Our friend Zack Kopplin issued the following invitation via email to TFN supporters this morning. We’re sharing it here for TFN Insider readers. And, of course, we’ll have much more on this in the weeks ahead.
All students deserve a high-quality science education that prepares them to succeed in college and the jobs of the 21st century.
But they will not get one if the State Board of Education (SBOE) approves new textbooks that include junk science.
That’s why I’m proud to be attending the Texas Freedom Network’s Stand Up for Science rally.
Can you join me at the rally at noon on September 17 in Austin? Or to speak at the textbook hearing that same day? (Date pending confirmation of textbook hearing day)Keeping creationism, climate-change denial and other junk science out of public schools is personal for me. Louisiana, where I grew up, actually has a law promoting creationism. And I’ve been fighting to keep that kind of anti-science propaganda out of textbooks since I was in high school.
Now as a student at Rice University in Houston, I’m furious that the same extremists are trying to insert their ideological agenda and their religious and unscientific views into science classrooms and textbooks in Texas.
We must show people that there is an impending crisis in our schools. If we can show up in force and Stand Up for Science, we will get not only the attention of the SBOE, but also the media and general public. If we do that, our story can break through and shine a light on how some SBOE members are trying to set Texas students up to fail in the 21st century.
We can’t let these anti-science extremists succeed.
Let’s come together on September 17.
Click here to join me at the Stand Up for Science rally.
— Zack Kopplin
Dang! I didn’t see this until Monday morning. (I need to check my e-mail more often.) Zack. You’re one of my heroes. Fight the good fight.
Will this be at the Travis building?
Yes, at the William B. Travis building in Austin. We’ll have more details as the hearing gets closer.
Zack, We may not agree on every point, but you and I are on the same page when it comes to accurate, quality, unbiased science instruction materials.
Since the CSCOPE lessons are now public domain, you are an important voice for college students and can help me point out that the CSCOPE lessons are preparatory for college. I will post several CSCOPE science lessons on http://WWW.TXCSCOPEREVIEW.com and hope you will take the time to review and make comments. Again, thank you for standing up for science. I’ll not join your rally because I don’t support your idea of junk science. But, just the fact that you are standing up for quality science has energized me. Your rally will catch the eye of the media and what they will most remember is that you, a Rice University Student is promoting quality science instruction materials for the Texas Public Schools. YEA!! Thanks Zack.
Janice,
Thanks for posting on TFN Insider. But, with all due respect, it’s hard to believe someone supports “accurate, quality, unbiased science instructional materials” when she also says this:
Or this:
Ms. VanCleave:
What “junk science” are you referring to? Be specific, please.
Zack referred to creationism as junk science. Creationism is a religious belief.
Not accepting global warming is also part of Zack’s list of junk science.
I propose that global warming be presented in a way that encourages critical thinking, such as:
Global warming is described as ——–
Because of the following observation it is thought that the Earth is experiencing global warming:
1,
2. etc……..
Student problem could be:
What effects do the previous observations have on regional weather? Climate? Explain the pros and cons that the observations might have on global climate? What further data needs to be collected to support global warming?
In other words, with fidelity we can make conclusions about the weather yesterday, but this is not true for today and certainly not tomorrow. Science has foundation information but even that could change with improved technology. I balk at labeling students or anyone as stupid, liars, and unethical if they question global warming, evolution or any other part of science. I do not consider ZACK stupid. As to his being a liar or unethical–this has nothing to do with his support of evolution, but wouldn’t consider him being either because he supports evolution.
I am sure that I might raise my eyebrows if a student questioned gravity, but would encourage the student to explore his/her ideas.
I didn’t attend the Science Rally and have not seen any videos of the event. My hope is that ZACK was respectful to Barbara Cargill, as well as the entire state board of education.
I want to encourage TFN as well as sites in opposition to reevaluate what we are teaching our children. I applaud ZACK for taking a stand for what he supports. But, It upsets me that ZACK is being taught that those opposing him are liars, unethical, and scientifically ignorant.
The plot concerns a young man foretold as the “Kwisatz Haderach” who will lead the native Texans to victory over the malevolent House Cargillon.
Babs Cargill made some very specific, and very important pledges to the Texas House NOT
to attempt to insert fundamentalism into Texas science. At the very least, in keeping with that pledge, she should have dismissed the creationists/intelligent design fundys Gail Lowe stacked the textbook review board with. She didn’t.
Then, during review week, she spoke at length with them out of earshot of observers,
and failed to answer questions from the press and others regarding the contenet of her interaction with them.
Based on an assumption that creation “science” advocates are pathological liars and unethical, I think it is safe to assume Babs is making an end run
ala crazy Don McLeRoy in an attempt to insert verbage into our textbooks supporting failed and rejected “scientific” attacks on logic and reason.
Furthermore, its important to rember that Babs has an education degree from TWU , an M.Ed. not an M.S. I question whether Babs has a B.S. from Baylor or a B.A.
Unless she spent her baccaulaureate career regurgitating biology she thought was fraudulent, she can’t have a grasp on the basics of biology. So, like her “M.S.” (she claims) which is an M.Ed., its very possible her B.S. may be a B.A.
Even better , Ken Ham, doubtl;ess a Cargill hero, will or has been recently, in The Woodlands, expounding on his fundamentalist science attacks. It would be great if TFN could monitor that event for Cargill’s attendance, as well as the other
religious right crazies in Texas government
who are attacking our educational system.
Finally, there seems to be some question a. as to whether the “advisors” Lowe nominated 2 years ago, can change anything in the textbooks. They undouybtedly have rewritten sections like crazy Don did to our science standards, mangling them beyond recognition with his theological perspectives. But, does that matter? Can they actually change anything or just whine and write their ridiculous “science” in notes.
b. Next, are textbook publishers willing to
destro their textbooks with stories about
magical mystical mysterious “science”.
I bet not.
Meanwhile, Zack et al will make a spectacle out of Babs and her crazy fundy friends.
For all to see. The average Texan doesn’t much care and is ill equipped to understand whats going on due to the abysmal educational system and scientific illiteracy prevalenet in the state as well as the misleading rhetorhic creationists use to exploit that politically. I predict another lose for Babs et al and further exposure of their scientific incompetenece. As the issue climbs the public awareness ladder, its going to hurt them.
But they won’t be going away anytime soon.
WOW! I need to read this website more often. Calling Barbara Cargill “Babs” is a learning lesson for me. I will be more attentive to addressing our leaders with respect–even those I do not agree with.
DoodleBugger said,
“Based on an assumption that creation “science” advocates are pathological liars and unethical, I think it is safe to assume Babs …..”
I do believe in creationism, but do not want it taught in public schools. As to evolution being in textbooks, no problem.In fact, evolution is one of the best thought provoking, critical thinking topics in science. But creating thinking is stifled if only certain conclusions are accepted. Students are forced to “regurgitate” answers about evolution or be labeled a liar and unethical. Not sure how this relates to evolution.
Is there no way to come to some middle ground? I would be content for evolution to be part of textbooks as long as it is not presented as an unquestioned fact. No, I do not want creation taught in school.
Would a scientific discovery that did not support evolution be made public?
There is too much money and effort being wasted with this tug-a-war between pro and anti evolution groups.