Texas Education

[cleaner72]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100313/...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???

[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!