Texas to be dragged kicking and screaming back to the Bronze Age
Posted on: March 31, 2009 - 7:01pm
Offline
Texas to be dragged kicking and screaming back to the Bronze Age
Mr804 found this story a few days ago.
If you're in Canada or America (nevermind Texas), this is rather bad news. The Texas board of education has a lot of sway over what publishers will and will not print in their textbooks because of their overwhelming purchasing power. Since you can only buy what publishers release, well, guess what? Now everybody gets to recieve a watered down curriculum.
Watcher? Dead Again? Your state is broken (again).
Fix it!
Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
My favourite part is the intro:
Oh, the beauteous irony.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Ugh. Texas trying to outdo Kansas now?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Signature ? How ?
And people wondered what was wrong with Bush, he lived too many years in Texas.
That the board has members especially a chairman that thinks the Universe was poofed into existance 10K years ago tells all you need to know.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
All hail the Great Poofing Into Existence.
I knew it was Poof the whole time. I have this really poofy duvet that I assumed was the creator of the universe, since it made me feel so comfortable. Now we know. An Almighty Poof is responsible.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
And lucky me, I get to live in the state.
It's just this sort of crap that's making me really consider moving to another country. Tired, tired, tired.
Y
Yea irony is so beautiful in this quote
But that is not good. I could agree with questioning evolution. But to say that universe is younger than 10k years is just stupid.
I have often stressed the dangerous ways in which the religious manipulate language to suit their liking. It is something which we must be constantly vigilant about. The way in which they warp the language of critical thinking is probably the most pernicious example. Oftentimes in science there is an issue of a minority position, but this is far, far beyond that (ID most certainly does not deserve the respect needed to be called a “minority scientific position”, a phrase which implies a small but respectable following among informed opinion). They seem to have equated being in a minority position with being a bastion of critical thought, and they seem to have consensus equated to “clamping down” on dissent. Of course, real science doesn’t work like that. This is not a factionalist process. Your ability to critically evaluate and understand scientific propositions and principles is not measured by how much you differ from a particular consensus. Nor does being part of that consensus imply an unquestioned dogma. On the contrary, it is the real biologists, those who belong to this consensus on evolution, (i.e us) who have the right to stake our claim to being able to critically evaluate and analyze evolution because we are the ones who have spent enough time studying it to evaluate the data. The problem is that anyone can claim that they are engaged in a process of critically evaluating a proposition, but with epistemic rights come epistemic responsibilities, and unfortunately, in my experience, attempting to persuade a creationist to reach the level of understanding of biology required to subject it’s central theory to rigorous evaluation is somewhat akin to pulling teeth with a searing hot pair of blacksmith’s tongs.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Humn? I wonder if Texans will be going back to outhouses too, they might as well since that's where their brains seem to be.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Umm... but Texas still sucks.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Honestly, it's amazing that it's difficult at all, though. Consider my position of clearly not being a biologist, having taken one course in biology in university, and not even doing all that well in it. Two in chemistry. The mere fact that I can test these things in even the crudest experiments ... it strikes me as the most obvious source of trust in the process of scientific discovery. Anyone can test these ideas for validity, rather than coming up with "irreducible complexity" as an explanation for ... oh hell, I don't know what they're on about.
But anyone can test these things, so that you don't have to trust an expert. Of course, a trained scientist is orders of magnitude better at conducting a study, something that the layman would probably fail at miserably.
But all of this is out in the open! The process, the data, and anything connected to it are all completely documented and available for study! I guess I'm saying that it's amazing that laziness has become some kind of qualification; that (like someone else here said) because our culture encourages everyone having their own opinion, somehow everyone's opinion on a subject matter is equal, and suggesting otherwise is elitism.
Well, that's bullshit. I couldn't design a study to save my life, and I know it. I wouldn't try messing with my own plumbing or doing my own carpentry, either. Why is the scientific craft any different?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Because the Bible tells them so.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
And that's EXACTLY why I'm a qualified Theologian. I don't plan on reading the Bible, and I couldn't give two shits about anything any theologian has ever written. Q E fuckin' D.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Will, here I'd disagree. The more one knows about one's opponent and his arguments the easier one can reflute it. Though with theists they do fall back to the because God did it line which is admission of failure on their part, though they don't seem to understand that.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
It says in the second paragraph, "Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned..."
So, what exactly is wrong with that?
Perhaps I should elaborate more, replace "evolution" in that sentence with "religion," would you agree with that statement then?
Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty
*Facepalm and head-slam*. I warned above that you shouldn't fall for creationist tricks. This is just language that they use to attempt to place intelligent design on equal epistemological footing with evolution, the central theory of biology. In doing this they have set up a false dichotomy. Evolution being the central theory of modern biology, universally accepted for the last 100 years by all serious biologists, has this status because it is one of the most rigorously examined principles in all biology, not because it is "unquestioned dogma". Taking the side of intelligent design does not qualify you as a critical thinker. The problem is that these people have equated concensus as a consequence of testable prediction with "unquestioned dogma", which is nonsense. The other problem is thjat in order to subject a scientific theory to serious critical scrutiny, you have to be well-trained in it to begin with. Imagine that I came up to you and asked you to submit electroweak symmetry breaking to "critical scrutiny". You wouldn't know where to start, would you? Same problem here. Just read what I wrote:
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
What DG said. Also consider what theory means in a scientific sense. You've probably heard of a few others, like the theory of gravity. Should we place "God's hand pushing down on us" in science classrooms as an alternative to gravity? No? What's different about evolution then?
The vast majority (almost all?) of the people "supporting" Intelligent Design or Creationism do not actually understand evolution. That's one of the issues. On one hand are people who have studied the subject for years and dedicated their life to science...and the other side is *mostly* comprised of people who haven't taken science past college/high school (if that) and who assume they are correct because a 2000 year old book told them something.
If an architect said "that building will fall down if you build it according to that plan" and a salesman said "I have faith the building won't fall down," who would you trust?
The problem with the theory of evolution is that is so emotionally charged for most people, unlike the theory of gravity.
ah yes, I see that now, teach me to post something ten minutes before class I suppose. Lets go ahead and get into this anyways. First and perhaps most obvious, how exactly do you know that this is a "creationist trick" and not the Texas board wanting to instill the philosophy of rigorously examining what we belive to be true? A tad silly but I'm curious about how you would answer.
So basically what I'm getting from you and DG is that only someone who has studied a subject extensivly has a right to comment on it with any authority. (If my logic is wrong here I'm sure you'll be more than happy to tell me
)
Well I have taken quite a few religion classes (probably not enough to be considered extensive yet but still I've done more than just read the Bible and think about God, which I've done quite a bit and quite critically just for the record. I would like to say lets just assume I have extensive knowledge but that's probably not a good assumption to make for this one). Umm...ya, I have near extensive knowledge of religion and, after critically looking looking at God, I have determined Him to exist. Would you not by the same logic be forced to accept my view?
To be honest, I don't care one way or the other whether we humans came about by evolution or that God poofed us into existence; I think it is far more important to care that He created me instead of bickering about how He might have done it. Proving evolution to be real (I'm sure you'll say that is has been but let's just humor me for a moment) doesn't prove anything one way or the other about God. It possibly proves the creation story wrong (possibly, we could get into arguments about what power God has but lets save it for some other time) but the creation story in Genesis has only been considered to be literal for about the past two hundred years. Ancient Israelites would have understood it to be religious poetry rather than a true story.
I look forward to your replies chewing me out, peace.
-fatty
Yes I am a Christian. I'm sorry that there are jerks out there that have done bad things all in the name of, I ask that you don't judge all of us because of the acts of those few. I pray that you're having a great day today. Since that doesn't mean much to most people on this site lets just say that I really really hope you have an awesome day. God bless. -fatty
It says clearly that the board chairman believes the Earth is 10,000 years old. You can't seriously think that this is the objective of these people? Secondly, as I've stated countless times, including above, creationists use loaded words like "alternative" and "questioning" in order to attempt to epistemologically equate pseudoscientific nonsense with genuinely, and rigorously tested scientific theories. You can't seriously be equating the introduction of a pseudoscience like ID as a genuine attempt to "introduce critical thinking". In order to genuinely evaluate scientific theories, you have to break out the peer-reviewed research. Just how likely do you think this is to occur in a high school biology class?
What did I just say? I said that having sufficient expertise on a matter was a prerequisite to making a critical judgement of it. If I just accepted what you said I would be in violation of the very principle above. You are creating a false dichotomy between rejection and acceptance, instead of of the obvious epistemological middle ground of ignoring the issue altogether until your expertise on the matter is sufficient for you to engage in a real position. If people could just follow that principle much of the vast stupidity that exists in countless forms today would dissipate.
Secondly, I was referring specifically to science, because that is a branch of human knowledge where extensive empirical research is cumulative and it is thus impossible t make critical judgment without expertise.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Um ... of course. If you're having a problem with the wiring in your house, you ask an electrician. Why? Because only someone who has studied the subject extensively is qualified to deal with electrical wiring.
You're alternating between asking philosophical questions and biological questions, here. For the biological questions, DG's a biologist, so I'd say he's qualified to give you one of the best answers you're going to get.
Not really expert-level qualifications.
There, you're claiming expertise not in religion nor biology, but ontology. So no, your couple of courses and thinking about God hardly qualify you as a philosopher versed in ontology. Have you looked at other gods as extensively? Do you think you might reach the same conclusion in regards to them? I mean, there are a lot of gods.
Why is it important to know that you were created?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I don't see why turnabout isn't fair play, here. If total scientific ignorance is a qualification to debate with scientists, I figure total theological ignorance is a qualification to debate with theists.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Zing.
Sadly enough, sometimes one *can* demolish theological arguments without one iota of theological knowledge.
These are not the same thing. Religion is a well documented human phenomenon which takes on countless incarnations depending on culture and point in history. As such, religious studies, the study of what people believe in terms of religion is a legitimate and very interesting field of social science. I would study it myself if I wasn't aiming for astrophysics.
"God" however, the object of worship by christians (I assume that is what you are talking about because of your signature), is an undefined and most certainly unproven entity (but don't feel bad, this is the case for any god). No evidence for its existence of even a coherent definition of it has ever been presented to me in any way. In fact, the case for it is so pathetic that the so called field of "theology" isn't a field of knowledge, it's a field of speculation about ignorance. The alternative fields of "tooth fairylogy" and "fgyuksaghjgk-logy" have just as much going for it. So no, the same logic doesn't apply.
Uh, no, I'm not totally certain...
...But in a free-market economy with a limited number of publishers who want to sell their books to the widest available market, this makes sense. If (I'm just making this number up), say, 50% of your customers are going to buy a book that includes apologetics in preference to one that includes proper science, are you going to print the apologetic book or the scientific one?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Perhaps, Kevin, but who's going to pay for a text book that doesn't meet the standard criteria for a curriculum? I'm not prepared to make a big deal out of this until I see a creationist text in an Ontario school board.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Does anyone not think this problem is as much political as it is religious.
Why are politicans (scientific educated or not) deciding on what should be taught in school. In fact I would go further why are parents even being consulted via elections on it?
The idea you can elect every official under the sun is insane, the only people who should be teaching science or deciding on the sylabus are science teachers, the only people who should be policeman are professional trained oned, the only people flying should be trained pilots this is not something that should be elected.
Fundamentally its having democracy where democracy has no real role.
This doesnt mean politicans shouldnt get involved if things go seriously wrong but by default this is a job for the professionals not the electorate
Oh you lucky, lucky Canadian you. You seriously have no idea just how deep this goes. It's absolutely frightening once you stare it face to face. I'm IN the state (and working to get out- hopefully never to return, but my parents are here and they're getting up in their years) and I can tell you, this is not some passing thing or trifling matter.
We're talking millions of dollars- and as someone who was involved in teaching for a few years, I can also tell you that textbook committees are *the* committees to be on, if you're a teacher- the companies practically throw money at you so that their company's texts get in for the next five or six years.
So, when we have a school board decision in the second-biggest (and one of the most backward) states in the country- we're talking a decision that *will* filter through to other markets. Definitely not Canadian, because they do things differently up there. But I shudder to think about the state of science and scientific education in the next several decades in this country. We're already circling the drain. It'll take something like this to send us straight down the tubes, making us fall even further behind- perhaps to a position from which we can never (or not for a long time, anyway) recover.
Please (I'm serious) shed a tear for us in the theocracy. I'm really thinking about moving up north once I'm done with my Master's. Though that's as maybe- I really just want to get the hell out of this state, and *maybe* the country.