Teaching science in schools

[VectorVictor]

What gets taught in Texas textbooks often affects the entire nation. This is from an article with a different tone, but it illustrates the problem with our textbooks today:

 

"Texas is the second-largest textbook market in the country, and because the State Board of Education decides which books to purchase (instead of local school districts), publishers pay serious attention to which books the Board buys. These choices become the basis upon which standard textbooks are written across the country. A publishing executive told Washington Monthly in 2010 that “publishers will do whatever it takes to get on the Texas list.”

 

So, because of the influence of the Texas Board of Education, their biases affect how kids in Nebraska are taught.

 

Don't forget that the State Board of Education in Texas doesn't require that position holders have any sort of education background or degree. So you get a bunch of Tea Bagging idiots, NeoCons, and Creationists that truly believe the garbage that has already been quoted here as fact.

 

And don't overlook that Texas is funneling millions of taxpayer dollars towards Christian-based Charter schools that teach this garbage too.

 

If anything, the millions going to the Charter schools has prevented many Texas schools from updating their textbooks to this garbage, so there's that, right?

[StPaulHusker]

I wonder how long this has been going on. I don't recall anything like this when I was in school.

[The Dude]

My whole view on education and how things should be taught is that you should present as many different "disciplined" theories (including areas such as creationism) as possible and then let the students explore those theories and figure out which one they agree with the most.

Might be time to reexamine your whole view on education.

[Junior]

My whole view on education and how things should be taught is that you should present as many different "disciplined" theories (including areas such as creationism) as possible and then let the students explore those theories and figure out which one they agree with the most. For example, there are many different areas in psychology all of which have some usefulness in explaining behavior: developmental, cognitive, social, perhaps even abnormal. All of these different views contribute an important piece of the puzzle. Excluding one blurs the picture. And including every perspective but biasing as much as possible one side isn't any better.

 

That the state of Texas has allowed this to go on goes to show just how "backwards" Texas really is. I'm sure there is a fair amount of people living in Texas who are level-headed and see things through an integrated perspective. But they don't have the power. The people who have the power in Texas have a strong-religious based background and do their best to exclude any scientific discussion. Why do they have the power? Because people vote for them. They must agree with their platform to the extent that they believe this person is best suited to run our state. That same concept holds true for the parents of the children in those charter schools. They [the parents] have to know what their child is learning about and how their child is learning, and they must sit down at night and think, "this is best for my child." I think it's unfortunate, because it limits what that child will be able to do with their career, especially if they have an interest in anything scientific (which, guess what, a majority of areas are nowadays). You're not going to go into an engineering career, explain something by saying, "God did this," and gain immediate credibility. Heck, you won't even get the job.

 

It's too bad that Texas caps its charter school limit at 300 and then allows charter schools such as those mentioned in the article to flourish.

 

If you want to teach religion class in public schools, fine. Do it. Teach a class on ALL of the major religions. But don't dare imply that there is any sort of scientific evidence supporting creationism by teaching it in a science class. Letting people decide which theory they like best is not how teaching works. You teach what the evidence tells you.

[zoogs]

Eesh, yikes!

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Creationism is in no way a disciplined theory.

 

Not to mention the fact that you're going to have to figure out which of the upwards of 4,000 religious creation myths you're going to have to teach from the various religions out there.

 

Yeah, suppose it isn't.

 

I should add that if people want to learn about creationism, there are churches for it. It doesn't need to nor should it be taught in schools. I'll rescind that part of my post.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

My whole view on education and how things should be taught is that you should present as many different "disciplined" theories (including areas such as creationism) as possible and then let the students explore those theories and figure out which one they agree with the most. For example, there are many different areas in psychology all of which have some usefulness in explaining behavior: developmental, cognitive, social, perhaps even abnormal. All of these different views contribute an important piece of the puzzle. Excluding one blurs the picture. And including every perspective but biasing as much as possible one side isn't any better.

 

That the state of Texas has allowed this to go on goes to show just how "backwards" Texas really is. I'm sure there is a fair amount of people living in Texas who are level-headed and see things through an integrated perspective. But they don't have the power. The people who have the power in Texas have a strong-religious based background and do their best to exclude any scientific discussion. Why do they have the power? Because people vote for them. They must agree with their platform to the extent that they believe this person is best suited to run our state. That same concept holds true for the parents of the children in those charter schools. They [the parents] have to know what their child is learning about and how their child is learning, and they must sit down at night and think, "this is best for my child." I think it's unfortunate, because it limits what that child will be able to do with their career, especially if they have an interest in anything scientific (which, guess what, a majority of areas are nowadays). You're not going to go into an engineering career, explain something by saying, "God did this," and gain immediate credibility. Heck, you won't even get the job.

 

It's too bad that Texas caps its charter school limit at 300 and then allows charter schools such as those mentioned in the article to flourish.

 

If you want to teach religion class in public schools, fine. Do it. Teach a class on ALL of the major religions. But don't dare imply that there is any sort of scientific evidence supporting creationism by teaching it in a science class. Letting people decide which theory they like best is not how teaching works. You teach what the evidence tells you.

 

I think you're reading into something which I am not trying to say. I wouldn't want people to choose a theory because, "it has nice shiny colors." You do teach what the evidence tells you. That works for rigid areas such as evolution. There isn't much disagreeing with evolution because there is solid, hard evidence that species aren't the same now as they were millions of years ago. Or math; there's no disagreeing with 2+2=4 because...well...it equals 4.

 

And I suppose that's the majority of what is taught from K-12. I've been in college too long, and have been taking a lot of classes which can explain one thing in 5 different ways. I'll go back to my psychology example. A person is unsettled with her job. A cognitive psychologist could look at it and say she is unsettled because her behaviors and her thoughts don't match up. She's a secretary, but really wanted to be a teacher. But a social psychologist could take that very same scenario and talk about some sort of interaction between her and an aspect of the environment around her. Then again, you really have to know both (and more). I guess it's more of a, "this rule doesn't always apply" kind of thing--stuff that I've been dealing with a lot so it's kind of seeped into my head.

 

I'm never going to be a teacher; so if how I view this whole education stuff isn't right, no harm no foul. There's plenty of other people who know how and want to teach instead

[It'sNotAFakeID]

My whole view on education and how things should be taught is that you should present as many different "disciplined" theories (including areas such as creationism) as possible and then let the students explore those theories and figure out which one they agree with the most.

Might be time to reexamine your whole view on education.

 

Your right

[It'sNotAFakeID]

What gets taught in Texas textbooks often affects the entire nation. This is from an article with a different tone, but it illustrates the problem with our textbooks today:

 

"Texas is the second-largest textbook market in the country, and because the State Board of Education decides which books to purchase (instead of local school districts), publishers pay serious attention to which books the Board buys. These choices become the basis upon which standard textbooks are written across the country. A publishing executive told Washington Monthly in 2010 that “publishers will do whatever it takes to get on the Texas list.”

 

So, because of the influence of the Texas Board of Education, their biases affect how kids in Nebraska are taught.

 

How many of the public schools in Texas use textbooks as deliberately biased as the schools mentioned in the article? Just curious.

 

Which article, the one in the OP or the one I quoted? Because if it's the one I quoted, I have no idea. I googled to find an article that verified something which I already knew - that Texas exerts undue influence on the textbooks of the entire nation by simple purchasing power. I didn't read the article and don't care what it's about - I only wanted that single quote. If you'd like me to find another article with the same info I will if that would be more palatable, or if you'll just believe me that Texas exerts undue influence on the textbooks of the entire nation by simple purchasing power you'll save me some more googling.

 

I mean, I know Texas exerts undue influence on the textbooks of the entire nation. 17,000 students in the charter system mentioned in the article. I just wonder how high of a percentage of students that 17,000 is in the state of Texas. Is it enough to significantly impact the purchase of textbooks elsewhere? Or are there more students reading from textbooks that teach the right way that the purchase of these textbooks won't dramatically impact the purchase of textbooks elsewhere?

 

In short, I think more kids in Texas are learning about evolution than creationism.

[NUinID]

Being a former science teacher and a Christian this debate always makes me just shake my head. Evolution is the most misunderstood theory in the world be it creationist or evolutionists.

 

Evolution defined is the change in genetic material over time due to mutations within that genetic material. That is a fact that can not be debated. No scientist Christian or otherwise would ever debate this.

 

Too many Christian take the bible as a literal work when discussions of the creation are concerned and they worry entirely too much about whether it took 7 days to create the Earth or if it took 7 billion years. The bible is full of metaphors and stories that are used to explain things, especially the old testament.

 

 

[huKSer]

 

 

Evolution defined is the change in genetic material over time due to mutations within that genetic material. That is a fact that can not be debated. No scientist Christian or otherwise would ever debate this.

 

 

 

Hardcore evolutionist: adds due to random chance

 

Rational Christian: adds due to God's will

 

Myself: science concerns only what is observable and testable - neither of the above fits the testable category, so it is beyond the realm of science.

 

Whacko creationist: denies any change and claims it to be a government plot - Seriously. The hardcore believe that fossils were planted by the US government. Really

[The Dude]

What's an evolutionist?

[Husker_x]

 

 

Evolution defined is the change in genetic material over time due to mutations within that genetic material. That is a fact that can not be debated. No scientist Christian or otherwise would ever debate this.

 

 

 

Hardcore evolutionist: adds due to random chance

 

Rational Christian: adds due to God's will

 

Myself: science concerns only what is observable and testable - neither of the above fits the testable category, so it is beyond the realm of science.

 

Whacko creationist: denies any change and claims it to be a government plot - Seriously. The hardcore believe that fossils were planted by the US government. Really

 

Evolution is neither random nor chance. Natural selection is the mechanism which directly refutes claims like this, which are always made by creationists who misunderstand or refuse to understand evolution. Also, there is no such thing as an evolutionist. I believe in the law of gravity; that doesn't make me a gravitationalist. Evolution is both observable and testable and can be proven, beyond doubt, up, down, and sideways. It is not beyond scientific description or understanding.

[carlfense]

Texas GOP Lt. Gov. Candidates:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUnB5CVeza8

 

If anyone can successfully embed the player (if that's the right term) I'd appreciate the assist. Apparently I've now gone full old man.

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2014 by knapplc
gotcher back

[Conga3]

I believe in evolution through natural selection...

 

...as in "things happened" for millions of years on this planet regarding life, death, struggle, mutation and survival of species...

 

...that has resulted in what we see and observe today.

 

I also believe in God... (or something, just not nothing).

 

And I don't think those two beliefs conflict.

 

---

 

Science has been able to explain many, but not all the questions regarding "How?".

 

It's most certainly not "settled" and there remain many questions - but yeah, the general concept is solid.

 

For example... what if there was a "mirror Earth", exactly the same size and the same composition, opposite us in our orbit in this solar system.

 

It's debatable and unknown still... that life would have even taken seed on that "mirror" planet - regardless if it seems inevitable. (we don't even know that the life that took seed on our planet originated here)

 

It's debatable and unknown still ... if life on that "mirror Earth" would evolve at a similar pace and with similar results so we could send space ships over and see other "humans" or if it would have a completely divergent evolutionary path. I think most folks, who are familiar with the science of natural selection and of our own evolutionary path would say it highly unlikely to see "humans" due to the probability of similar events playing out to have similar results.

 

So, evolution through natural selection it certainly based on "chance/randomness". The "mechanism" of natural selection is not believed to be inevitable or static, but rather highly unpredictable because of the multitude of environmental variables that steer the outcomes.

 

We simply don't know the probability of "us" or "advanced life" or whatever term you want to use - happening.

 

---

 

So, after someone discusses the "How?" and explains evolution/natural selection.. and says... this happened... then something else happened... and then this happened, and the result is THIS!

 

A person naturally might ask 'Why THIS? and not THIS?' This is where the evolution/natural selection answers the "Why?" for some, while others might remain unsatisfied with the answer of "Because, that's WHY!" For some, the WHY? is answered is some fashion using various forms of the concept of "inevitability". Others are satisfied with not even considering the question at all. Yet the question remains important and unanswered for some.

 

While "science" might be able to further define the "HOW?", the "WHY?" answers almost certainly remains out its reach.

 

---

 

When it comes to teaching kids evolution/natural selection, I don't see any problem with explaining there remains questions the theory doesn't answer and in all likelihood will never answer. Doing so is actually "better" science. I have no issue with a teacher explaining there are just things "science" has not, and probably will not answer...and it you want to continue asking questions, it's OK to do so through faith - religious flavored or otherwise.

 

Education should be about teaching kids "how to think", not just "what to think". It's not "better" science education, to artificially "box in" an incredibly complex topic such as evolution by telling kids all the questions are answered - stop asking questions that science can't answer.

 

---

 

If I had a kid ask me if evolution/natural selection proves God doesn't exist and didn't create the universe, I'd say 'Certainly not!, It does no such thing. While answering many important questions you should know and understand, many questions remain unanswerable. It's up to you to continue learning and asking questions, and if you find yourself turning to your faith in God to explain the unexplainable, that's OK.'

 

If I had a kid ask me if The Book of Genesis and their faith in God means they shouldn't learn or believe in evolution/natural selection, I'd say 'Certainly not! Studying and believing in evolution/natural selection is incredibly important but it doesn't have to replace your faith in God. It might actually solidify it, but that's a path you'll have to walk yourself.'

 

I'd want a teacher who was responsible for educating my own children to take a similar approach.

 

---

 

I don't know what "Creationism" means to everyone else. The "young Earth" types are certainly easy targets for ridicule and I'd certainly not want children learning the Earth is a few thousand years old, etc. There are certainly movements that are pushing these views, and they should be stopped. But, this is not the only definition of "Creationism" and there people who simply don't want evolution/natural selection taught and presented as the replacement to religious beliefs/faith in God.

 

I think there is a happy medium where we aren't teaching religious dogma in schools, but we leave room for those ideas to remain if they have been taught to the children in church or by their parents outside of school. I don't believe parents should be demanding public schools alter science class to include their religious beliefs, but altering science class to include the discussion of what can't be explained with science, well that's real education right there.