Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Texas school board evolving ID strategy started by Jason Spaceman


Posted by: Jason Spaceman on Aug. 25 2007,15:24

The Texas state school board's anti-evolution strategy seems to be evolving from "Teach ID" to "Teach the strengths & weaknesses about evolution" (a.k.a. "Teach ID").



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN - Should "intelligent design" - the cousin of creationism - be taught in science classes in Texas alongside evolution?

A solid majority of the State Board of Education, which will rewrite the science curriculum for public schools next year, is against the idea, even though several members say they are creationists and have serious doubts about Charles Darwin's theory that humans evolved from lower life forms.

Interviews with 11 of the 15 members of the board - including seven Republicans and four Democrats - found little support for requiring that intelligent design be taught in biology and other science classes. Only one board member said she was open to the idea of placing the theory into the curriculum standards.

"Creationism and intelligent design don't belong in our science classes," said Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, who described himself as a creationist. "Anything taught in science has to have consensus in the science community - and intelligent design does not."

Mr. McLeroy, R-College Station, noted that the current curriculum requires that evolution be taught in high school biology classes, and he has no desire to change that standard.

"When it comes to evolution, I am totally content with the current standard," he said, adding that his dissatisfaction with current biology textbooks is that they don't cover the weaknesses of the theory of evolution.. . .

. . . And while the board apparently won't take up intelligent design, several members expect a battle over how evolution is treated in science textbooks, although that won't be up for debate until 2011. Mr. McLeroy and others say they'll push for books to include a more thorough examination of weaknesses in the theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Read it < here. >
Posted by: Venus Mousetrap on Aug. 25 2007,16:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"When it comes to evolution, I am totally content with the current standard," he said, adding that his dissatisfaction with current biology textbooks is that they don't cover the weaknesses of the theory of evolution.. . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How do people this slimy avoid slipping over and injuring themselves all the time?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 25 2007,17:34

We already have a < topic on Texas textbook selection >.
Posted by: Patrickarbuthnot on Feb. 25 2010,00:25

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 25 2007,17:34)
We already have a < topic on Texas textbook selection >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I tried to post and couldn't. I would say my disagreement with this is not just in the state of Texas but the whole  public setting as well needs to be overhauled. We need to return to the proven educational methods and theories of the past. Stop lowering the educational bar for those who can't graduate and stop using textbooks which is basically a persons opinion on what the material is. They need them to read the original books themselves. Thank you
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 25 2010,07:52

McLeroy is lying to the press.  He does want creationism taught in classrooms.  He has totally ignored many of the suggestions of the experts (teachers and scientists) who wrote the standards.

He's also a revisionist historian.  He thinks that Joe McCarthy is a great American hero.

I apologize for my state, which I love, I just hate the idiots that are in charge of it.
Posted by: Patrickarbuthnot on Feb. 25 2010,23:17

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,07:52)
McLeroy is lying to the press.  He does want creationism taught in classrooms.  He has totally ignored many of the suggestions of the experts (teachers and scientists) who wrote the standards.

He's also a revisionist historian.  He thinks that Joe McCarthy is a great American hero.

I apologize for my state, which I love, I just hate the idiots that are in charge of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


education should teach students the facts, provides them with logical tools to use those facts and perfect the student’s ability to relate those facts to others. However,  the process of teaching students to think extends far beyond filling their heads with knowledge. Like I said we need to return to the old system of learning and make student excel and not reward poor education.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 26 2010,13:50

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Feb. 25 2010,23:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,07:52)
McLeroy is lying to the press.  He does want creationism taught in classrooms.  He has totally ignored many of the suggestions of the experts (teachers and scientists) who wrote the standards.

He's also a revisionist historian.  He thinks that Joe McCarthy is a great American hero.

I apologize for my state, which I love, I just hate the idiots that are in charge of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


education should teach students the facts, provides them with logical tools to use those facts and perfect the student’s ability to relate those facts to others. However,  the process of teaching students to think extends far beyond filling their heads with knowledge. Like I said we need to return to the old system of learning and make student excel and not reward poor education.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's one reason I quit teaching.  After I got 'a talking to' by the principle about teaching evolution, I had to explain to her that evolution is a standard that we are required by the state to teach.

I had too many grades changed after the fact to deal with it any more.  The complaints raised to the Texas school board gained my school a 'conservetor' which basically was a non-voting member of the school board for 18 months.  Yep, that helped a bunch.

I was really pissed when one of the smartest kids I know was denied entrance to UT, but our star running back who had a straight 'D' average got a full ride scholarship to UT.  Then flunked out in his second semester and was drafted to Cincinati (I think).  The smart kid?  He's Best Buy geek Squad kid because he's having to pay for his mother's lack of welfare.
Posted by: Patrickarbuthnot on Feb. 26 2010,23:14

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 26 2010,13:50)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Feb. 25 2010,23:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,07:52)
McLeroy is lying to the press.  He does want creationism taught in classrooms.  He has totally ignored many of the suggestions of the experts (teachers and scientists) who wrote the standards.

He's also a revisionist historian.  He thinks that Joe McCarthy is a great American hero.

I apologize for my state, which I love, I just hate the idiots that are in charge of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


education should teach students the facts, provides them with logical tools to use those facts and perfect the student’s ability to relate those facts to others. However,  the process of teaching students to think extends far beyond filling their heads with knowledge. Like I said we need to return to the old system of learning and make student excel and not reward poor education.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's one reason I quit teaching.  After I got 'a talking to' by the principle about teaching evolution, I had to explain to her that evolution is a standard that we are required by the state to teach.

I had too many grades changed after the fact to deal with it any more.  The complaints raised to the Texas school board gained my school a 'conservetor' which basically was a non-voting member of the school board for 18 months.  Yep, that helped a bunch.

I was really pissed when one of the smartest kids I know was denied entrance to UT, but our star running back who had a straight 'D' average got a full ride scholarship to UT.  Then flunked out in his second semester and was drafted to Cincinati (I think).  The smart kid?  He's Best Buy geek Squad kid because he's having to pay for his mother's lack of welfare.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately that is but one subject. The WHOLE education system needs a overhaul.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 26 2010,23:22

Could not agree more.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 27 2010,10:44

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 26 2010,21:22)
Could not agree more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is a reading list:

Education Hell: Rhetoric vs. Reality
Gerald W. Bracey

Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party
Max Blumenthal

Grading Education: Getting Accountability Right
Richard Rothstein, et al

Accountability Frankenstein: Understanding and Taming the Monster (PB)
Sherman; Dorn

Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America's Schools
Sharon L. Nichols; David C. Berliner

Standardized Minds: The High Price of America's Testing Culture and What We Can Do to Change It
Peter Sacks

The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools
Alfie Kohn, Lois Bridges

Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us
Daniel Koretz

Making the Grades: My Misadventures in the Standardized Testing Industry
Todd Farley
Posted by: ck1 on Feb. 27 2010,12:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
. . . And while the board apparently won't take up intelligent design, several members expect a battle over how evolution is treated in science textbooks, although that won't be up for debate until 2011. Mr. McLeroy and others say they'll push for books to include a more thorough examination of weaknesses in the theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do these people ever provide a list of the "weaknesses" of the ToE they wish to include in science classes?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 27 2010,20:26

Quote (ck1 @ Feb. 27 2010,12:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
. . . And while the board apparently won't take up intelligent design, several members expect a battle over how evolution is treated in science textbooks, although that won't be up for debate until 2011. Mr. McLeroy and others say they'll push for books to include a more thorough examination of weaknesses in the theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do these people ever provide a list of the "weaknesses" of the ToE they wish to include in science classes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The people involved don't know anything about science.  All they know is that "evilution = hate jeebus"
Posted by: Texas Teach on Feb. 27 2010,22:32

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 27 2010,20:26)
Quote (ck1 @ Feb. 27 2010,12:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
. . . And while the board apparently won't take up intelligent design, several members expect a battle over how evolution is treated in science textbooks, although that won't be up for debate until 2011. Mr. McLeroy and others say they'll push for books to include a more thorough examination of weaknesses in the theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do these people ever provide a list of the "weaknesses" of the ToE they wish to include in science classes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The people involved don't know anything about science.  All they know is that "evilution = hate jeebus"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I encounter that quite a bit with my students.  They really haven't been taught creationism; you rarely get more than a "why are there still monkeys?" argument on the details.  They've just been taught that it's Jesus or evolution, and since they know nothing about evolution, it's an easy choice for them to make.
Posted by: Patrickarbuthnot on Feb. 28 2010,03:02

Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 27 2010,22:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 27 2010,20:26)
Quote (ck1 @ Feb. 27 2010,12:07)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
. . . And while the board apparently won't take up intelligent design, several members expect a battle over how evolution is treated in science textbooks, although that won't be up for debate until 2011. Mr. McLeroy and others say they'll push for books to include a more thorough examination of weaknesses in the theory of evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do these people ever provide a list of the "weaknesses" of the ToE they wish to include in science classes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The people involved don't know anything about science.  All they know is that "evilution = hate jeebus"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I encounter that quite a bit with my students.  They really haven't been taught creationism; you rarely get more than a "why are there still monkeys?" argument on the details.  They've just been taught that it's Jesus or evolution, and since they know nothing about evolution, it's an easy choice for them to make.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Critical thinking must be re introduced back into school or else why teach anything?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 28 2010,07:49

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Feb. 28 2010,03:02)
Critical thinking must be re introduced back into school or else why teach anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When was it taken out, would you say?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 28 2010,07:53

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Feb. 28 2010,04:02)
Critical thinking must be re introduced back into school or else why teach anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We must also reacquaint our children with the value of joy through work.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 28 2010,08:24

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 28 2010,07:49)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Feb. 28 2010,03:02)
Critical thinking must be re introduced back into school or else why teach anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When was it taken out, would you say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be honest, I don't think it was ever really a part of school.  I never had any when I was in school (80s).  My favorite line is that I learned to think in spite of school, not because of it.

There's a significant portion of the (student) population that is actually offended if they are required to think.  Regurgitation is the rule and it's hard to get past that.

I know what people say about standardized testing, but since I work in that industry, I'll say that it can be a good thing.  The problem is that many states reject test questions that they think the kids can't answer.  The state I work for (No, I won't say which one) is really good about letting some really difficult, thinking questions through.  IMHO, they are doing pretty well.  Some other states... I wouldn't move there for love or money.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Mar. 01 2010,21:34

To illustrate what we're up against:

A student asked me today if you could fly high enough into the sky to reach heaven.  The student was 16.  And pregnant.

On the plus side, some of the other students jumped in to explain to her that, you know, space is up there.  We send people there occasionally.

I'm not sure whether to take away hope or despair from this.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 01 2010,22:12

You should have asked if the tower of Babel was high enough to reach the cruising altitude of airliners. ;)

Henry
Posted by: Patrickarbuthnot on Mar. 03 2010,04:53

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 28 2010,07:49)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Feb. 28 2010,03:02)
Critical thinking must be re introduced back into school or else why teach anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When was it taken out, would you say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would venture to say the turn of the 20th century. It's been down hill since then.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 03 2010,05:00

Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 01 2010,21:34)
To illustrate what we're up against:

A student asked me today if you could fly high enough into the sky to reach heaven.  The student was 16.  And pregnant.

On the plus side, some of the other students jumped in to explain to her that, you know, space is up there.  We send people there occasionally.

I'm not sure whether to take away hope or despair from this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you can take away hope because < Don McElroy has lost > the Republican primary to represent District 9 on the State Board of Education.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 03 2010,06:39

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 03 2010,05:00)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 01 2010,21:34)
To illustrate what we're up against:

A student asked me today if you could fly high enough into the sky to reach heaven.  The student was 16.  And pregnant.

On the plus side, some of the other students jumped in to explain to her that, you know, space is up there.  We send people there occasionally.

I'm not sure whether to take away hope or despair from this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you can take away hope because < Don McElroy has lost > the Republican primary to represent District 9 on the State Board of Education.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cool! I put that on my blog.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 03 2010,09:20

No better way to end the textbook fracas than to unelect the creationists.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 03 2010,09:27

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 03 2010,03:00)
Well, you can take away hope because < Don McElroy has lost > the Republican primary to represent District 9 on the State Board of Education.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is good news.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 03 2010,09:32

McElroy or McLeroy?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 03 2010,09:39

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 03 2010,09:32)
McElroy or McLeroy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:angry: THIS IS YOU


Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 03 2010,10:38

In the other Republican races:

Bob Craig, R-Lubbock, opposed by the religious right, defeated their candidate Randy Rives: 75,951 votes (64.28%) to 42,195 (35.71%)

Religious extremist Cynthia Dunbar recruited Brian Russell to carry on the creationist cause. He lost in a three way race to Marsha Farney.  Farney is a middle school counselor, PhD, U of Texas, and not apparently a creationist.

Incumbent Ken Mercer, faced Tim Tuggey. Mercer won easily, the only clear win for the religious radicals. 75,369 (69.13%) to 33,649 (30.86%).

Incumbent Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, lost to George Clayton. Both call themselves conservatives, but Miller was not a safe vote for the radical religious right.  Clayton  is the Academic Coordinator for North Dallas High School. He seems to be similar to Miller- more pro-teacher in fact.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 03 2010,11:10

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 03 2010,10:38)
Incumbent Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, lost to George Clayton. Both call themselves conservatives, but Miller was not a safe vote for the radical religious right.  Clayton  is the Academic Coordinator for North Dallas High School. He seems to be similar to Miller- more pro-teacher in fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno about Clayton. According to this < article >, Clayton said

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It's seems to me you can't be taught the one [evolution] without the other [creationism]. It's an impossibility to talk about evolution without mentioning creationism."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Louis on Mar. 03 2010,11:21

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 03 2010,10:00)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 01 2010,21:34)
To illustrate what we're up against:

A student asked me today if you could fly high enough into the sky to reach heaven.  The student was 16.  And pregnant.

On the plus side, some of the other students jumped in to explain to her that, you know, space is up there.  We send people there occasionally.

I'm not sure whether to take away hope or despair from this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you can take away hope because < Don McElroy has lost > the Republican primary to represent District 9 on the State Board of Education.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let joy be unconfined.

Hurrah!

Louis
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 03 2010,12:16

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 03 2010,09:10)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 03 2010,10:38)
Incumbent Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, lost to George Clayton. Both call themselves conservatives, but Miller was not a safe vote for the radical religious right.  Clayton  is the Academic Coordinator for North Dallas High School. He seems to be similar to Miller- more pro-teacher in fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno about Clayton. According to this < article >, Clayton said  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It's seems to me you can't be taught the one [evolution] without the other [creationism]. It's an impossibility to talk about evolution without mentioning creationism."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OH NOOES

Shit!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 03 2010,12:18

One could mention creationism in a historical overview.
Posted by: BWE on Mar. 03 2010,12:25

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 03 2010,10:18)
One could mention creationism in a historical overview.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My wife has a very good line when kids ask about creationism (which happens about once in 2 or 3 years - portland doesn't really have christians in the sense of Texas xians). She says, "Well, this is science class so we only learn science here. If you have questions about science, we can certainly investigate them."

It actually works.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 03 2010,12:31

CRAP!

Things might not be so rosy after all.

Creationist Bryan Russell, and Marsha Farney will go to a run-off election.

And George Clayton, in spite of opposing the "stranglehold that standardized testing has on education in Texas," might have been a stealth creationist all along.

Clayton: "So, here is my perspective. I have absolutely no objection to Creationism, Intelligent Design, and evolution being covered in public schools so long as they are covered simultaneously--in a parallel lesson. All must be discussed objectively, without bias or prejudice. Evolution is yet still a "theory." Intelligent Design is a philosophical explanation that acknowledges an intelligence greater than which no other exists or can be imagined and, of course, Creationism is faith in the Genesis accounts of the universe."
< http://msteger.com/index.p....emid=55 >
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 03 2010,15:19

Texas is strange (I know, I know, that is a statement for which the only response is "Well, duh!")

The Republican primary ballot had several propositions that did not appear on the Dem ballot. One of them was this one  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Public Acknowledgment of God — The use of the word “God,” prayers, and the Ten Commandments should be allowed at public gatherings and public educational institutions, as well as permitted on government buildings and property.— YES or NO
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not surprisingly, in a Republican primary in a bat-shit insane state during a time when dissatisfaction with the status quo is rampant, this thing passed 95% YES to 5% NO.

What is amusing is that, as far as I can tell, these propositions < have no legal clout >.

More amusingly, here's an < interesting Xristian perspective > on the proposition. Best line - "Could there possibly be a worse use of God's name than tacking it onto the unholy works of the Texas Legislature? When those guys start throwing around the name of God, don't you instinctively check your wallet? Do you think God wants her name chiseled into the building where those folks meet?"
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 03 2010,16:10

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 03 2010,15:19)
More amusingly, here's an < interesting Xristian perspective > on the proposition. Best line - "Could there possibly be a worse use of God's name than tacking it onto the unholy works of the Texas Legislature? When those guys start throwing around the name of God, don't you instinctively check your wallet? Do you think God wants her name chiseled into the building where those folks meet?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Channeling DaveScot:

NOW LISTEN UP CUZ I'M TALKING HERE:
That there must not be a TrueTexanChristian ™but one of them Stealth Christians, cuz in TX God ain't no damn feminazi.  God hates women, it says so in The Holy Bible.
Posted by: bfish on Mar. 03 2010,20:33

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 03 2010,03:00)
Well, you can take away hope because < Don McElroy has lost > the Republican primary to represent District 9 on the State Board of Education.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's about time District 9 had decent representation.


Posted by: Patrickarbuthnot on Mar. 03 2010,23:42

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2010,06:39)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 03 2010,05:00)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 01 2010,21:34)
To illustrate what we're up against:

A student asked me today if you could fly high enough into the sky to reach heaven.  The student was 16.  And pregnant.

On the plus side, some of the other students jumped in to explain to her that, you know, space is up there.  We send people there occasionally.

I'm not sure whether to take away hope or despair from this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you can take away hope because < Don McElroy has lost > the Republican primary to represent District 9 on the State Board of Education.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cool! I put that on my blog.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When we look under a microscope the modern public education it appears it has been weighed in many scales and found wanting. What is your take on education Wesley Elsberry, I would like to know?
Posted by: Patrickarbuthnot on Mar. 03 2010,23:44

Quote (bfish @ Mar. 03 2010,20:33)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 03 2010,03:00)
Well, you can take away hope because < Don McElroy has lost > the Republican primary to represent District 9 on the State Board of Education.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's about time District 9 had decent representation.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am sorry I am a census card carrying American Indian by my father's blood and white by my mother . I could careless about either party.
Posted by: Amadan on Mar. 04 2010,04:45

Education in Texas seems a bit better off this morning as the Divine Dentist Macleroy has incurred the selfish ingratutude of the voters.

But he can console himself with the < the NCSE's UpChucky Award >, which he so richly deserved.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 04 2010,05:26

So, throw out the textbooks and burn the standardized tests. Let the teachers teach... what, exactly? How, precisely? You may have noticed that the U.S. already has a bit of a problem with teachers and school boards that teach whatever the hell they like. That's not working out so well for the students involved.

I'm not down with this rather open-ended plan, frankly. When teachers and school boards already sneak in whatever addle-brained nonsense tickles their religious perineum, this plan thus far only seems to eliminate the "sneak" part.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 04 2010,08:57

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 03 2010,17:16)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 03 2010,09:10)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 03 2010,10:38)
Incumbent Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, lost to George Clayton. Both call themselves conservatives, but Miller was not a safe vote for the radical religious right.  Clayton  is the Academic Coordinator for North Dallas High School. He seems to be similar to Miller- more pro-teacher in fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno about Clayton. According to this < article >, Clayton said  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It's seems to me you can't be taught the one [evolution] without the other [creationism]. It's an impossibility to talk about evolution without mentioning creationism."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OH NOOES

Shit!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let joy be reconfined!

Louis
Posted by: Patrickarbuthnot on Mar. 09 2010,01:38

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 04 2010,05:26)
So, throw out the textbooks and burn the standardized tests. Let the teachers teach... what, exactly? How, precisely? You may have noticed that the U.S. already has a bit of a problem with teachers and school boards that teach whatever the hell they like. That's not working out so well for the students involved.

I'm not down with this rather open-ended plan, frankly. When teachers and school boards already sneak in whatever addle-brained nonsense tickles their religious perineum, this plan thus far only seems to eliminate the "sneak" part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know why we all worry about this. With every country arming itself with nukes it is just a matter of time before some wacko has a bad day and tries to end it all.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 09 2010,19:28

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,01:38)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 04 2010,05:26)
So, throw out the textbooks and burn the standardized tests. Let the teachers teach... what, exactly? How, precisely? You may have noticed that the U.S. already has a bit of a problem with teachers and school boards that teach whatever the hell they like. That's not working out so well for the students involved.

I'm not down with this rather open-ended plan, frankly. When teachers and school boards already sneak in whatever addle-brained nonsense tickles their religious perineum, this plan thus far only seems to eliminate the "sneak" part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know why we all worry about this. With every country arming itself with nukes it is just a matter of time before some wacko has a bad day and tries to end it all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't do much about the state of nuke-totin' states around the world.

But I can do (and I have done) things to help make sure that the extent of the old, tired, religious antievolution ensemble of arguments that makes it into the public school science curriculum is minimized. Plus, I'd feel silly if I stood aside and let the religious antievolutionists take over and large-scale nuclear exchange did not happen.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 10 2010,07:20

I'm not sure which thread this belongs in, but this one seems relevant.

Today a set of < national standards for K-12 education > will be unveiled. These standards set out core expectations for English and math education for all 50 states.

Why only English and math? Most of the problems with religious meddling are with the science standards. Is there not enough gumption at the national level to take on these bozos? If so, that's really depressing.

And, predictably, the oil emirates of Texas and Alaska are the only states that have not expressed support for this national standardization, even for the seemingly non-controversial subjects like English and math. Is this "socialism"?
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 10 2010,07:54

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,06:38)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 04 2010,05:26)
So, throw out the textbooks and burn the standardized tests. Let the teachers teach... what, exactly? How, precisely? You may have noticed that the U.S. already has a bit of a problem with teachers and school boards that teach whatever the hell they like. That's not working out so well for the students involved.

I'm not down with this rather open-ended plan, frankly. When teachers and school boards already sneak in whatever addle-brained nonsense tickles their religious perineum, this plan thus far only seems to eliminate the "sneak" part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know why we all worry about this. With every country arming itself with nukes it is just a matter of time before some wacko has a bad day and tries to end it all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL Fatalism.

Your parochial concerns about nuclear war are irrelevant. Eventually the sun will expand and then burn out. Best not even get out of bed, eh?

Louis
Posted by: Doc Bill on Mar. 10 2010,08:15

And, please, don't have kids!

You wouldn't want to raise them in this kind of world.
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 10 2010,11:10

Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 10 2010,13:15)
And, please, don't have kids!

You wouldn't want to raise them in this kind of world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Precisely.

In fact I don't think I went far enough before. Since the universe is likely to either end in heat death, or a big crunch or some other calamity in a few trifling billions of years, I think we might as well slit our throats now.

Kids? Don't make me laugh. Do them a favour and smother them in their sleep.

We're all doomed! Dooooooomed! DOOOOOOOOMMMMED!

Louis
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 10 2010,12:26

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 10 2010,05:20)
Why only English and math? Most of the problems with religious meddling are with the science standards. Is there not enough gumption at the national level to take on these bozos? If so, that's really depressing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was recently appointed to the "National Assesment of Educational Progress: Science Achievment Level Setting Study." There were two groups, a pilot study, and a final. I was on the pilot study. This was supposed to be a very high honor.

I walked out when the entire operation was obviously a set up to rubber-stamp "staff recommendations." Remember that textbook publishers are also the "Standardized" test publishers. Schools and students will never be allowed to succeed because then they won't need new textbooks. This is a $10 billion a year scam. All they need to do is tweek the tests, and publish that "students are failing." And then promise scores will improve once you buy thier textbooks, and pay for their "teacher training" programs.

The procedures enforced at the NAEP effectively disallowed any discussion between members while "on task." We were in groups of five, and expected to rate several hundred questions and the associated answers in a very short amount of time. Staff wandered around announcing how much time had elapsed, and how many questions we should have "rated" in be "on task."

I was at a table with four others. Two were very very quick (high school science teachers), and they would direct us that "#34 is a 4, and 7; #35 is a 2 & 4;...." They were faster than I could find the question, and copy down their recommendation/demand. When one of their responses was so amazingly stupid that I protested that they made no sense, I learned they did not bother to read the questions, or the answers. They had found how staff cued the "right" answers in the "rubric" pages. And they were each just alternating with each other, doing odd or even numbered questions. They saw nothing wrong with this. At dinner I learned that they were not alone. This is how many school teachers are "helping" improve scores on standardized tests by teaching not content, but sharp test taking skills.

The chief statistician and I spoke briefly, and he admitted that they are going to use the "Nation's Report Card" to drive the acceptance of a federally required science curriculum.

Expect to read "American Students Fail Science!" in the headlines soon.

If I hadn't walked out, I would have been tossed out.


Posted by: dhogaza on Mar. 10 2010,14:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus, I'd feel silly if I stood aside and let the religious antievolutionists take over and large-scale nuclear exchange did not happen.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sounds oddly like Pascal's wager ...
Posted by: MichaelJ on Mar. 10 2010,15:42

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 04 2010,03:16)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 03 2010,09:10)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 03 2010,10:38)
Incumbent Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, lost to George Clayton. Both call themselves conservatives, but Miller was not a safe vote for the radical religious right.  Clayton  is the Academic Coordinator for North Dallas High School. He seems to be similar to Miller- more pro-teacher in fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno about Clayton. According to this < article >, Clayton said  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"It's seems to me you can't be taught the one [evolution] without the other [creationism]. It's an impossibility to talk about evolution without mentioning creationism."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OH NOOES

Shit!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The jury is still out on this as I heard one interpretation of his statement to mean that children should be taught about the culture war not that creationism is an alternative to evolution.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 12 2010,20:38

< Aaargh! >

It's like DaveTard cloned himself and all of the clones were elected to the TX SBOE...
Posted by: bjray on Mar. 16 2010,01:43

Why not teach several of the various theories? (Ie: Evolution, Creationism, ID, Theistic evolution) Evolution shouldn't be the only de-facto theory taught. I mean, it can't even convince the full gamut of the scientific community who think that stuff up. Why try and teach it as the only truth?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 16 2010,02:44

Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 10 2010,14:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus, I'd feel silly if I stood aside and let the religious antievolutionists take over and large-scale nuclear exchange did not happen.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sounds oddly like Pascal's wager ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except that I get the benefit of my action now, not later.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 16 2010,02:52

Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:43)
Why not teach several of the various theories? (Ie: Evolution, Creationism, ID, Theistic evolution) Evolution shouldn't be the only de-facto theory taught. I mean, it can't even convince the full gamut of the scientific community who think that stuff up. Why try and teach it as the only truth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You seem to have mistaken a socio-political movement for science. It is a common failing of those within the religious antievolution movement to have difficulty distinguishing between unsupported propaganda and actual scientific content.

You also seem to have overlooked the fact that the theistic evolutionists < want real science taught >, not the propagation of antievolution ignorance.

Evolutionary science should be taught as science, which means that it is a part of the knowledge delivered via the scientific process, not "the only truth". It is the only set of explanations that has passed the review of the scientific community, which means it is also the only set of explanations that will be topical during a class on science.


Posted by: Cubist on Mar. 16 2010,04:59

Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:43)
Why not teach several of the various theories? (Ie: Evolution, Creationism, ID, Theistic evolution)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Creationism and ID should not be taught in science classes because neither Creationism nor ID is a scientific theory. If you disagree, please answer one or both of these questions:
What is the scientific theory of Creation, and how can we use the scientific method to test this theory?
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can we use the scientific method to test this theory?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution shouldn't be the only de-facto theory taught. I mean, it can't even convince the full gamut of the scientific community who think that stuff up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"the full gamut of the scientific community" includes scientists who have no expertise in the field of biology. Likewise, "the full gamut of the scientific community" includes scientists scientists who literally have a dogmatic religious commitment to the position that evolution is false. Why should the curriculum of any science class reflect the views of people who are ignorant, or dogmatically committed to one specific view, or both ignorant and dogmatically committed to one specific view?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why try and teach it as the only truth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I think science classes should teach science. If there only happens to be one scientific theory which covers a particular topic, well, them's the breaks; that one scientific theory is the one which should get taught. If you insist on teaching scientific alternatives to evolution, fine: We can include the "independent origins" theories of < Periannan Senapathy > and < Christian Schwabe >. Do you have any objections to teaching Senapathy and Schwabe in science classes, bjray?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 16 2010,06:45

Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Mar. 09 2010,02:38)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 04 2010,05:26)
So, throw out the textbooks and burn the standardized tests. Let the teachers teach... what, exactly? How, precisely? You may have noticed that the U.S. already has a bit of a problem with teachers and school boards that teach whatever the hell they like. That's not working out so well for the students involved.

I'm not down with this rather open-ended plan, frankly. When teachers and school boards already sneak in whatever addle-brained nonsense tickles their religious perineum, this plan thus far only seems to eliminate the "sneak" part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know why we all worry about this. With every country arming itself with nukes it is just a matter of time before some wacko has a bad day and tries to end it all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What Louis said, above.

Seriously, if this is your outlook on the situation, then why the hell bother sending kids to school in the first place? It's a lot of pain in the ass if we're all just going to be glow-in-the-dark dust tomorrow.

And further, why then do you care what or how the teachers teach?

What a singularly un-thought-out and internally inconsistent position you present!
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 16 2010,06:47

Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,02:43)
Why not teach several of the various theories? (Ie: Evolution, Creationism, ID, Theistic evolution) Evolution shouldn't be the only de-facto theory taught. I mean, it can't even convince the full gamut of the scientific community who think that stuff up. Why try and teach it as the only truth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Allow me to direct you < here >.

ETA Nevermind, I see you've found your way. Funny how easy you were to identify, isn't it? Why do you suppose that is?


Posted by: Robin on Mar. 16 2010,10:09

Good gravy! Apparently there's the possibility that Texas could in fact get some folks' New Reality into the curricula.  Yahoo! article: < http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1253. >
Posted by: FrankH on Mar. 19 2010,08:30

Howdy folks,


Long time since I've posted here.  I dropped out to study more in my field (CCIE Routing and Switching) and while this is fascinating and informative, it really doesn't help me configure Route Reflectors in a BGP Confederation.

(For those of you whose eyes rolled, now you know how I feel when I read a few of the posts here.  Not that it's bad, I just have tons of stuff to look up.)

In any case, I was just settling into work when I heard several other engineers discussing evolution.  I listened in and crap, the amount of idiocy from people I thought were intelligent discussing the following:

How "Evolution is just a Theory and has no proof".

By definition, "All mutations are bad".

The amount of miracles covered up by the liberal media, like the church that was on fire but there was no damage to it and the firemen who were called to put out the fire "fell to their knees as the power of god was so strong".

Then the oldies but goodies came out:

The "odds" of DNA arriving "spontaneously".

How curiosity and fear cancel each other out so evolution can't explain our curiosity.  One of the "facts" was, "Remember, curiosity killed the cat!"

Why didn't monkeys evolve like us after all, we had pretty much the same pressures?

That Intelligent Design explains all of that.

This was from many people who I say are otherwise bright and intelligent.

What can be done?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Mar. 19 2010,08:34

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 19 2010,08:30)
What can be done?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ship them all to Texas and encourage the state to secede.


Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 19 2010,15:06

I vaguely remember that place...
Posted by: FrankH on Mar. 19 2010,17:03

As I can't yet start a new thread and I can't find one that seems to address this issue, one of the "best evidences" he ahas against evolution is that Humans are unique.  One of the traits is our curiosity.  Our curiosity, it was stated, goes against evolution as fear means we should be afraid of everything.

What I replied as a rebuttal is that not everything can be seen as a danger in the beginning.  It is the perceived threat vs the chance to gain food, shelter, etc that need to be weighed against the other, especially for a species that has replaced a great deal of instinct with intelligence.

I think that sort of backfired as he then stated that the loss of instinct in humans shows we were designed as well.

Any ideas?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 19 2010,17:13

First thing that comes to mind is that loss of instinctual behavior is simply a side effect of the gain in intelligence, and the hard wired instincts that are still present are now being overridden some of the time.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 19 2010,17:14

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 19 2010,15:03)
As I can't yet start a new thread and I can't find one that seems to address this issue, one of the "best evidences" he ahas against evolution is that Humans are unique.  One of the traits is our curiosity.  Our curiosity, it was stated, goes against evolution as fear means we should be afraid of everything.

What I replied as a rebuttal is that not everything can be seen as a danger in the beginning.  It is the perceived threat vs the chance to gain food, shelter, etc that need to be weighed against the other, especially for a species that has replaced a great deal of instinct with intelligence.

I think that sort of backfired as he then stated that the loss of instinct in humans shows we were designed as well.

Any ideas?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think you handled it quite well.  My gut response to nonsense like this is usually along the lines of "Bollocks!"

Natural selection would hardly favour an animal which was afraid of everything.  If it's afraid of everything, it hides in its cave and/or runs away whenever anything happens, and starves to death before it mates.  I suppose it might be a psotive trait in something like a sessile marine worm, but I don't see how it could be anything other than certain death for a vertebrate.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 19 2010,18:00

"instinct" is a hardwired behavior. The rules of the behavior can be very simple. Step 1, pick up object, Step 2, carry to a location, Step 3, repeat, Step 4 (triggered by a big pile of objects) pat down the center. This more or less is "building a nest."

Experiments have shown that "instinct" is merely to steps, but the sequence is learned. The most well known example was when Konrad Lorenz raised mouse pups without any exposure to another mouse. They could do each of the instinctual behaviors- but not in the correct order.

The reduction of instinctual behaviors to smaller and smaller units allows greater and greater adaptability, and requires more and more learning. Humans are rather at the extreme end of the distribution, but only that. We know that many other critters are capable of learning, and are in social groups that facilitate teaching.
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 19 2010,20:28

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 19 2010,18:00)
"instinct" is a hardwired behavior. The rules of the behavior can be very simple. Step 1, pick up object, Step 2, carry to a location, Step 3, repeat, Step 4 (triggered by a big pile of objects) pat down the center. This more or less is "building a nest."

Experiments have shown that "instinct" is merely to steps, but the sequence is learned. The most well known example was when Konrad Lorenz raised mouse pups without any exposure to another mouse. They could do each of the instinctual behaviors- but not in the correct order.

The reduction of instinctual behaviors to smaller and smaller units allows greater and greater adaptability, and requires more and more learning. Humans are rather at the extreme end of the distribution, but only that. We know that many other critters are capable of learning, and are in social groups that facilitate teaching.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We've seen this teaching/learning behavior in the wild - dolphins, chimps, birds...maybe more.  I have one paper where a rodent was taught to get food by using a rake with it's paws.  Totally fantastic stuff, and it makes me wonder really what exactly "intelligence" is - since more and more animals are exhibiting (or we are noticing, rather) more "intelligent" behavior, perhaps it is not what we always thought it was.  The idea of "intelligence" really being the control/overriding of instinct seems more realistic than the more traditional one.  I'll have to look up that Lorenz stuff - I've read a bit but have not really looked at his work in depth.
Posted by: Acipenser on Mar. 19 2010,21:52

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 19 2010,20:28)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 19 2010,18:00)
"instinct" is a hardwired behavior. The rules of the behavior can be very simple. Step 1, pick up object, Step 2, carry to a location, Step 3, repeat, Step 4 (triggered by a big pile of objects) pat down the center. This more or less is "building a nest."

Experiments have shown that "instinct" is merely to steps, but the sequence is learned. The most well known example was when Konrad Lorenz raised mouse pups without any exposure to another mouse. They could do each of the instinctual behaviors- but not in the correct order.

The reduction of instinctual behaviors to smaller and smaller units allows greater and greater adaptability, and requires more and more learning. Humans are rather at the extreme end of the distribution, but only that. We know that many other critters are capable of learning, and are in social groups that facilitate teaching.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We've seen this teaching/learning behavior in the wild - dolphins, chimps, birds...maybe more.  I have one paper where a rodent was taught to get food by using a rake with it's paws.  Totally fantastic stuff, and it makes me wonder really what exactly "intelligence" is - since more and more animals are exhibiting (or we are noticing, rather) more "intelligent" behavior, perhaps it is not what we always thought it was.  The idea of "intelligence" really being the control/overriding of instinct seems more realistic than the more traditional one.  I'll have to look up that Lorenz stuff - I've read a bit but have not really looked at his work in depth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like Rico



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Rico's remarkable "vocabulary" raises new questions about language learning in animals

Rico, a dog with an approximately 200-word "vocabulary," can learn the names of unfamiliar toys after just one exposure to the new word-toy combination.


A 9-year-old border collie who apparently understands a vocabulary of 200 words—most of them in German—has led scientists to conclude that the remarkable dog has language-learning ability comparable, in some ways, to a human toddler. Their findings raise anew the question of whether language is strictly a human trait.

Rico is hardly the first non-human animal to show skills at language comprehension; his vocabulary size is comparable to that of language-trained apes, dolphins, sea lions and parrots. But researchers writing in the 11 June 2004 issue of the journal Science say the German canine shows a process of learning called "fast-mapping" not seen to this extent in animals other than humans.

Like a young human child, Rico can quickly form rough hypotheses about the meaning of a new word after a single exposure by inferring that the new word is connected to an object he is seeing for the first time. That suggests to scientists that the ability to understand sounds is not necessarily related to the ability to speak, and that some aspects of speech comprehension evolved earlier than, and independent from, human speech.

Rico's skill was the subject of a news conference in Berlin on 10 June 2004 organized by Science, AAAS and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. Scientist Julia Fischer, along with her Science co-author and Rico's owners, brought the study to life for a room filled with journalists representing media outlets around the world.

And, of course, there was Rico. After an appearance on a German game show about three years ago that launched his science-and-show-biz career, followed by months of methodical scientific testing, Rico emerged from the news conference as an international star.

"Such fast, one-trial learning in dogs is remarkable," said Katrina Kelner, Science's deputy editor for life sciences. "This ability suggests that the brain structures that support this kind of learning are not unique to humans, and may have formed the evolutionary basis of some of the advanced language abilities of humans."

In the early chapters of Rico's story, he appeared on the popular German game show "Wetten, das...?" Fischer heard about his amazing performance and arranged a meeting with Rico in September 2001. After Rico's caretakers agreed to the collaboration, Fischer's team at the Planck Institute set out to test the dog's word skills. In a series of controlled experiments, he correctly retrieved, by name, a total of 37 out of 40 items randomly chosen from his toy collection.

Next, the researchers tested Rico's ability to learn new words through fast-mapping. The German scientists placed a new toy among seven familiar toys. In a separate room, the owner asked Rico to fetch the new item, using a name the Border collie had never heard before.

Rico correctly retrieved the new item in seven of 10 such tests. He apparently uses a process of elimination, much as young children do, to surmise that new words tend to refer to objects that do not already have names. After a month without access to these target toys, Rico retrieved them, upon request, from groups of four familiar and four completely novel toys in three out of six sessions. His retrieval rate is comparable to the performance of three-year-old toddlers, according to the authors.

< http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0610rico.shtml >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: snaxalotl on Mar. 21 2010,18:45

if you haven't seen it, Jon Stewart makes some brilliant observations of the texas school board:
< http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch....xtbooks >
Posted by: Texas Teach on July 18 2011,18:17

I just got the following via email:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear Science Educator:

Here is the latest information from TEA regarding our Supplemental Science Materials Adoption:

The final recommendations of the Commissioner of Education regarding instructional materials offered for adoption under the Request for Supplemental Science Materials are posted on the TEA website. The document is available at < http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147487077. >


The State Board of Education is scheduled to take action regarding the adoption of supplemental science materials at its meeting on July 20-22. More information about the State Board of Education meeting is available at < http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=1156 > .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I thought some of you might want to comb through those and/or pass them along to those who need to.
Posted by: fnxtr on July 18 2011,22:01

Quote (Texas Teach @ July 18 2011,16:17)
I just got the following via email:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear Science Educator:

Here is the latest information from TEA regarding our Supplemental Science Materials Adoption:

The final recommendations of the Commissioner of Education regarding instructional materials offered for adoption under the Request for Supplemental Science Materials are posted on the TEA website. The document is available at < http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147487077. >


The State Board of Education is scheduled to take action regarding the adoption of supplemental science materials at its meeting on July 20-22. More information about the State Board of Education meeting is available at < http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=1156 > .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I thought some of you might want to comb through those and/or pass them along to those who need to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just get the "agency news" page with no mention of said materials. Site search on "supplemental science materials" just returns the "agency news" page
Posted by: fnxtr on July 18 2011,22:10

...but < here's > the TEKS for BIO 9/10/11.

The money shot:

"(7)  Science concepts. The student knows evolutionary theory is a scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life. The student is expected to:

(A)  analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies, including anatomical, molecular, and developmental;  "
Posted by: Texas Teach on July 19 2011,08:48

Quote (fnxtr @ July 18 2011,22:01)
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 18 2011,16:17)
I just got the following via email:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dear Science Educator:

Here is the latest information from TEA regarding our Supplemental Science Materials Adoption:

The final recommendations of the Commissioner of Education regarding instructional materials offered for adoption under the Request for Supplemental Science Materials are posted on the TEA website. The document is available at < http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147487077. >


The State Board of Education is scheduled to take action regarding the adoption of supplemental science materials at its meeting on July 20-22. More information about the State Board of Education meeting is available at < http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=1156 > .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I thought some of you might want to comb through those and/or pass them along to those who need to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just get the "agency news" page with no mention of said materials. Site search on "supplemental science materials" just returns the "agency news" page
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Weird.  Let me try that again:

< here >
Posted by: fnxtr on July 19 2011,10:11

That worked. "Discovery Education" gave me tachycardia, until I realized it links to Discovery Channel. Whew!


eta the 'y' in the 2nd 'discovery'.
Posted by: Richardthughes on July 19 2011,10:46

< http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....ion.php >
Posted by: Henry J on July 19 2011,13:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(A)  analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies, including anatomical, molecular, and developmental;  "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In detail, or just an overview? Brief overview I could do; details would require studying.
Posted by: fnxtr on July 19 2011,14:03

Quote (Henry J @ July 19 2011,11:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(A)  analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies, including anatomical, molecular, and developmental;  "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In detail, or just an overview? Brief overview I could do; details would require studying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like a 16-year-old would have the skill set for this.
Posted by: Texas Teach on July 19 2011,15:13

Quote (fnxtr @ July 19 2011,14:03)
 
Quote (Henry J @ July 19 2011,11:49)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(A)  analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies, including anatomical, molecular, and developmental;  "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In detail, or just an overview? Brief overview I could do; details would require studying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like a 16-year-old would have the skill set for this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that part of the standard as written.  The analyze and evaluate are standard "Bloom's taxonomy" jargon that are overused, but not intrinsically bad.  It's really asking that the kids can pull together the various types of evidence for common descent and explain why it makes a good case.  Listing the types of evidence is a way to force the teachers to cover all of the items (thus the "including" (which we've been told means must) rather than the phrase "such as" (which means may)).  

The problem with the standard is that there will be some teachers who still won't follow it or who give it a day or two at best.  Also, the old TAKS standardized test would rarely have more than one question on evolution, and they tended to be things you could answer without much background.  So there was no real "penalty" for teachers that taught no evolution or even anti-evolution because their students still got decent scores.  

This year we move to the end of course exams in biology and the hope/fear is that they will be much more rigorous.  We teachers haven't had much information yet about what it will look like.  I can say that my physics students who took a field test of the physics EOC told me it covered everything we'd done last year plus some things we hadn't.  The physics test also will have a 3 page formula chart as compared to 3/4 of a page for all three sciences on the old TAKS exam.  If the questions on the biology test actually test some real understanding of evolutionary theory, it will be very interesting to see what happens in schools that haven't been teaching it.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 02 2011,07:58

< Revising Assessment of Clayton Williams, Jr. >
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 02 2011,08:02

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 02 2011,07:58)
< Revising Assessment of Clayton Williams, Jr. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Wes.  We don't hear nearly enough about non-crazy Texans.  It's good to be reminded that they aren't all like Perry or The Bad Dentist!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 02 2011,08:07

OK is the state to watch out for now.  There is an openly creationist head of the education department and she's cleaning house, forcing the people who support science and education out and replacing them with her chosen cronies.

I wish I could tell you more about the EOC Texas project, but I avoid that as much as possible.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 22 2013,07:38

Not sure where to put this, but this thread seems an appropriate place.

Ahem...a < kerfluffle > over textbooks that cover evolution.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 22 2013,07:53

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 22 2013,07:38)
Not sure where to put this, but this thread seems an appropriate place.

Ahem...a < kerfluffle > over textbooks that cover evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that this isn't so much about the textbook.  Pearson does the Texas state assessments.  The school board may very well be holding the Pearson textbook hostage to get some concessions in the assessment area.

I wouldn't hold anything past these clowns.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 22 2013,08:02

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 22 2013,07:53)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 22 2013,07:38)
Not sure where to put this, but this thread seems an appropriate place.

Ahem...a < kerfluffle > over textbooks that cover evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that this isn't so much about the textbook.  Pearson does the Texas state assessments.  The school board may very well be holding the Pearson textbook hostage to get some concessions in the assessment area.

I wouldn't hold anything past these clowns.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahh...ok. I admit that I've read only a little on this and thus I'm not totally acquainted with the issues. I took that last paragraph to indicate that there was discussion and a vote on how long it took for the planet to cool as covered in the textbook, but maybe I missed something. In any event, clearly there's some dubious decision-making going on.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 22 2013,09:45

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 22 2013,08:02)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 22 2013,07:53)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 22 2013,07:38)
Not sure where to put this, but this thread seems an appropriate place.

Ahem...a < kerfluffle > over textbooks that cover evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that this isn't so much about the textbook.  Pearson does the Texas state assessments.  The school board may very well be holding the Pearson textbook hostage to get some concessions in the assessment area.

I wouldn't hold anything past these clowns.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahh...ok. I admit that I've read only a little on this and thus I'm not totally acquainted with the issues. I took that last paragraph to indicate that there was discussion and a vote on how long it took for the planet to cool as covered in the textbook, but maybe I missed something. In any event, clearly there's some dubious decision-making going on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I haven't totally kept up either... but I'm not sure why a Biology book would have a discussion on the cooling of the Earth.

I check the ToC online and saw nothing about the Age of the Earth... I'll check my copy when I get home, but it is a previous edition (not the most current).

All these "midnight" meetings are more suspicious than anything else.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 22 2013,10:04

WRT instincts. Some of our instincts are shared with all ilfe on this planet, but if we limit the scope to, sya. mammals, they are obious:

The primary and foremost instinct is the instinc to preserve one's life. if your life is threatened, all your resources are aimed at saving your life. Rational thinking can to a certain degree override that, to sacrifice your life in order to save somebody else. But then we are dealing with another strong instinct, that of preserving you own species.

And sex is of course another aspect of the same. It is both about preserving one's own genes and the species as well.

I don't know what creationists think but thinking is not one of their strengths. That, and excessive amounts of ignorance.
Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 22 2013,16:54

Why would the Texas school board worry about whether or not a biology textbook is properly handling a geology thing like the cooling of the Earth? My guess would be, it's about Lord Kelvin's calculations re: the upper limit for the age of the Earth. The board's contingent of YECs could be trying to introduce a YEC lie about Kelvin's calculations, which (according to the finest scholars in YEC-land) proved the Earth couldn't be more than a few thousand years old.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 22 2013,21:59

And here I thought Kelvin's calculations allowed for it to be a few million years!

Or was it several million?

Ah well, physicists found a Curie for that problem.

Henry
Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 23 2013,02:27

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 22 2013,21:59)
And here I thought Kelvin's calculations allowed for it to be a few million years!

Or was it several million?

Ah well, physicists found a Curie for that problem.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You got it—Kelvin's initial calculations (as opposed to… whatever bullshit the YECs are making noise about) said the Earth was somewhere between 20 million years old, and 400 million years old. Later, Kelvin revised his estimate to 20-40 million years, still orders of magnitude greater than what YECs want, not that that sort of discrepancy would ever get in the way of a YEC's decision to bear false witness about a scientific finding.
Posted by: jeffox on Nov. 23 2013,11:55

U/Pb radioactive dating of detrital zircons contained in carbonaceous chondrite meteors is the current yardstick, or at least that's what I was taught . . . .
Oh, and quite consistent at just a bit over 4.1 BY.
Anyways, my 2c.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 23 2013,15:03

Some of my notes for an article I am working on Re: creationists, abiogenesis, and the age of the earth.

Zircon Geochronology

Zircons form in magma chambers under intense pressures. They are common, and extremely stable making them very attractive for geological dating. Their internal chemistry, and weathering are records of Earth's earliest physical conditions following consolidation and cooling.

Bizzarro, Martin, Connelly, James N., Thrane, Kristine, Borg, Lars E., 2012 "Excess hafnium-176 in meteorites and the early Earth zircon record" Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems Vol 13: 3, 1525-2027

Analysis of the SAH99555 angrite meteorite showed an isotopic enrichment of hafnium-176 from a high energy event ~4869 ± 34 Myr , ~300 million years before the aggregation of solids in the proto-solar system. This reflects an pre-collapse high energy event probably related to the trigger of proto-solar collapse. Terrestrial zircons from the early Archean (Hadean)  approximately 4.3 Ga indicate persistent unhomogenized hafnium reservoirs which limits Earth crustal dynamics to after ~4.4 Ga.

Wilde S.A., Valley J.W., Peck W.H. and Graham C.M. (2001). "Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago" Nature 409 (6817): 175–8.

4.4 Ga- oldest terrestrial minerals dated, Jack Hills Australia.

Mojzsis, S.J., Harrison, T.M., Pidgeon, R.T. (2001). "Oxygen-isotope evidence from ancient zircons for liquid water at the Earth's surface 4300 Myr ago". Nature 409 (6817): 178–181.

Ushikubo, T., Kita, N.T., Cavosie, A.J., Wilde, S.A. Rudnick, R.L. and Valley, J.W. (2008). "Lithium in Jack Hills zircons: Evidence for extensive weathering of Earth's earliest crust". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 272 (3–4): 666–676.

Joe Hiess, Daniel J. Condon, Noah McLean, Stephen R. Noble
2012 "238U/235U Systematics in Terrestrial Uranium-Bearing Minerals" Science 30 March 2012: Vol. 335 no. 6076 pp. 1610-1614 DOI: 10.1126/science.1215507

A mean 238U/235U value of 137.818 ± 0.045 (2?) (compared to the earlier value of 137.88) in zircon samples reflects the average uranium isotopic composition and variability of terrestrial zircon. This distribution is broadly representative of the average crustal and “bulk Earth” 238U/235U composition.

Birger Rasmussen, Ian R. Fletcher, Janet R. Muhling, Courtney J. Gregory and Simon A. Wilde
2011 "Metamorphic replacement of mineral inclusions in detrital zircon from Jack Hills, Australia: Implications for the Hadean Earth" Geology, v. 39, p. 1143-1146

Later inclusions can alter the results of zircon chronologies. Note they would appear younger than they really are.

Dating the Earth/Moon system from the Moon

Another approach was to use lunar rocks recovered by the Apollo missions. These were thought to date to the Earth/Moon formation, and would not have been subjected to the same weathering as terrestrial rock.


Alberto E. Saal, Erik H. Hauri, James A. Van Orman, and Malcolm J. Rutherford
2013 "Hydrogen Isotopes in Lunar Volcanic Glasses and Melt Inclusions Reveal a Carbonaceous Chondrite Heritage" Science 14 June 2013: 340 (6138), 1317-1320


Tacked on the end:

The author of this news item either failed to read the original article, or failed to understand it. The issue is not whether the early Earth had liquid oceans, and at least some dry land in the Hadean, or early Archean. This has been established by stronger data than is used in Marty et al, "Nitrogen Isotopic Composition and Density of the Archean Atmosphere" (see 1-3 below). Nor did the Marty et al paper address the relevant time period for the origin of life. They analyzed fluid inclusions from quartz dated 3.0, and 3.5 billion years ago. We have strong evidence for life as early as 3.8 billion years ago (Ga), and confirmed fossil evidence as early as 3.5 Ga (see 4-6).

The result of this news item is to mislead people less familiar with origin of life research.

1) Wilde S.A., Valley J.W., Peck
W.H. and Graham C.M. (2001). "Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago" Nature 409 (6817): 175–8.

2) Mojzsis, S.J., Harrison, T.M., Pidgeon, R.T. (2001). "Oxygen-isotope evidence from ancient zircons for liquid water at the Earth's surface 4300 Myr ago". Nature 409 (6817): 178–181.

3) Ushikubo, T., Kita, N.T., Cavosie, A.J., Wilde, S.A. Rudnick, R.L. and Valley, J.W. (2008). "Lithium n Jack Hills zircons: Evidence for extensive weathering of Earth's earliest crust". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 272 (3–4): 666–676.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 23 2013,21:13

Ok...my bad. The books (plural) in question were for biology and environmental science. But it seems the kerfluffle is < now over. >

Of course, < the Curmudgeon > is not so sure.

ETA: updated info


Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 18 2015,20:47

Texas rejects letting academics vet public school textbooks

< http://news.yahoo.com/texas-r....46.html >


I tried to post this in < this thread > but I got a page that says I don't have permission to reply to that topic.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 19 2015,08:45

Well, somebody has to stand up to the experts.
Posted by: The whole truth on Feb. 19 2016,12:21

< http://www.dailykos.com/story....d-of-Ed >
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.