Intelligent Design Tries Again In Texas, Group Says

Categories: Education

evolution042611.jpg
Evolution in the cross-hairs
Texas might be getting ready to fill its science textbooks with anti-evolution material, critics are warning.

The State Board of Education may soon take another step in its effort to adopt material that pushes Intelligent Design, they say.

"Two years ago State Board of Education members thumbed their noses at the science community and approved new curriculum standards that opened the door to creationism and junk science, " said TFN President Kathy Miller. "Now they are getting exactly what they wanted -- the chance to make Texas the poster child for the creationist movement. The state board would be aiding and abetting wholesale academic fraud and dumbing down the education of millions of Texas kids if it doesn't reject these materials."

The material is in proposed web-based high school biology materials the SBOE is considering.

Among the language the National Center for Science Education and the Texas Freedom Network find alarming:

* Religious claims such as "life on Earth is the result of intelligent causes" (Module 1, "Origin Nucleotide," Slide 19)

* Teacher instructions such as: "students should go home with the understanding that a new paradigm of explaining life's origins is emerging from the failed attempts of naturalistic scenarios. This new way of thinking is predicated upon the hypothesis that intelligent input is necessary for life's origins." (Module 8, "Teacher Resources", Slide 3)

* Arguments that "intelligent design" is a "legitimate scientific hypothesis" (Module 1, "Origin Nucleotide," Slide 19) or even "the default position" (Module 7, "Null Hypothesis," Slide 8) in science--despite the consensus of the scientific community, and a federal court, that it is essentially religious creationism without any scientific basis

* Misrepresentations of Darwin's 150-year-old writings in an attempt to discredit modern biology

* Distortions of the scientific understanding and evidence behind key biological processes, such as the modern synthetic theory of evolution and the stages of the cell cycle

The material will be considered by SBOE this summer, and because of budget cuts it may stay in the curriculum for a decade, critics say.


My Voice Nation Help
69 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Dr. GS Hurd
Dr. GS Hurd

Evolutionary theory is a causal description of how the diversity of life as we see it came into being. There are just four essential steps in Darwin’s original presentation 150 years ago; The forms of life (species) are not fixed, There is hereditable variation within species, The best reproductively adapted members of a species will leave the most reproducing offspring, These accumulated variations (mutations) over generations will result in the emergence of new species.

All of Darwin’s essential steps have been directly observed in nature, and in laboratory experiments. I have prepared a number of examples of new species that have been documented in the act of evolving. They are available in http://stonesnbones.blogspot.c... “The Emergence of New Species.” These are irrefutable demonstrations of the fact of evolution. They are not “microevolution” as opposed to the corrupted version of “macroevolution” promoted by creationists. They are direct examples of evolution.

Melquistsoren
Melquistsoren

As opposed to all species coming into being at once, within the seven days when god created the heavens, land and seas and all creatures therein?

So humans didn't stride along dinosaurs or ride pterodactyls?

okami
okami

naw, but we usedta fish for mosasaurs. kinda fun.

Joseph Allen Kozuh
Joseph Allen Kozuh

Richard Connelly, SCIENCE, by definition, is a body of Knowledge that has been established by means of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. At present, Darwinian Evolution is a set of UN-PROVEN Hypotheses. The 2 main Hypotheses of Darwinian Evolution are as follows: (1) Inanimate matter evolved over time into one-cell living organisms, and (2) These one-cell organisms evolved over time into multi-cell organisms with brains and gender and organs. So far, Scientists have NOT been able to demonstrate either of these 2 Hypotheses in their labs. Therefore, Darwinian Evolution is NOT yet SCIENCE because it has NOT been established by means of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Thenonymous
Thenonymous

Wow. You're like a broken record that's playing at the wrong speed.

bkurtin
bkurtin

The entire SBOE needs to be replaced with experts, not religious nuts who believe in fairy tales. The bible is full of parables, God creating the heavens and earth in six days is not meant to be taken literally. The earth is billions of years old, not the 6,000 the feeble-minded think. There MUST be a way to rid our state of people who are so unintelligent that if they had their way ALL textbooks would be replaced with the King James bible, the WORST version (not a translation at all) ever published. They believe that Cain slew Able and went to a city where he would be safe. WHERE DID THOSE PEOPLE COME FROM? Human life began in Africa, not Iran (where they think the garden of eden was located). There are so many errors in the bible that it isn't difficult to get facts mixed up with fantasy. That is because much of the bible is written in parables. For example, the book of Job is a parable, it never happened, but it taught a lesson: You are not God; let him be who he is.There is NO ROOM AT ALL for biblical myths. I am a believer in a sovereign God and I study (not just speed read) the bible, but I separate the historic, factual parts from the parables. I do not want my grandchildren being fed lies and fairy tales and I especially do not want references to Christianity being superior to any other religion being shoved down their throats either. I am not a Christian of any stripe and don't want my grandchildren being forced to pray to a man I do not recognize.In short: FIRE THE SBOE AND REPLACE THEM WITH EXPERTS!

okami
okami

This is why the United States is fast becoming a third-world country, unsurpassed in ignorance and dogma.

Joseph Allen Kozuh
Joseph Allen Kozuh

SCIENCE, by definition, is a body of Knowledge that has been established by means of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. At present, Darwinian Evolution is a set of UN-PROVEN Hypotheses. The 2 main Hypotheses of Darwinian Evolution are as follows: (1) Inanimate matter evolved over time into one-cell living organisms, and (2) These one-cell organisms evolved over time into multi-cell organisms with brains and gender and organs. So far, Scientists have NOT been able to demonstrate either of these 2 Hypotheses in their labs. Therefore, Darwinian Evolution is NOT yet SCIENCE because it has NOT been established by means of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

okami
okami

PS: you prove my point concerning the ignorance in this country.

okami
okami

and evolution has been proven over and over during the years, in and out of the lab. modern biology is dependent on the fact of evolution. modern medicine is dependent upon evolution. you should read up on the scientific method some time and speak to biologists, not religionists with a fifth-grade education in science.

why do you think you can't use antibiotics very long? because bacteria, having a very fast reproductive rate, EVOLVE into forms resistant to antibiotics. the same with viruses; they're constantly mutating and evolving. every time you go to a doctor, whether you know it or not, you prove evolution exists.

you just can't get over the fact that you, a human being, are no more 'special' than bacteria; the development of invertebrates (including the human animal) can be traced through the fossil record alone all the way back to Pikaia, which existed in the Pre-Cambrian Era. and on the scale of things, we're not that much different from bacteria.

each day science learns more and more, unlike religion, which pronounces that only it knows the truth and that truth is for all times and all places. science also has the added benefit of learning from its mistakes, something religion has NEVER done.

Dr. GS Hurd
Dr. GS Hurd

Mr. Kozuh, Neither of the claims you have made are true and your comment exposes the great gap in science education faced in Texas. Darwin's evolution theory has no reliance on, or logical need to determine the origin of life. Evolutionary theory is the explanation for the biological diversity of species. Darwin himself pointed out in a 1871 letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker, "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. "

Later in the same letter, he observed,

"It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter."

anotherscreenname
anotherscreenname

Here is the link where we can email the SBOE so we can tell them to reject including philosophical jargon in our science text books.

review.adoption@tea.state.tx.us.

Bill
Bill

Doesn't matter - none of the school districts have the money to buy new textbooks anyway

H_e_x
H_e_x

Did you just see what GOD did to us, man?

Hill
Hill

There is absolutely nothing wrong with exposing kids to ID in fact an ID discussion in a critical thinking or philosophical setting is a fantastic learning exercise. But ID doesn't belong in a science class any more than Dane Cook belongs in an English Lit class.

JB
JB

I don't know about that. ID can be useful in science class in order to teach kids how the scientific method actually works. As in, what's a scientific theory versus baseless speculation? What does verifiable evidence mean? What is imperical data? What does it mean to be peer reviewed?

ID is a perfect tool to teach kids how to spot bullshit masquerading under the guise of science.

Virgil33
Virgil33

That's a good point; you can illustrate real science by uncovering fake science, and how it arrives at conclusions.

Mozartadel
Mozartadel

The Lunatic Fringe using our tax money, this is what irritates me the most. Millions of dollars given to the same people who make people like me grit my teeth.

Rightwing "Charities and Non Profits" that get Tax Payers Money from Grants.

All these Non Profits provide control of the press and use Taxpayer money from Grants to do it.....

.

American Family Associatio­­n they got $ 19,233,560 Million Dollars last year that is $82,777, 894 Million Dollar in the last 5 years.

Heritage Foundation got $ 63, 910, 593 Million Dollar last year that is $ 190, 085,156 Million Dollars in the last 5 Years !!!!

American Enterprise Institute got $58,988,98­­4 Million Dollars in 2008 and over $208,974,9­­89 MILLION DOLLARS the last 7 years!!

New America Foundation got $15,201,36­­7 Million Dollar and over $58,531,48­­0 Million Dollars the last 5 years!!

Pat Robertson’­­s American Center for Law and Justice got $13,291,86­­5 Million Dollars last year that is $ 57,586,400 Million Dollars the last 5 years !!!!

Pat Robertson and the 700 Club got $ 183,000,00­­0 Million Dollars last year that is $843,340,5­­45 Million Dollars in the last 5 years !!!

American Legislativ­­e Exchange Council –$27,229,3­­72 Million Dollars in 2009 and $37,134,80­­8 Million Dollars the last 7 years.

Young American’s Foundation ---2008- $20,396,34­­8 Million Dollars and $99.978,49­­8 Million Dollars the last 7 years ! Like these people claim a Baby Blanket cost $450.00 on their return.

Church World Services got $68, 971,520 Million Dollars and $384,552,3­26 Million Dollars over 5 years!!!!

.

Joseph Allen Kozuh
Joseph Allen Kozuh

Moz, SCIENCE, by definition, is a body of Knowledge that has been established by means of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. At present, Darwinian Evolution is a set of UN-PROVEN Hypotheses. The 2 main Hypotheses of Darwinian Evolution are as follows: (1) Inanimate matter evolved over time into one-cell living organisms, and (2) These one-cell organisms evolved over time into multi-cell organisms with brains and gender and organs. So far, Scientists have NOT been able to demonstrate either of these 2 Hypotheses in their labs. Therefore, Darwinian Evolution is NOT yet SCIENCE because it has NOT been established by means of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

H_e_x
H_e_x

Same with gravity and relativity. Talk about some serious bullshit. We all learned that if you don't look down, you wont fall off the cliff.

H_e_x
H_e_x

I hate how ID proponents hold themselves to a lower standard of proof as scientists. And then they complain when people don't take them seriously.

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

(no one cares who you take seriously)

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

It would seem I'm been ridiculed by someone with a fifth grade education right this very moment.

H_e_x
H_e_x

Almost every reply to you on here has presented information that disproves what you are saying. For your part, you have provided no evidence whatsoever, unless stating that all theories are hypotheses counts as something, which it doesn't.

Virgil33
Virgil33

Sticking to your belief in the face of evidence to the contrary. They call that one faith. And Non-Heathen is just a faith head.If science contradicts his world-view, faith wins out.

H_e_x
H_e_x

I don't think I'm always right. What makes you a troll is that when faced with so much evidence to the contrary, you hold fast to your disproven beliefs, then brush them off with petulant one liners. That is what makes you a troll.

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

Just because someone's opinion differs from you doesn't make them trolls. I know you think you are always right and all, but...

H_e_x
H_e_x

Modern American debates are still done in that way. Pretty important in my book. Now how about some of that classic trolling we all know and love? You are hilarious, and I'm being completely serious.

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

Hex- I notice you mention the Lincoln-Douglas debates often. Was that your favorite?

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

Did I insult your intelligence, guest? AWWW. Sorry bout that.

H_e_x
H_e_x

Regular Carrot Top we have here. The good old "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. I believe that exact line was used in the Lincoln–Douglas debates.

Guest
Guest

USA1, you spend a fuck of a lot of energy insulting people's intelligence, despite your own obvious shortcoming in that department.

H_e_x
H_e_x

Damn, we have a rhetorical master in our presence! Please enlighten us heathens to the true path! Unless you have nothing to offer and don't mind being ridiculed by anyone with a 5th grade education. Y'all do provide endless comic relief with your bewildering ignorance.

chef504
chef504

Lunacy, thats what the theory of intelligent design is. If parents are so desperate for their kids to learn bible stories there are a plethora of private religious schools in every corner of this city and every town in Texas and beyond. Doesn't really matter the budget of anyone anymore there is one for everyone. However, if my tax dollars are going to pay for SCIENCE books I want SCIENCE in them. I'll take theories also if they are touted as such also. I want no religious bias taught with tax money. I have problems with christianity trying to sell their shit under a different names. They can call shit a flower, but if it looks like and smells like shit it's shit. No matter how they try to dress it up and spray it down.

Geezy
Geezy

Amazing what the fucking idiots will go through to advance their lunacy. I'm here, I'm alive. I'll die one day..... I don't believe Baby Jesus will crown me with a halo while playing the harp and welcoming into the bright blue clouds singing kum-bai-ya.

We've been on this earth for years. Why the fuck should we care what we came from?

Mozartadel
Mozartadel

Some people have to have a crutch or a pair of crutches to live on this earth.They are insecure, troubled and need to blame everything on someone else. Religion does this for people. And that is ok with me. I live a full life without religion.It is so much easier to say, well, it's "God's will" . See, you are blameless. You did not start the fire after all. It was God's will. Really lets you off the hook for anything you do in life.The only thing that really bothers me about the people that espouse religion all the time is that they will not be happy until they can indoctrinate everyone who is not religious. Especially "their religion" They need to go on as they are but leave the rest of us alone.I take responsibility for my own life and I do not cop out like they do.

Chief HP Alarmist
Chief HP Alarmist

Yeah, they are going to FILL the schoolbooks with anti-evolution material!!!!!! In fact, there may not be anything in the textbooks except intelligent design!!!! All the books are going to be FILLED with it!!

Thenonymous
Thenonymous

They should throw in a couple of pages of how "some people" think that the entire universe vomited into existence by The Space Turtle. Or how some people think The Goddess of All Things separated the sky from the sea by dancing on the waves of the Unending River. Or how some people believe that the Ainur sang the universe into existence - with the music becoming matter. Because what you're talking about is mythology and literature and magic. These are all ways for primative people to understand their world - or for modern people to understand primatives.

Intelligent design isn't a "competing theory." It's an imaginiative explanation akin to the fantasies a child would use to explain something to another child. (ie, Two small children isharing a dark bedroom on a stormy night might not know that lightning is caused by the friction created by an electrical charge built-up by water and ice particles in the upper atomosphere, so it's acceptable for the 6-year-old to tell his scared 4-year-old brother that Almighty Zeus is crying and the lightning bolts are just his dropped Kleenex.)

Dude!!!
Dude!!!

I personally ascribe to the falsifiable theory that Ra masturbated the universe into existence, and humans were created from His semen.

Wyatt
Wyatt

Bad example, Theno, because the Kleenex thing is actually true. Check your science thing, with the cover and the pages...book. Check your science book. I bet you have one too you gay nerd

Restigal
Restigal

Creationism, Intelligent Design is junk science, actually not even science; it doesn't deserve the merest mention in textbooks about science.

For the same reason, we don't teach alchemy or astrology.

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

Isn't it called the Theory of Evolution. What's the word theory mean again? Creationism is a theory as well.

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

Ok Wyatt, you've convinced me. You can take a break from the keyboard now. hehe

Wyatt
Wyatt

"I just want you to realize the the theory of evolution is just that, a theory."

Yes, a scientific theory based on huge amounts of observable evidence. That's the whole point - in science, when you say something is "just" a theory, you're saying a whole hell of a lot. Once a concept gets to that point, it's basically established as true. Saying something is "just" a theory in science is like saying the Apollo program was "just" a science project.

"No LAWS are cited."

You're just flat-out wrong here. To begin with, check out the laws of heredity.

"If you think it's a cold hard fact, more power to you. Others disagree."

A theory is much more than a piece of information that you can say is a fact or not. Could you say that thermodynamics is a "fact"? No, that sounds ridiculous. It exists, and we understand it as a complicated concept via basic laws proven through evidence gathering. You know, a scientific theory. Like evolution. How is it you don't know this at whatever point in your life you're at? You graduated high school, right?

"Why would you offer a "troll" beer?"

Because I like you.

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

No, I'm not arguing we should include other theories. Did I say that? I just want you to realize the the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. No LAWS are cited. An educated guess based on some evidence...i.e..a hypothesis. If you think it's a cold hard fact, more power to you. Others disagree.

Why would you offer a "troll" beer?

Wyatt
Wyatt

"So now you two are going to tell me which definition of theory I must use."

Yes, because it's the only definition that applies to the discussion of science education. Sorry for keeping you on topic.

"You said it yourself, supportable by empirical evidence. But not fact. If it was fact beyond all shadows of a doubt, there would be no need for the word theory to be attached at all. It's a hypothesis, nothing more."

This is false. Theory is much, much more than hypothesis. A hypothesis IS conjecture, basically. A scientific theory is an understanding of a concept that incorporates demonstrable laws (yes, LAWS), evidence and all the other good stuff that I.D. has absolutely none of. Yes, theories evolve. But they must always be based on observable evidence. Creationism is not.

Why are you even bothering to argue the accepted definition of scientific theory? Or are you arguing we should start teaching other types of theories in science classes? Maybe teachers could give lessons on the theory of why the Orioles always suck or why Manet is a better painter than Monet even though their names are ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME!

Still, props for maintaining the troll. Buy you a Bud?

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

Wyatt- You said it yourself, supportable by empirical evidence. But not fact. If it was fact beyond all shadows of a doubt, there would be no need for the word theory to be attached at all. It's a hypothesis, nothing more.

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

So now you two are going to tell me which definition of theory I must use. Must not use the literal meaning. M-kayy.

Wyatt
Wyatt

You do know that some words have more than one definition, right? If not, welcome to literacy.

A SCIENTIFIC theory - which is what we're talking about, not theory in the layman's sense of the word, but scientific theory to be taught in science classrooms - is something that is testable and supported by empirical evidence.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is not testable and there is no evidence for it. It may be a theory in the "conjecture" sense of the word, but that type of theory is not what science deals with and not what science students learn.

There's no leeway here. Feel free to try to argue otherwise.

Thenonymous
Thenonymous

The scientific term "theory" is interchangeable with the word "Law."A theory respresents a large body of various PROVEN scientific principles on which can be used to base further research. New parts of it can be added as they are proven, existing parts of it can be rewritten as they are reevaluated - it's a living body of mankind's knowledge.

The Theory of GravityAtomic TheoryPlate Techtonic Theory

By your own admission, the I.D.-vernacular version of "theory" you're describing equates to "some wacky shit I made up."

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

Speculation. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

H_e_x
H_e_x

I don't think that word means what you think it does. Pick up a dictionary and you'll understand that to become a theory you have to meet a certain standard of proof. Like the theory of relativity, which we are all bound to.

Thenonymous
Thenonymous

In addition to having absolutely no grasp of science, your vocabulary sucks asswater, as well.

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

Opinions vary.

Heathen
Heathen

This is NOT a 'Christian nation,' nor has it ever been. The word "Christ" or any variation thereof does not appear in the Constitution or any other relevant document with any degree of legal force. The word "God" does not imply that we are a 'Christian nation' either. The religious idiots who, back then, insisted that that word be included, on the basis that nobody could prove there was not a God (in the 1700's!), were appeased to an extent as a matter of compromise. All it implies is that the government cannot be partial to one religion over/to the exclusion of another. Since we still can't prove that there is or is not a God, relics like you still exist to force your beliefs upon others via the same tired 'argument.'

Believe it all you want, teach it to your own kids all you want, send your kids to private school, but keep ID and other religion-derived ideas out of public school science class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

okami
okami

opinions vary; facts and unprovable hypotheses don't.

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

People can believe whatever we want. I know you resent this is a Christian nation. You might get over it one day. Doubtful though.

TEA PARTY NOW!!!!
TEA PARTY NOW!!!!

Yeah! Preach on! It's right there in the Bible! The Bible's a book! Like Frankenstein! Just because you don't happen to believe in Frankenstein's monster doesn't mean he wasn't real!

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

Just because you don't happen to believe this theory doesn't automatically negate it, sorry.

Wyatt
Wyatt

That's the thing. With science, it's OK to say, "We don't know." But to positively prove something, there has to be evidence. The fact that there COULD have been a creator, hypothetically, does not constitute proof. The fact that you cannot 100 percent conclusively prove other creation theories (Big Bang, whatever) is not proof of, or evidence for, intelligent design, any more than the fact that you can't conclusively prove an asteroid did in the dinosaurs is proof of, or evidence for, the idea that fairies actually picked up the dinos and flew them to a different planet.

There's no evidence for intelligent design. (But the universe is so crazy it must have been designed by some1 !!!! does not count.) If you believe in it, you're believing it on faith. Which is fine for your personal life. But it's not science, and it shouldn't be taught in the classroom.

Non-heathen
Non-heathen

Restigal- Just as soon as you prove how life started.

Restigal
Restigal

Opinions may vary. Evidence for those opinions doesn't. Show me a rabbit in the pre-cambrian.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...