Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, will talk about the battle over science curriculum standards for Texas public schools on NPR’s Science program Friday (April 10). The program airs from 2 to 3 p.m. Eastern time. Check here for a list of stations carrying the program.
Our friends at NCSE have been wonderful national partners in the campaign for sound science education in Texas for many years, including during the adoption of new biology textbooks here six years ago. And they are continuing to battle efforts by creationist pressure groups to dumb down science education in states across the country. Check out the show.
Here is how to listen to a live webcast:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/about/listen/
The number for call-ins is:
800-989-8255
The description of Eugenie Scott’s talk says,
Critics of the school board say that phrases such as ‘all sides’ and ‘examine the strengths and weaknesses’ (a phrase rejected by the board after debate) are code words that would allow the teaching of creationism in the science classroom.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200904101
Darwinists also think that “analyze and evaluate” are code words for teaching creationism. To Darwinists, any words that call for requiring students to think are code words for teaching creationism.
Anyway, the creation story covers only about two pages of the bible, so I wonder what is meant by “teaching creationism.”
The talk’s description also says,
The large state of Texas is considered a crucial battleground in the fight over teaching evolution, as its purchasing power gives the state’s curriculum standards a good deal of influence over the content of textbooks sold around the country.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200904101
As I have pointed out many times, it is a myth that Texas’s “purchasing power gives the state’s curriculum standards a good deal of influence over the content of textbooks sold around the country.” For example, a popular biology textbook, “Biology” by Ken Miller and Joe Levine, already comes in regular, Texas, California, Florida, and North Carolina editions. Even in Texas, if a local school district really finds the state-approved textbooks to be intolerable, the district can use state-unapproved textbooks if the district pays the full cost, which would be only about $20 per year per student for a $100 biology textbook used for five years.
Also, I am still wondering why there does not seem to be any concern about the future effect of the new science standards on the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) tests.
“To Darwinists, any words that call for requiring students to think are code words for teaching creationism.”
This is simply untrue.
I just heard about something called the Salem Hypothesis, which holds as follows:
“The ‘Salem Hypothesis’ (named after Bruce Salem) is a name for a correlation that has been observed amongst scientists, between subscribing to creationism and working in an engineering discipline.”
I’m not being facetious when I say that I find this fascinating. Weird how many creationist/engineers show up here. You can find the hypothesis here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis
From that page, here’s a good quote from PZ Myers:
“It was proposed by a fellow named Bruce Salem who noticed that, in arguments with creationists, if the fellow on the other side claimed to have personal scientific authority, it almost always turned out to be because he had an engineering degree. The hypothesis predicted situations astonishingly well — in the bubbling ferment of talk.origins, there were always new creationists popping up, pompously declaiming that they were scientists and they knew that evolution was false, and subsequent discussion would reveal that yes, indeed, they were the proud recipient of an engineering degree.”
When students are asked to question findings that scientists have already determined to be true, the motivations are not scientific, particularly when it’s done in classes that are supposed to be introducing students to the basics of science.
Ben. Thanks for the Salem Hypothesis. It taps perfectly into my own experiences with engineers. Give them a B.S. in nuclear engineering, and they are (as a sole result of that) experts on 17th century English literature, brain surgery, and every other area of human knowledge. I will leave it to someone else to explain why they have this ridiculous and inappropriate sense of personal entitlement.
“Anyway, the creation story covers only about two pages of the bible, so I wonder what is meant by “teaching creationism.” ”
Answer in Genesis and their ilk have made some sizable websites that purport to do just that.
Because we have some out-of-staters here, I thought I’d share one tidbit from Dr. Scott’s NPR interview.
Ten years ago publishers had to adjust the textbooks to conform to Texas because it was completely uneconomical to print multiple editions. This time around publishers have the option of using “modular publishing” to print just a Texas edition.
However, this does not mean that publishers will create a Texas edition. They don’t want to, because it’s more cost-effective to just create one edition. The only thing that will keep them from forcing Texas pseudoscience on other states is the outcry that people in those other states, particularly scientists, make against publishers doing so.
Dr. Scott somehow managed to nail all the important points in just a brief 20 minute interview.
[My own note: Texas has more influence over textbooks than any other state because unlike the other large states (CA, FL) the Texas SBOE approves textbooks for the entire state. The other states approve textbooks on a district basis.]
Ben Says (April 10, 2009 at 10:16 am ) —
–there were always new creationists popping up, pompously declaiming that they were scientists and they knew that evolution was false, and subsequent discussion would reveal that yes, indeed, they were the proud recipient of an engineering degree.–
Engineering graduates are very strong in the physical sciences and mathematics. I am a mechanical engineering graduate and in lower division I took the same physical science and math courses that the physical science and math majors took. And most of engineering itself is applied science. In addition, engineers are known to have very practical and logical minds. It has also been said that engineers have a special appreciation for the idea of intelligent design because they understand the great effort that goes into engineering design. A mechanical engineer would be particularly good at analyzing the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to evolution, because ME’s are familiar with real world applications of the SLoT. And a lot of criticisms of evolution – e.g., criticisms concerning coevolution — do not require specialized training in biology to understand.
Joe Lapp Says (April 10, 2009 at 10:43 am) —
–When students are asked to question findings that scientists have already determined to be true, the motivations are not scientific, particularly when it’s done in classes that are supposed to be introducing students to the basics of science. —
One problem is that the Darwinists are making claims beyond what can be proved by science.
Joe Lapp Says (April 10, 2009 at 2:38 pm) —
–However, this does not mean that publishers will create a Texas edition. —
It is too late to say that publishers will not create a Texas edition, because as I said, a popular biology textbook, “Biology” by Ken Miller and Joe Levine, already comes in regular, Texas, California, Florida, and North Carolina editions.
–They don’t want to, because it’s more cost-effective to just create one edition. —
How much cheaper is it to create just one edition? Got any numbers? And you folks keep assuming that school districts are too tight-fisted to pay a little extra to get the textbooks they want.
Coragyps Says (April 10, 2009 at 2:37 pm)
–“Anyway, the creation story covers only about two pages of the bible, so I wonder what is meant by “teaching creationism.” ”
Answer in Genesis and their ilk have made some sizable websites that purport to do just that. —
How can you make a big lecture about “poof”-type creationism?
Yes, Larry, you are a perfect example. Thanks for agreeing.
“How can you make a big lecture about “poof”-type creationism?”
I couldn’t. You need to ask Ken Ham that question.
Ken Ham. What Can I say…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwCWUP1y5YQ