Texas Education

[cleaner72]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100313/ap_on_re_us/us_texas_schools_social_studies


Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers

In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specified a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class.


I grew up in Texas and plan to move back before my oldest boy hits the 6th grade. I want him to be a part of the Texas education system.....I love colorado, but want my kids to learn things the right way.

[Graves]

I love colorado, but want my kids to learn things the right way.

In Texas??? [LOL]

[cleaner72]

yeah, where we still have grades like a,b and c's, not this 1,2, 3 shit they have here...they are adapting komifornias crap whether you like it or not, oh and god forbid they teach anything about the bill of rights in colorado....

[nogaroheli]

Damn, I've grown up learning that Texans were the vermin that liked to flow over to our state (cause theirs is flat and boring, but they still think it's awesome and better), but I'm having a hard time resisting the urge to fall back to their politically intelligent zone when all SHTF. What am I to do, they sound like they have it figured out..

[KevDen2005]

What will happen I wonder when the government makes a universal requirement for minimum education requirements for every state no matter what? Will Texas say we are still teaching this or start another civil war?

[nogaroheli]

I bet/hope they will be tested on actual knowledge, not touchy feely stuff like how they like Suzie's two moms. Once the test standards get crazy I think it will force unusual reactions.

[Pancho Villa]

The Founders were pretty bad Christians, all things considered.

Washington is the only one I know of who was at all religious. Some were deists but even the ones that weren't - Jefferson for example - would probably have pissed off quite a few people here. Jefferson rewrote the new testament to take out all references to anything supernatural, as a good example. He basically thought the NT had some good moral advice but scoffed at the idea of miracles.

Late 18th century was just a period of less religiousness than the Texas Board of Education would have you beleive. Prominent religious leaders at the time corresponded on record that "mankind was in danger of being laughed out of religion." I believe there was a revival a few decades after the revolution (don't quote me on that exact timeframe, my Christian history of the US is rusty,) but the Founders themselves were probably less religious than many or even most Christians today.

I like Rick Perry for his stance against the Feds and many of his fiscal policies, but loading up the TBOE with a bunch of nutcase christians is way out of line. The TBOE has also been trying to push the "evolution is just a theory," and "intelligent design is a valid scientific alternative" farce as well. Quite embaressing.

Just another reason for vouchers or for the govt to get out of education entirely. I don't mind if Perry (or anyone here) wants to teach his kids that God created the earth in 7 days and all that evolution stuff is hooey, or that the Founders were all members of Billy Joel's first congregation - but its pretty sad if I (who thinks all that is bunk and is an atheist to boot) am forced to fund that.

[theGinsue]

The TBOE has also been trying to push the "evolution is just a theory," and "intelligent design is a valid scientific alternative" farce as well. Quite embaressing.

I've had serious difficulty funding the push for the THEORY of Evolution (which has seen considerable evidence against it in the last 10 years). While I disagree with evolution, I could stomach it if both evolution AND creationism were taught together - equally - as theories. The sad thing (from my perspective) is that evolution isn't being taught as a theory, but as a fact! I know, I was taught that way. Since it is just a theory, let's put creationism back into the textbooks too because this "theory" has at least been documented for thousands of years and can't be disproven any more than the proponents of evolution would have you believe that evolution can be disproven.

[Pancho Villa]

I've had serious difficulty funding the push for the THEORY of Evolution (which has seen considerable evidence against it in the last 10 years). While I disagree with evolution, I could stomach it if both evolution AND creationism were taught together - equally - as theories. The sad thing (from my perspective) is that evolution isn't being taught as a theory, but as a fact! I know, I was taught that way. Since it is just a theory, let's put creationism back into the textbooks too because this "theory" has at least been documented for thousands of years and can't be disproven any more than the proponents of evolution would have you believe that evolution can be disproven.

Creationism isn't science.

If you want to teach it in a theology class, fine, but its mislabeled if you stick it in science class.

The theory of evolution has scientific basis and, as a general thing, pretty accurate. Much how we're still taught newtonian physics even though relativity has rendered it moot for certain applications - it still describes what is going on in reality close enough to be useful for most engineering work. I'm not familiar with the "problems" with evolution and, frankly, don't really care. Until such a time as scientists come up with a better theory to describe the way species change over time, its the best scientific theory out there. If you have a contrary scientific theory that better describes what is going on, then present it and grab yourself a nobel price.

But simply saying "I see some problems with x theory, therefore, God!" does not belong in a science class.

[theGinsue]

Your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, clearly drive your perception on what is valid and what is not.

Given that evolution uses FAULTY hypotheses throughout, it ISN'T science, but another form of religion. It requires you take much of what it claims on faith and offers nothing solid to back it up - thus maintaining it's status as a theory - not fact.

If I'm going to have to take one of these two "theories" on faith, I choose to fall to the side of believing in what's been documented for thousands of years instead of the ramblings of a lunatic whose religion of choice was to be a "naturalist" (converted from Christianity) and couldn't even convince his own family of his crackpot theory. In fact, the theory of evolution wasn't even his, he is just the first to get credit for it. W.C. Wells and Patick Matthew actually presented the theory before Darwin in the name of "natural selection".

You want science:

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."

Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: • Scales had to have mutated into hair. • Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. • Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.[64]
It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.


"Statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747"

Talk about a leap of faith!

[jake]

You probably shouldn't use Fred Hoyle's quote as evidence that there's a scientific element to the rejection of evolution: he believed that life evolved from viruses that were borne here on comets. He also rejected the Big Bang Theory because he felt that a cause implied the existence of a creator.

Evolution can't be taught as a theory, because the scientific use of the word isn't the same as the way that you and I use it in everyday life. Or, it can be taught as a theory: a scientific theory, that is "a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions."

[jason303]

We're supposed to have separation of church and state. Whether or not any of the founding fathers were religious doesn't matter. I think they would all have agreed on this. It stinks of politics when the fight for this one topic becomes of greater concern than the dismal performance overall in whole areas that are much more practical such as math & physics.

Fact is the conservatives need their religious base, whether they like it or not. I would bet that most, if not all conservative leaders that trumpet their religious views are only sincere about getting the votes. It's part of the game.

[theGinsue]

You probably shouldn't use Fred Hoyle's quote as evidence that there's a scientific element to the rejection of evolution: he believed that life evolved from viruses that were borne here on comets. He also rejected the Big Bang Theory because he felt that a cause implied the existence of a creator.

Evolution can't be taught as a theory, because the scientific use of the word isn't the same as the way that you and I use it in everyday life. Or, it can be taught as a theory: a scientific theory, that is "a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions."

My point, especially in using Hoyle's comments are that we've got many "scientists" who can't even agree.

[jake]

Not really, though. As with climate change, there's a pretty much universal scientific consensus regarding evolution.

[theGinsue]

And not enough real scientific evidence to support either one. Charlatans!

[jake]

And not enough real scientific evidence to support either one. Charlatans!
Plenty of evidence to support both, but even if you're right (which you're not) 'not enough' evidence is still more evidence than there is to support creationism or whatever the opposite of climate change is.

[Pancho Villa]

There's plenty of support for the general process of evolution, namely, that genetic mutations cause species to change over time when those mutations happen to be beneficial.

Are you denying genetic mutations take place?

Are you denying that beneficial mutations will sometimes propagate through the species?

If so, what is your data? If not, why are you saying this is a scientific dispute?

You can dispute some particulars of the theory (ie whether mammals evolved from reptiles or whether they evolved from some common ancestor, or even from some completely different set of ancestors,) if you want, on a scientific basis. The foundation of the theory of evolution (that random mutations can cause a species to change over time,) however, has been documented many, many times. Are you denying that?

[Troublco]

Science is just another form of religion. Who proves what they're saying is true? They do. Can some things be proven because you can see them? Sure. But last time I checked, they still can't agree if electrical current runs along the outside surface of a wire(s) or through the middle.

[theGinsue]

Plenty of evidence to support both, but even if you're right (which you're not) 'not enough' evidence is still more evidence than there is to support creationism or whatever the opposite of climate change is.

someone has been drinking his Kool-Aid!


There's plenty of support for the general process of evolution, namely, that genetic mutations cause species to change over time when those mutations happen to be beneficial.

Are you denying genetic mutations take place?
No, I deny the possibility that something spawned some amoeba to mutate into some form of supra-microscopic organism which eventually formed into a reptilian type animal (both male and female mind you) with all of the intricately formed organs, etc. that exist. THEN this egg-laying animal later mutated into a birth-giving animal of both genders, THEN mutated into the various species that share NO DNA - including primates, and THEN mutated into humans beings......all the while leaving plenty of those original species along the way which never did mutate.

Have you ever considered the complexities of the human body? How so many things have to come together JUST SO or the whole thing fails. All this happened by chance? By mutation? How many millions of years of failures do you suppose THAT took to get the right combination?

Again, you think those who believe in creationism have to have faith? It's nothing like the faith that you possess to believe in evolutionism.

Pu-leaze!

Are you denying that beneficial mutations will sometimes propagate through the species?
Yes, I deny it occuring to the degree you infer; absolutely.

If so, what is your data? If not, why are you saying this is a scientific dispute?
I submit for a dimple example the comment posted by TroublCo below. Just one possible example.

You can dispute some particulars of the theory (ie whether mammals evolved from reptiles or whether they evolved from some common ancestor, or even from some completely different set of ancestors,) if you want, on a scientific basis. The foundation of the theory of evolution (that random mutations can cause a species to change over time,) however, has been documented many, many times. Are you denying that?
Minor mutations, sure. I can't even fathom the statistical chances of the type of mutations you're suggesting possibly occuring - even over millions of years.


Science is just another form of religion. Who proves what they're saying is true? They do. Can some things be proven because you can see them? Sure. But last time I checked, they still can't agree if electrical current runs along the outside surface of a wire(s) or through the middle.

Yes, thank you.


Suffice it to say that both of us are too set in what we believe to ever consider the possibility posed by the other.
Personally, this conversation bores me. I'm having a much better time discussing pure BS in the other threads/forums.

[sniper7]

I find it sad that a lot of Colorado schools don't teach the constitution, what the country was founded on and what basically all our laws should really be based from. just another way the system is trying to destroy the foundations of our country.

[BigMat]

I find it sad that a lot of Colorado schools don't teach the constitution, what the country was founded on and what basically all our laws should really be based from. just another way the system is trying to destroy the foundations of our country.

Solid point! I work with a lot of kids and wasn't in high school too long ago. Something some of the kids raised a little while back is how they were frustrated they aren't learning things critical to their life and are made to learn things they will probably never use. I understand getting a foundation, but when you finish high school and don't understand a credit card, how to balance a check book or get yourself into a trade, one really has to wonder why we even have time for this debate. Creationism can be moved to a church (of your choice), no problem, and evolution, and (as we are debating) the theory of natural selection can be saved for college. touch on each, in a comparative religion class and a biology class, but they aren't going to help you hold down a job or stay out of trouble, and it seems to me that's what our young people need help with.

[Ed_S]

I think the school system is messed up in terms of what subjects are thought to be important.

At a recent high school meeting I had a parent trying to impress the importance of Latin on everyone! She went on to say it was as important as math and science! Hmm!

As for ‘creationism’ - in my opinion[ROFL2]

[BigBear]

Time for the music teacher to step in....

Latin died over 400 years ago. Besides, why teach Latin (or Greek, Aramaic, or ANY of the old world languages) when our kids can barely speak/write English to save their lives?!!?!?! Spanish is MANDATED as a foriegn language in a lot of districts. Takes funds from other programs, and also jobs from a lot of teachers. Sometimes the bi-lingual teachers for ESL, etc use solely Spanish in the ENGLISH classes. A lot of them shouldn't even be liscencesd to teach.... it just so happens they speak conversational Spanish. (Not the standard dialect you would find in mainland Spain, just "mexican). No wonder no one can speak English. Needless to say, these districts also have a long streak of low socio-economical standing, high crime, and failing records on "standards" (TAKS/etc) testing (Math, Science, English, et al.) Blah, blah... moot point. Bottom line is teachers can't do jack until Parents take responsibility for helping teach their own damned bloodsuckers.

Evolution vs creationism... I've been fighting this for a while. Does evolution exist? Yes. 300 years ago, people were no more than 5'4 average height. Now a days, 6 feet is generally accepted as the norm. Pinky toes are getting smaller and smaller as the use for precise balance transfers from the toes to the whole foot. Several species animals have been able be suplanted to a different enviroment/habitat and have evolved characteristics to help them adapt.

Now do I believe I came from some genetic hodgepodge primordial soup, no. My personal beliefs can't simply say that I am a random generator in a machine. The pure math involved in finding the right combination on amino acids, the correct soup it would be in, the correct tempertatures, the pure size of our universe (that we currently know of), the correct... blah, are simply out of this world. Who knows if the "God created the world in 7 days" means a literal 24 hour day? There is another scripture along the lines of "your life is as a blink or a vapor vanishing on the wind". 1 day could've been a billion years for all we know.

I don't understand how practical evolution and creationism (taught correctly) CAN'T be used in a classroom....

[Irving]

Evolution is a fact. Where humans specifically originated from is left up to theories, but evolution itself is a fact.

[BigBear]

Evolution is a fact. Where humans specifically originated from is left up to theories, but evolution itself is a fact.


Lol, can always count on the Donkey. Good way to sum it all up.