Texas votes to change science lessons challenging evolution

February 2, 2017 by Will Weissert

The Texas Board of Education has preliminarily voted to ease—but not completely eliminate—state high school science curriculum requirements that experts argued cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

The Republican-controlled board on Wednesday modified language that had asked biology students to consider "all sides" of . Teachers and academics said that let religious ideology trump science on , and might have left students believing God created life.

But the board opted to keep other lessons on the origin of life and scrutinizing fossil record gaps, which some conservatives say suggests the influence of a higher power.

The board votes again Friday and in April. It could further modify curriculums either time.

The standards govern what's covered in Texas classrooms, on and in textbooks.

Explore further: Texas mulls changing science standards questioning evolution

Related Stories

Texas mulls changing science standards questioning evolution

January 31, 2017

The Texas Board of Education will decide whether to scrap a requirement that public schools teach high school students to scrutinize "all sides" of scientific theory after hearing Tuesday from academics who say that was meant ...

Recommended for you

17 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rderkis
1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2017
The teaching of almost everything as scientific FACT. Is just plain wrong. When taught as theory, much more thought goes into it by everyone. You can't argue with fact but theorys are worth investigating.
penavon
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2017
There is nothing wrong with examining critically the evidence that supports evolutionary theory in science class, in fact it should be encouraged. What you're not allowed to do in science class is invoke the supernatural, that is reserved for church gatherings. I suspect church leaders wouldn't be happy if we insisted that church sermons teach the 'controversy' surrounding topics such as the origin of the life as described in Genesis, geological implications of Noah's flood or even the resurrection of Christ. Keep Church and Science separate.
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2017
You can't argue with fact...


Yet you try very hard in most of your comments on this site.

How can teaching facts be wrong? You need the facts to form and confirm theory.
manfredparticleboard
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2017
Texas is more than happy to listen to experts in geology when there's oil involved, but those pesky fossils just keep popping up and demand too many dang questions! God wants me to be rich not smart consarn it!
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2017
The reality is that "evolution" is nothing but flaws.
Among other things, the defining test of "evolution" is speciation, and that has never been observed to occur. It is a violation of "science" itself to call it fact.
And, consider, Darwin said that mutations that aren't minute tend to be deadly. "Evolution", then, comes from the combining of minute mutations. But, consider, a mutation so small would never provide a "survival advantage" and so would be lost as soon as it occurred.
And, consider a creature born that is a new species, that cannot even mate successfully with its siblings. Who would it mate with to start a colony?
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2017
And the issue of creatures in pellucid environments is crucial. They supposedly tend to "evolve" to lose eyes and color. But what survival advantage is there in losing eyes and color in a region that is completely dark? A creature could have all colors and not be endangered! Some shills try to say that they lose eyes and pigment to conserve energy in such a nutrient poor environment. But, if the environment there is so nutrient poor, how do creature colonies survive long enough to "evolve"?
434a
5 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2017
The reality is that "evolution" is nothing but flaws.
Among other things, the defining test of "evolution" is speciation, and that has never been observed to occur.


This is fundamental to your complete misunderstanding really. Speciation is occurring all the time, here now we as a species are evolving. You can see it, it happens every time a child is born. It's DNA is different from its parents. It carries unique mutations and the vast vast majority of them will confer no benefit or harm that would prevent that child from breeding and passing on its genes to its offspring.
What you are missing is that it will take tens of thousands of generations to see anything that looks different enough to be noticeable. It will take many tens of thousand more for one species to diverge sufficiently so that they cannot cross breed. Just look at lions and tigers. They diverged about 11 million years ago and yet they can still cross breed. cont.
434a
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2017
cont. Even homo sapiens cross bred with its closest relatives. If you are caucasian you have 1-2% neanderthal DNA. I think the done thing is if you if have a hypothesis that fits the facts better than the existing paradigm then share the evidence....what is your competing hypothesis?

gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2017
How can people be proud to be ignorant and uneducated?

434a
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2017
And the issue of creatures in pellucid environments is crucial. They supposedly tend to "evolve" to lose eyes and color. But what survival advantage is there in losing eyes and color in a region that is completely dark? A creature could have all colors and not be endangered! Some shills try to say that they lose eyes and pigment to conserve energy in such a nutrient poor environment. But, if the environment there is so nutrient poor, how do creature colonies survive long enough to "evolve"?


I don't know if you've ever kept fish but one thing I have noticed is that eyes seem to be a superb medium for bacteria to grow in/on. You have a permeable membrane and a great blood supply. Apart from the gills it's probably the next best route for a pathogen to enter the body and kill the host. I can't think of better selective pressure to get rid of them in an environment where they are not needed for food or predator identification.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2017
We can prove science works. Make the Bible-thumpers show us a miracle.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2017
More trouble for Texans:

http://www.sfgate...3377.php

Bathrooms must be a new thing to Texas.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2017
434a says speciation is occurring all the time. If a being is born of a human but cannot breed true with another human, that is speciation. Speciation is the arrival of new species, a species is something that cannot mate successfully with other species and produce a breeding offspring. Cross breeding is one thing, producing offspring that can "breed true" is something else. And tiny mutations, if they occur, do not make something a new species! If they are small enough, they can even be weeded out in the formation of gametes.
And, just because someone doesn't have an alternative explanation doesn't mean that something calling itself "the truth" must be. If you say John Jones didn't commit a murder, but don't know who did, that doesn't automatically mean John Jones did commit the murder! That's what the deranged "Hitchens Principle" claims.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2017
What ought to be mandatory, is the proposal by dan dennett to teach comparative religion in grade school, as early as possible.
https://www.ted.c...k_warren

-As religion is such an influential factor in childrens lives, they should know as much about it as possible. ALL of it.
https://www.googl...oJ9z3B_Q
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2017
John Jones did commit the murder! That's what the deranged "Hitchens Principle" claims
No, forensics relies on evidence. Faithers like julian believe in their god despite evidence that what they believe in is false. And there is plenty of evidence to conclude that this is the case.

Hitchens 'principle' is actually this;

"Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. It is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in a 2003 Slate article, formulated it thus: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

-The answer is simple: dont assert the existence of god until there is evidence to support it. Hint: the epiphany is not evidence of YOUR god because any god can evoke it.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2017
Maybe they are right.

Apparently, evolution stopped in Texas a few million years ago.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2017
Maybe they are right.

Apparently, evolution stopped in Texas a few million years ago.

You can choose to continue your adolescent abuse and name-calling, or we could talk science.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.