Texas scientists tackle creationism threat - October 01, 2008
Texas scientists are doing their best to push yet another camel's nose back out of the tent. More than 800 of them have signed a statement opposing the Texas State Board of Education's long-standing requirement that students be taught both the 'strengths and weaknesses' of scientific theories--one of those deceptively innocuous and reasonable-sounding phrases that could easily force teachers to present creationism as the intellectual equal of evolution. (AP)
Both the statement and the brand-new organization formed to draft it -- the 21st Century Science Coalition -- were triggered by the board's ongoing deliberations over Texas's new science curriculum standards. Because the Texas textbook market is so huge, the board's vote, expected next spring, will affect science curricula nationwide. The board is evenly split on whether or not to keep the 'weaknesses' language. But its chair, dentist Don McLeroy, is definitely in the keeper camp: "I look at evolution as still a hypothesis with weaknesses," he has declared on several occasions. (For background, see this New York Times story from June.)
The 840 scientist-signatories beg to differ, arguing that 21st-century Texas students deserve, well, a 21st-century education. They want the 'strength and weaknesses' language expunged. "[E]volution is an easily observable phenomenon that has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt," their statement declares.
Board of Education -- over to you.
Comments
As a mother of a college freshman who had his entire high school done in Houston, Texas, I may say I formed an opinion on science teaching. In addition, I am an investigator, a factor that adds some value to my opinion. Science teachers should be teaching science at the classroom. Creationism should be taught at churches. I am not one 21st Century Science Coalition but I fully support the initiative. I believe that the current level of science taught at schools in the USA is insufficient to fulfill the intellectual baggage necessary for exiting high school.
Posted by: Maria da Graca Cabreira | October 1, 2008 09:16 PM
EVERY theory has weaknesses, whether it be biology, physics, math, or any other discipline.
In another 100 years even the most up-to-date and unassailably "proven" theories may be considered hopelessly "quaint" and naive.
In 1000 years they will be considered totally primitive and uninformed.
Posted by: Mike Galloway | October 1, 2008 09:22 PM
I fully endorse the initiative taken by the scientists-fools are still arguing over bogus adea taht is called creationism !
Posted by: Dr.Arvind Mishra | October 2, 2008 11:38 AM
I fully endorse the initiative taken by Texas scientists - they are for a noble cause. Bravo!
Posted by: Dr.Arvind Mishra | October 2, 2008 11:43 AM
Mr. Galloway:
Mathematical theorems can't have weaknesses. Unlike the other fields, mathematics only needs to be internally consistent; it doesn't rely on external factors (i.e., data from observation).
And even in the other fields, you're ignoring progressive nature of science. The work of the past is never discarded in whole; rather, the worthy parts forms the basis for modern-day work. The work by Newton, Darwin, Mendeleyev, etc. isn't "quaint"--we still use their ideas today, even if they've been elaborated upon and refined. Other parts may indeed fall by the wayside and seem "quaint" later on (ether, phrenology, etc.), but to extend this to *all* of the science of a particular time is ludicrous.
In 1000 years, the science of today will be seen as the early foundation of 4th millennium science. Some parts may seem quaint, but other parts will seem completely unremarkable, save perhaps for their antiquity.
Posted by: Mike Keesey | October 2, 2008 05:01 PM
Mr. Keesey,
Thank you for your thoughts.
I am not a debater or trying to be an advocate of some sort. But as a general principle there should be no objection to teaching the 'strengths and weaknesses' of ANY premise.
Any discipline can become capture to its own dogma--Isn't it better to teach: "This is what is CURRENTLY considered to be true," since it is unlikely that any of us can accurately predict what will stand the test of time?
Posted by: Mike Galloway | October 3, 2008 12:54 AM
Mr. Keesey,
Thank you for your thoughts.
I am not a debater or trying to be an advocate of some sort. But as a general principle there should be no objection to teaching the 'strengths and weaknesses' of ANY premise.
Any discipline can become captive to its own dogma--Isn't it better to teach: "This is what is CURRENTLY considered to be true," since it is unlikely that any of us can accurately predict what will stand the test of time?
Posted by: Mike Galloway | October 3, 2008 01:00 AM