Texas Public Schools Earn "F" on Evolution Education
We warned repeatedly during the recent
debate over science curriculum standards that Texas was in danger of
falling behind the rest of the nation in science education. Now a new
study to be published in the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach confirms our warnings.
The study by Louise S. Mead and Anton Mates of the National Center for Science Education
gives Texas and just four other states a failing grade when it comes to
educating science students about evolution, a foundational concept in
the biological sciences.
The study notes that nationally “the treatment of biological
evolution in state science standards has improved dramatically over the
last ten years.” It gives 40 states (including the District of
Columbia) satisfactory grades for the treatment of evolution in their
public school science standards, as opposed to only 31 in Lawrence S.
Lerner’s 2000 study Good Science, Bad Science, which was conducted for the Fordham Foundation.
On the other hand, the Texas State Board of Education — under the control of anti-science extremists — moved in March of this year to undermine instruction on evolution in public school science classrooms.
As a result, Texas joined Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and West
Virginia in earning a grade of “F” on how state science standards treat
evolution. Alaska, Connecticut, Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming got grades of “D.”
While Texas was falling further behind the other states, states like
Kansas and Florida were vaulting ahead, going from grades of “F” to “A”
in the study. Both states have recently moved to strengthen instruction
on evolution in their public school science classrooms.
Why does this matter? Suppose a Texas high school student wants to
study science at one of the nation’s top universities. How do you
suppose the admissions panel at that university will score the
student’s qualifications compared to those of students from states that
teach sound science? In addition, entrepreneurs and other
businesspeople testified at State Board of Education hearings that they
would be reluctant to expand their companies or move them to states
that provide a substandard education in science.
You can read more about the study here. The new study is available here.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Doesnt this really expose the entire absurdity of our education system? Lets be honest, how many students really care, most are probably not listening? Which brings me back to my first point. We as a nation have a larger problem than evolution in our schools. Teachers cannot discipline the children without fearing a lawsuit, therefore there is no way to control the class or educate them.....special education was mainstreamed into the classroom...so now everyone get a special education because the teacher can only teach to the least intelligent student in the class so the teacher has to bypass everyone else to spend most of their time teaching to lower level intelligences. Privatizing (along with most of the other failing government institutions) the education system would allow competition among parents, teachers and students.
"Why Science Standards are Important to a Strong Science Curriculum and How States Measure Up" is the title of the study, and the basis for the story.
It struck me as interesting that, knowing there are two major ideas in conflict, those on the science side can apply the scientific method to argue against the faith-based side. Yet they do not try to argue the scientific side of the argument using faith-based methods. I understand why they don't, but the fact that they do not shows us how the two ideas are not closely related enough to measure up to the others' standard.
It really is this simple, folks:
You cannot prove or disprove the religious idea using science and cannot prove or disprove the scientific theory using faith.
So why try?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
The two major ideas in conflict are science vs. young-earth creationism . God can not be contradicted by his creation. Both must be in agreement. With old-earth creationism there is no conflict.
A person is born into existence without knowledge of anything, and begin only with instincts (just like animals ). Depending on where said person was born, they will surely be exposed to different proportions of religious influences. This exposure is due to the said person's interaction with other people (ie: family and society ). Their religious ideals vary depending on where they were born. This should raise flags for most people, but it very uncommonly does not.
Science is not a belief system. You do not need to succumb to any unprovable notions to partake in science . Scientific facts are based upon observations. Scientific theories are based upon observations. Generally speaking, creationism is based upon the existence of god , which is unprovable. The myths of creationism can vary from religion to religion. This is inconsistency. The crux of creationism is not based upon any series of actual observations. It is based upon the notion of faith. Not everybody has the same notion of faith as the next person. That is why creationism should not be mandated in schools.
If a person was never born into a society which had never heard of jesus , or muhammed, or whatever, they would not have any notion of these religions. They would either come up with their own beliefs about their existence (and the earth's past), or they would base their assertions on what they are able to examine (which is what science is). That is to say that science is almost inherent in the human mind because no matter where a human mind is born on earth, the inquisitive nature of humans will always result in some scientific process. I will however concede to say that mythological ideas are surely prone to occur due to the creative part of the human brain. BUT specific religions are absolutely not inherent in the human mind, and only come about due to the influence of humans on other humans.
In my comment titled "my thoughts", the last sentence of the first paragraph should say "...but it very commonly does not."
Religion is base on cultural artifacts but a belief in a first cause or God is generally excepted. God may be closer to The Force in Star Wars but there is a God. The question I have is, how is it that if you drop the God created the world in 6 days, the sequence in Genesis I agrees with science .
I personally don't believe that science and religion do agree explicitly. Both of them have a different basis for deduction. The basis of religion is faith, which by definition is trusting something without any particular reasoning. The basis of science is to trust something based upon observed evidence. For me, science has a more rational basis.
And I'll admit that I do not know much about "Genesis I", as you call it. So if there are specifics you'd like to point out about how it coincides exactly with science I'd be interested.
Especially important is the fact that on day three God creates the plants before he puts the Sun in the sky. This requires knowledge that the writer of Genesis didn't have.
http://www.answersincreation.org/genesis1.htm
You initially said that if you ignore the fact that the world was created in 6 days, then Genesis makes scientific sense. The fact that the beginning is outlined on a day-by-day basis requires a huge leap of faith to believe.
And I don't really understand how putting plant life before sunlight shows anything. I would think it would make more sense to put light before life, since light has a significant impact on the atmosphere and climate of planets.
The world was not created in six days, that is a literary device. ignore the six days and pay attention to the sequence. You didn't read the link. I didn't say the plants were created before the Sun. The Sun was created on the first day. I said the plants were created before the Sun was placed in the sky. It doesn't make sense at first but is right scientifically.