SYWKQCAFNAVSCFamide?!
The Texas anti-Darwin stalwarts also might want to beware of what they wish for. The last times that evangelical Protestantism won cultural/ political victories – by banning the sale of alcohol, prohibiting the teaching of evolution and restricting immigration from Catholic countries – the triumphs all turned out to be Pyrrhic. There are some successes that are simply not survivable. ... There are days when I almost wish the fundamentalists could get their own way, just so that they would find out what would happen to them.
Something there is about the Texas mentality that discounts the life of the mind.
(T)his focus on multiple theories makes frequent appearances when elected bodies, like school boards and state legislatures, attempt to modify science education. It suggests that, when faced with the fact that science has adopted a theory that the officials dislike, they assume there must be another, competing theory that is more amenable to their beliefs.
The issue is so complicated and controversial, however, that we thought we’d give you a flavor of the issue by showing you how various news organizations reported the final vote: [snip]
NCSE’s Josh Rosenau summed up the frustration of scientists and educators alike: “This is a hell of a way to make education policy.”
The frequently asked questions regarding the National Science Foundation and the Recovery Act mentions a Science Masters program. Intriguing.
The image is from the Bad Astronomy blog, which comments (original emphasis):Do I sound unhappy? Yeah, damn straight I am. These creationists are trying to destroy science in Texas. And they’re succeeding. They are imposing their narrow religious and ideological views on reality, and it’s the schoolchildren in the state who will suffer. ...
It seems incredible that here we are, in the 21st century, and a group of less than a dozen religious zealots has the kind of power to affect millions of children across the country, but there you have it. One problem with a democracy — and it’s a doozy — is that it’s possible to game the system, and give far too much power to people who are far too unqualified for it.
And it’s brought us here.
Texas has new science standards. Those standards are better than the old ones, but those old standards really did suck.
Experts suspect that strategically, the Discovery Institute actually wants teachers to be prosecuted in a Dover-style court case, and that they are using the proposed Texas academic freedom bill to lure teachers into a legal trap by encouraging them to bring religious ideas into the classroom. ...
“The Discovery Institute is pushing the legal envelope and inviting litigation because they have been shopping around for years for the right judicial district in which they could win this kind of case,” (Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University) told New Scientist. “They need a district where they can control the people on the ground, as they do in Texas. They want a ruling that conflicts with Dover in a different judicial district, because that would be the most likely scenario in which the Supreme Court would hear a case. That is exactly what they want.”
One of the things I do to try to challenge myself and expose myself to things I would not normally encounter is to listen to the CBC podcast of The Current. Yesterday was another one of those time when I learned something new.
There will probably be more articles early next week reacting to the votes on the Texas science standards. For today...“Scientific consensus means nothing,” he tells Salon. “All it takes is one fact to overthrow consensus. Evolution has a status that it simply doesn’t deserve. People say it’s vital to understanding biology. But it’s genetics that’s the foundation for biology. A biologist once said that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution. Well, that’s not true. You go into the top biology labs, and it makes no difference if evolution is true or false to what they’re doing and studying. It makes no difference."
Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, was one of two board members who consistently voted against the rewrites proposed by members critical of evolution today. She also voted against accepting the document in its entirety.
(T)he Houston Chronicle blandly reports that "Scientists from throughout Texas helped shape the new science curriculum standards." What they don't bother to mention is that these insertions into the standards were generated in opposition to the input of scientists, in defiance of what the scientific position would propose.
Language that instructed students to “analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming,” which had been offered as an amendment and was adopted unanimously in an initial vote Thursday, led to outrage among environmental groups.
I disagree with all these experts. Somebody has to stand up to these experts.
On the first day that the final hearings on the Texas K-12 science standards begin in Austin (covered in blog form at Evo.Sphere and Thoughts from Kansas; the link goes to the first in a series of posts), Don McLeroy offers an insulting essay in the Austin American-Statesman.(T)he greatest difficulty in writing these standards is the culture war over evolution.
The controversy exists because evolutionists, led by academia’s far-left, along with the secular elite opinion-makers, have decreed that questioning of evolution is not allowed, that it is only an attempt to inject religion or creationism into the classroom.
It’s disturbing enough that the Texas board of education might seek to impose its religious views on public school students in that sizable state. It’s even more alarming that the Lone Star State's textbook market is so large that many publishers write books to meet its standards and then sell them across the country.
I was reading a review of Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True in the new issue of Current Biology. Reviewer Tom Tregenza writes:Like many biologists, I occasionally panic that if the appeal of religious dogma can prevail over such a well-supported and rigorously tested theory as Darwin’s, then it can only be a matter of weeks before we’re all wearing sandals and the next breakthrough in oncology is expected to come from making offerings to a parsnip with a resemblance to the Virgin Mary. At such times, I vow that I will drag myself out of my ivory tower and try to explain what I do to the (surely fairly rational?) man in the street. Similarly, reading the manifestos of those seeking election to offices of the European and American Evolution Societies, there is universal agreement that evolutionary biologists need to do more to explain their work to the public. The fact is, however, that we’re still not very good at delivering on these good intentions.
All members of the board have come under enormous pressure in recent months, especially three Republicans who support teaching evolution without references to “weaknesses.” The state Republican Party passed a resolution urging the three to back Dr. McLeroy’s preferred curriculum. A conservative activist group put out a news release suggesting all three were in the pocket of “militant Darwinists.”
Don McDonald has an opinion editorial in the San Angelo Times with the misleading title, “Teach evolution in classroom.” In fact, Dr. McDonald (who does not live in Texas and is not a biologist; he instructs in human resources) he teaches argues quite the opposite, as obvious from his first sentence:As a doctoral candidate in sociology in the 1990s, I found my dissertation process derailed until I feigned allegiance to Darwinism.
Objectors to the proposed language in the science standards commonly express fear of “Creationism creeping into the classrooms.” But the amendments to the indicators say nothing of creationism, and they do not mention intelligent design.
If we tell students that they must have one certain conclusion before peering into a microscope or turning over a rock, is that science?
The bill says that neither student nor teacher could be penalized for subscribing to any particular position on any scientific theories or hypotheses. ... Rep. Wayne Christian, R-Center, who filed the bill, said it is not an out for students, because they must still be evaluated on course materials taught.
“The state is successful and will continue to be so,” said Jonathan Saenz, a lobbyist for the Plano-based Free Market Foundation, which promotes Judeo-Christian values. “It’s important that we fix the curriculum to allow for scientific progress and debate.”
I was listening to CBC Radio’s The Current coming in yesterday morning. They were talking about Twitter, and in particular, its use in political circles. Stephen Marche may have had the best one-liner when he said something like, “I’m not a fan on instant thinking.”
I’ve noted that I don’t allow laptops in my classes. So far, I haven’t heard any students grumbling about this.Last fall, Sieber had 96 students in one of her courses and she took note of which ones were frequently using their laptops. After the first test, she alerted the 17 students who used their laptops intensely that, on average, they performed 11 percent worse than their peers who weren’t glued to computer screens. The number of students on laptops eventually dwindled to a half dozen, and the test scores of students who stopped using their computers during class shot up, according to Sieber.
“These are grown-ups,” she said. “They need to identify what keeps them from learning, and then act on it because they aren’t going to have me for the rest of their lives telling them ‘No, no, no. Focus.’”
A while back, I talked about how science publishing is undergoing a Marxist revolution. Today, Seth Godin notes:Travel agents... gone.
Stock brokers... gone.
Real estate brokers... in trouble. Photographer’s agents, too.
Literary agents?
The problem with being a helpful, efficient but largely anonymous middleman is pretty obvious. Someone can come along who is cheaper, faster and more efficient. And that someone might be the customer aided by a computer.
Middlemen add value when they bring taste or judgment or trust to bear on a transaction that isn’t transparent. ... To thrive in a world of self-service, agents have to hyperspecialize, have to stand for something, have to have the guts to say no far more than they say yes.
