theories that we teach about.

[truethat]

What theory is air tight

You know I'd appreciate it if people actually spelled out what they are saying is "air tight"

Please

[truethat]

And they are all taught with the information availiable as a theory. they are still all classed as scientific theories. The level of evidence is taken into account in how they are taught. Fomr some a simplistic view is given at first and at a later date the more detailed view is presented. For example we do not explain quantum physics before laying the foundation of physics although the former can call into question in certain ways the latter. We do not explain the entirety of the role of literature in society before first going for see spot run. You not not go into debates about the tiny details within evolution that are being discussed and all the possible options before you teach the basics of how it works and then why we think it works. the gaps many allude to are not in the fact that evolution occurs but in the exact passge it has taken through history. This I think is what is confusing some.

No they are not. That's the point about evolution. There is plenty of evidence regarding Evolution that is repressed because the Science community is afraid its going to be picked up by the Goddies and used as "evidence" for the YEC or ID fairy tales.