Lobbists For Dogmatic Evolution Still Stinging In Defeat

The likes of the NCSE and others have lobbied hard for not teaching students to be critical thinkers of whatever is being taught to them in science.

“Creationists on the board were unsuccessful in inserting the controversial “strengths and weaknesses” language from the old set of standards, they proposed a flurry of synonyms — such as “sufficiency or insufficiency” and “supportive and not supportive” — and eventually prevailed with a requirement that students examine “all sides of scientific evidence.”

Wrong! While it’s true the exact language from the old standards in science was removed, it was however replaced by stronger language which basically means the same thing…There is no difference because examining both strengths and weaknesses is examining scientific evidence from “all sides” as stated below…

“In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students.”

I can’t stress this enough, what a huge victory in science standards in Texas! There is not the typical dogmatic method in trying to indoctrinate students into evolution like following scientists as though they were some sort of priest. This is the very reason why lobby groups like the NCSE are still stinging in defeat, shaking their heads in disbelief, claiming the above standard is nothing more than “creationism” by code says NCSE project director Josh Rosenau (like it’s Freemasonry or some other secret society sect) rather than a practice which really is conducted by most scientists on both sides including those who are proponents of evolution.

Students should be taught “critical thinking” so they can come to conclusions in all fields in science, a solid and indisputable conclusion. Also students need to be taught “critical thinking” skills as theories and explanations of those theories can change with the progress of science.

Some who teach say, we allow our students to question, (be critical thinkers) we encourage it, which is fine then why would you be against the new science standards in Texas which basically advocates the same thing? Is it because of lobby groups are telling you to oppose it because of creationists being on the educational board? Then why wasn’t there one incident during the twenty years by having “strengths and weaknesses rule in place?

I will tell you what is happening, they(meaning the lobby groups like the NCSE) are trying to influence what sort of content is going to be put into the new textbooks and figure it might scare them enough to limit their defeat. Not surprisingly, “Lebo discussed the possibility of litigation over the board’s decision.”

We all know litigation will most likely not happen with the science standards in Texas. Critical thinking as stated earlier has a long track record in which they could have sued but then they didn’t.  Why? Because they had absolutely had no grounds to bring litigation about, not even one complaint (meaning teaching creationism)  surfaced under the previous weaknesses in science rule. So again I say, this is a scare tactic to try and influence what type of content goes into the new textbooks.


21 thoughts on “Lobbists For Dogmatic Evolution Still Stinging In Defeat

  1. Same thing happened to Bobby Jindal, who is the Governor of the State of Louisiana. He signed a “critical thinking” bill last summer, and there were threats of recall for his removal which was hyped up by the pro-evolutionist blogs, but it didn’t go anywhere and of course there was a threat of litigation as well. In Texas, they are just making the same noise to let you know they are still around, but until those textbooks are completed, you will be hearing much fussing going on from these dogmatic lobby groups who support evolution. The standards are now set for the next ten years!

  2. This is blatant politics, and pretty nasty too.
    Science is about critical thinking – creationism is not. And you very well know that creationism is not science, but religion. So just teach it in religion class. I’ve said this before, and it seems I have to keep saying this again: what is the problem with teaching creationism in religion class ? It gets taught then, right ?

    Science has always looked at ‘strengths and weaknesses’ of any theory that has been proposed, and will continue to do so. So I do not get your point here at all – this sort of thinking is inherent to science, so why does this need to be legislated ?

    I think you very well know that you are trying to get religion into the science classroom, where it obviously does not belong. I’m still very happy that – at the moment – this is a problem that is confined to the US and various Islamic countries.

  3. Eelco, if science has always looked at the strengths and weaknesses of any theory, then why the cry out to remove that wording from science standards?

  4. Because you very well know that it is not about the wording, but about the attempt to get religion into science class (for whatever reason …)

  5. Paranoid? Me? Why would that be?
    I’m just saying that it is pretty well documented what this is all about … getting religion into the science class. Where it does not belong, as it is not …. science. Seems pretty simple to me, and why this would be paranoid is beyond me.

  6. I do not see wording that says “Show weakness in evolution so we can convert children to worship God”. Does any of these strength and weakness standards call for the teaching of theology?

    Could it be that people are only looking to make sure that any one theory gets more authority than it deserves? Is it possible that there is no hidden agenda?

    The fact that you read into the strength and weakness debate than what is written in the standards makes you sound paranoid. And it is not just you, so many evolutionists come across as sounding paranoid in this debate.

  7. I’m sorry, but I am not blind. It is pretty obvious what is going on in Texas. If you choose not to see that, fine.
    I am not paranoid – I merely state my opinion on what I, and many others, think is going on there.

  8. Eelco,

    “Science is about critical thinking – creationism is not.” Are you really critical of evolution or just the theories within it’s framework? If you are not critical of the framework, then by your own own definition, it’s not “critical thinking.” There is only two ways the Universe could have been created, either natural or supernatural. Of course God, is the logical choice do to what we observe in nature.

    I really don’t think you know what went on in Texas. If science is really about critical thinking as you say, then there shouldn’t have been a debate because both sides would be agreeing. There was nothing in the science standards in Texas that advocates the teaching of creationism.

    A structured discipline of systematic examination for the purpose of obtaining knowledge is what creationism does even though we know who created the Universe.

    Studying how things work is important science as well as how things don’t work in nature. Science has limitations even in creation science, there are certain proposals that were used years ago, that are no longer a valid for a case for creationism, it’s not to say it proves evolution, but Christians shouldn’t use those old science arguments such as moon dust.

  9. Yes, of course I am critical of every single theory in existence. Yet the theory of evolution is by far the best one in existence at the moment, even though it is not perfect and might be superseded by something else.

    However, you say: “… even though we know who created the Universe”. That is the main difference here: you would *never* change your mind on that, you take that as a given. That is not critical, and certainly not scientific. A scientist would treat such a statement as an ad-hoc assumption, something to work with if nothing better exists, but highly unsatisfactory. By the way, for the theory of evolution it does not actually matter how the universe came about: that is the topic of cosmology. And the origin of life is the topic of abiogenesis. Evolution only comes into play once the seed of life is there.

    Once again, creationism is not science, but religion, and therefore should be taught in religion class, not science class. Why is that so hard ? And what is the problem with that ? It gets taught then, right ?

  10. Eelco, reread the comments on this post… can you not hear the paranoid sound in your responses?

    Evolutionists love to throw up barriers that can not be overcome in debates. If a person admits they are a Christian then any scientific argument they make is trying to push their religion, how are Christians in the scientific community supposed to be taken seriously by those standards?

    In most evolution debates it is the evolutionist that brings religion into the science debate.

  11. Eh, no.

    And you are making wild accusations about ‘evolutionists’ (don’t exist ….) throwing up ‘barriers’.

    Most Christians in the scientific community are not creationists, and are taken seriously at all levels. I know quite a few of them. It is creationists that are not taken seriously, and for good reasons. Your last statement is utterly false (in my humble opinion, of course).

  12. Eelco,

    lol, who is making wild accusations that evolutionist don’t exist? They sure do, and what else exists in the huge amount of taxpayer money is being used to fund vast amounts research in evolution, more than any other time in history. The competitive nature, also plays a role in how they view other opinions.

  13. Sigh …. I’m just saying that ‘evolutionist’ do not exist just like ‘gravitationists’ do not exist. There are biologists, there are the facts of evolultion (observations), and there is the theory of evolution.
    You probably mean to say biologists who accept (for as long as the evidence is backing it up !!) the theory of evolution.

    I don’t think that there is a lot of money being spent on researching evolution itself, as the theory is so well established. Most of the money going into science goes into molecular biology and the likes, and of course biotechnology (applied science !).

  14. lol, Eelco,

    Tell me something, since your an atheist. If you were graduating from public high school or one of your kids, and that high school was holding a secular graduation ceremony at a ‘church’ building (where almost 75 percent of the city attends) because the school did not have the space to hold such an important event. The building is fairly new and so huge it fits over 10,000 people. Would that bother you and if so why?

    Recently, a militant atheist group on behalf on one student who’s name they haven’t revealed is bringing a lawsuit against the government school because of where they are holding the event (at the ‘church building). A couple of things here, no church service goes on, it’s a secular event, the space is needed as high school graduations are much bigger especially in the suburbs than they were when I graduated.

    Last year before all this foolishness with the atheist group, a tax increase was approved by the voters to build a bigger gym, which will not be ready till next year so they can hold the graduation event there.

    I believe these atheists who are bullying and spoiling this event by bringing the lawsuit, don’t care where it’s being held, it’s the fact that they don’t like so many people claiming to have a belief in God, so they have to try and push them around. It’s not only in science, but other areas as well.

  15. I’m not an atheist, Michael. I am not against something that I see no evidence for. I am obviously not a theist, as I do not think there is a god of any sort.

    But your story is a bit sad. I not care if there are no churches left, but I also do not object to them being there. In fact, I’ve been to quite a few churches (and mosques, obviously), as they exist anyway and have a communal function for some. If churches would all disappear than other communal centres would need to be built.

    I have even lit candles in churches (the big Cathedral in Marseille, France, to be specific), as I see no harm at all in ceremonies and symbolic gestures. For me it had nothing to do with religion, though, but a public display of grieve and remembrance of a boy that only got to live 5 days (not my own son, but a nephew).

    But I’ve also been to lots of converted churches: in Nottingham one has been turned into a large pub, and in Leiden (the Netherlands) we used to do exams in one of the bigger ones. And have pop concerts and parties, of course.

  16. Eelco,

    By definition, your an atheist, because you are not a “theist.” Also, you don’t seem to have slant of the agnostic variety toward Christianity, but mainly towards science. Not all government schools can afford to build “communal centres” because they lack management with their budgets. Public schools in my locality are going to get some stimulus money from the government besides the normal tax money they get, no increase in spending (that’s a tough one for them to maintain) but the property taxes are still going up almost 15 percent for next year which is pretty tough for the middle class being in a recession.

    Overall you don’t seem militant about religion, more or less a bit curious about it, but don’t really believe in it. You might be shocked, but I don’t believe in a ‘church building’ the Greek word for “church” in the Bible is ekklēsia, means “assembly” or community of members on earth or believers in heaven, not a building. It’s a commonly misunderstood and misused word. I only use the label in certain cases to make a point about a building used for worship services.

  17. I do not like the word atheist, as that implies I am ‘against’ something. I clearly am a non-believer: I do not believe in anything at all as a scientist, although very often in life you have to believe people to make decisions, due to a lack of time to debate the pros and cons of a decision.
    One often has to believe someone means well, when accepting an offer for a lift, for example, just as one has to believe someone to be mean and nasty, in which case you stay well clear of that person. But you never know *for sure* whether someone is dishonest or not.

    But for things like evolution and cosmology there is plenty of time to ponder about the rights and wrongs of ideas, and there is no need to believe something. Putting together incomplete theories is just fine, as there is no need for these theories to be perfect right from the start (which is not the case when you see someone dodgy approaching, in which case you need to make a rapid decision based on few facts).

    So as for the term atheist, I do like to be called atheist, as I would then be a-lots-of-things. I do not find that very useful. So I’d like to stick to being ‘not a theist’, as that implies that I am not against theists. I simply disagree completely with the idea of there being a god or goddess or lots of them, as there is no evidence to back this idea up. And I think it is a very lazy conclusion to say ‘god did it’.

    As for militant thinking: I usually find that counterproductive. I am vegetarian, but if I am hosted somewhere, and there is only meat to eat, I’ll eat meat. Insulting the host won’t make him or her a vegetarian – gently explaining my point will be far more productive (just show how chickens in Holland are ‘grown’, for example).

  18. BTW, Michael, the order of the comments in this particular blog is not chronological, which messes things up. Could you fix that ?

  19. ok, let me take a look at settings…I had it on “nested” for comments, turned it off, should be back to normal…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s