|
|
|
|
January 27th, 2009, 10:08 GMT · By Tudor Vieru
Texas Creationists Finally Defeated by Evolutionists |
|
|
|
|
SHARE:
Adjust text size: 
|
|
|
It's no secret to anyone that most people in Texas are very religious, and that they adopt a very strict code when it comes to their beliefs. However, at times, their zeal can be overwhelming, and thus they have ended up in a situation where the fundamental truths of the evolution theory have been contradicted by biblical quotes. Text books have been allowed to spread doubt among students, and question the internationally-approved theories, just for the benefit of some. Now, adepts of the theory of evolution have managed to obtain the removal of dangerous wording from text books, which will hopefully reduce the influence of religious fanatics on young minds. For 20 years, Texas teachers have been allowed to abuse an erroneous formulation in school text books, which said that the class should analyze “strengths and weaknesses” of the theories presented. In fact, this was used as an excuse by teachers to inoculate doubt into the minds of youngsters as to the theory of evolution, and to push the “word of god into their minds.”
“Removing the concept of 'strengths and weaknesses,' when the supposed weaknesses are completely bogus, is a real victory,” Michael Zimmerman from the Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana, who is a part of the campaign against creationism, says. However, the hearings with the committee have not passed without a hitch. Creationists have managed to slip unfair amendments to various scientific formulations, such as for instance when they have casted doubt on the role of fossils as part of our history. Instead of seeking to “evaluate a variety of fossil types, transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness and rate and diversity of evolution,” they have introduced the phrase “proposed transitional fossils,” which automatically implies that evolution is just a supposition. “Transitional fossils are not 'proposed'. There is no doubt about their existence, so insertion of the word ‘proposed' makes that part unscientific, since it suggests a false uncertainty,” Texas Citizens for Science group campaign president geologist Steven Schafersman argues. Another amendment invites students to “assess the arguments for and against universal common descent in the light of this fossil evidence,” an idea that infers that not all life came from the same common source. “This change is by far the most unscientific revision, and is completely unacceptable. There are no good arguments in modern science 'against universal common descent,' which has been accepted by biologists for over 130 years, so the phrase is asking for something that authors and publishers cannot honestly supply,” Schafersman concludes.
|
|
|
|
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:
|
1,772 hits
· 6 comments
· Link to this article
· Print article
· Send to friend
· Subscribe to news
|
MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:
READER COMMENTS: |
| Comment #1 by: Andrew Mathews on 29 Jan 2009, 03:50 UTC | reply to this comment | this was completely bias. i thought it was hilerious. evolution is completely unacceptable by the standards of "scientific method", and so thus can only be a theory. maybe even a hypothesis. creation is the same. i think we should leave them both out of the picture and focus on the present. we could advance so much farther if we were focusing on our future as opposed to our past. nobody really cares where we came from when they're trying to invent something, so why are we even trying to figure it out. all of us arganisms are obviously much alike and were probably created by the same thing, so who cares. our decent is part of most peoples religion, and if we want so badly to separate church and school, why are we bringing in evolution? all it will do is cause religious arguement among the young children, and some of them will probably doubt their beliefs which could lead to family issues later. this is stupid. lets move on. |
| Comment #2 by: Rachel on 03 Feb 2009, 20:35 UTC | reply to this comment | Evolution is not unacceptable by the standards of science. It is one of the, and arguable, the strongest theory in science. Theory is the highest level in science, theories explain laws, and facts, and the facts and laws support the theories.
And focusing on the present needs a study of the past. Understanding the past of our planet will allow us to understand the future. Understanding the theory of evolution is needed for the germ theory, is needed to understand why and how we have new strands of viruses. Evolution is why we have malaria breaking out in cambodia, and if it comes to the U.S it will kill many people.
An understanding of evolution is needed for genetics, understanding immunities, genetic variants, maternal and paternal blood testing. Without evolution, our studies do not make sense.
Evolution is nothing like a religion, religion believes what it believes based on faith, and statements contradictory to nature, evolution is the study of life, and the past and progress of it. Evolution is the explanation of everything. It is such a large field, im not sure why people who know nothing about it think they know enough to say its not true, or its a religion. Its like someone walking into a cell biologists lab and saying that the experiment they are working on is wrong, the scientist asks why? And the person has no answer, just that he doesnt understand it. |
| Comment #3 by: Tudor Vieru on 04 Feb 2009, 07:54 UTC | reply to this comment | To answer your question Rachel, it's far easier to pass on serious questions such as "where do we come from?" and "what/who created us?" to a higher power, than to spend hundreds of years, as a race, trying to find the perennial missing link, and digging up all over the place, just to find something to support your theories.
And religions do not encourage this type of mentality, because many people who live the church do so because they now understand something they feared up to this point. And, to some extent, is fear that drives people's faiths, even tough they don't admit it - fear of death and of what comes next mostly. |
| Comment #4 by: Chris Marsh on 08 Oct 2009, 20:26 UTC | reply to this comment | If creation myths are taught in school, they
1. must be taught in a religion class, not in science, because God and gods are invisible, and not subject to observation, a crucial element of science
2. All creation myths have to be considered, not just the Jewish, but the Babylonian, Native American, Aztec, and so on.
In fact Jewish tradition holds that it is death to look upon the face of God. Moses was permitted to look upon the back of God as He was walking away. We cannot replicate the observation, which is crucial to science. We don't even get Moses to tell us what he saw. All we have is a book some people believe in and others discredit.
You are only going to get a gut feeling, folks. That's all folks. No proof. But that's good enough for me to get saved. If you're waiting for scientific proof of Hell and salvation, you're a goner.
You'll probably just believe in what you want to, anyway. I think I do. Who doesn't want to believe in a paradise with mansions and a feast, where sins are forgiven, all imperfections are gone? Jesus waited to postpone the war against Satan so you would get saved, like the surrendering Iraqis in Desert Storm in 1991, treated well under the Geneva Convention (or so they told us, food, water, medical care, asylum in the West). |
| Comment #5 by: martin on 08 Mar 2010, 02:03 UTC | reply to this comment | of course evolution is a theory, so is relativity and is the best explanation of the current state of the world. religion is, however just a belief,but, amusingly has evolved over the years to its present state.jews believe they are the chosen people, christians believe that jesus was the son of god and could walk on water(does that make criss angel the new jesus) and quite frankly i don't care what the rest believe because it all comes down to an invisible god who can do magic and lives somewhere and tells people how to live there lives. i don't need that. i am not saying that you shouldn't have it if it makes you happy ,but, i don't need god.there is no god and don't tell me god believes in me cos that is just not true. |
| Comment #6 by: Agnostic Dude on 25 May 2012, 07:26 UTC | reply to this comment | Scientist: am looking for the truth. I may not find it, but I will get closer and closer to it.
Religious: I am looking for my psychological comfort. Whatever makes me feel comfortable and give my life a well defined structure IS the truth.
-------------------------
American Scientist: Evolution is a good theory.
Chinese Scientist: Evolution is a good theory.
Arab Scientist: Evolution is a good theory.
Indian Scientists: Evolution is a good theory.
Religious American: Jesus is the Lord!
Religious Muslim: No, Allah is the Lord!
Religious Hindu: No, Krishna is the Lord!
Religious Jew: No Yahva is the Lord! | |
Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at 
|
|