"The Revisionaries" tonight (1/28) on PBS (1 Viewer)

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I found the changes to the history texts to be even more disturbing.

 

[joffer]

I found the changes to the history texts to be even more disturbing.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Just watched it. Not bad. I wish they would've delved more into the actual impact of the board's decisions rather than just following McLeroy and Dunbar around and trying to make them look simple (McLeroy) or crazy (Dunbar).

Nobody had to try to make those two fruitbaskets look simple or crazy. They are.

Well of course, I just wish the filmmakers would've really shown me more of the fruits of their lunacy rather than just the lunacy itself. That's all.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I also love how Dunbar says something like "I teach political science at the Doctorate level." Yeah, at Liberty University.

 

[Bonfire]

MOP killed it in here and didn't get near enough credit

 

[Henry Ford]

It was intellectually disingenuous of her to present evolution as fact when there are Mack-sized holes in the theory. No one can prove or disprove evolution and she gave the magic Lucky Charms version.

You should go back and punch every science teacher you ever had for not teaching what a scientific theory is.

If he can't remember the difference between evolution and Big Bang Theory, I suspect that he failed to absorb the material that was clearly and appropriately taught.

 

[Toad_1234]

It was intellectually disingenuous of her to present evolution as fact when there are Mack-sized holes in the theory. No one can prove or disprove evolution and she gave the magic Lucky Charms version.

You should go back and punch every science teacher you ever had for not teaching what a scientific theory is.

If he can't remember the difference between evolution and Big Bang Theory, I suspect that he failed to absorb the material that was clearly and appropriately taught.

I don't know anyone that doesn't put stock in some variation of an expanding universe.For what it's worth, the evolution material that I was taught as fact in the classroom was proven to be invalid 8 years after I graduated from high school and a "revised" story of evolution was inserted. Always bothered me. So it goes.

I think everyone came out of this show looking terrible. A no win all around. Especially for the kids.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

It was intellectually disingenuous of her to present evolution as fact when there are Mack-sized holes in the theory. No one can prove or disprove evolution and she gave the magic Lucky Charms version.

You should go back and punch every science teacher you ever had for not teaching what a scientific theory is.

If he can't remember the difference between evolution and Big Bang Theory, I suspect that he failed to absorb the material that was clearly and appropriately taught.

I don't know anyone that doesn't put stock in some variation of an expanding universe.For what it's worth, the evolution material that I was taught as fact in the classroom was proven to be invalid 8 years after I graduated from high school and a "revised" story of evolution was inserted. Always bothered me. So it goes.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Henry Ford]

It was intellectually disingenuous of her to present evolution as fact when there are Mack-sized holes in the theory. No one can prove or disprove evolution and she gave the magic Lucky Charms version.

You should go back and punch every science teacher you ever had for not teaching what a scientific theory is.

If he can't remember the difference between evolution and Big Bang Theory, I suspect that he failed to absorb the material that was clearly and appropriately taught.

I don't know anyone that doesn't put stock in some variation of an expanding universe.For what it's worth, the evolution material that I was taught as fact in the classroom was proven to be invalid 8 years after I graduated from high school and a "revised" story of evolution was inserted. Always bothered me. So it goes.

I think everyone came out of this show looking terrible. A no win all around. Especially for the kids.

For what it's worth, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

It was intellectually disingenuous of her to present evolution as fact when there are Mack-sized holes in the theory. No one can prove or disprove evolution and she gave the magic Lucky Charms version.

You should go back and punch every science teacher you ever had for not teaching what a scientific theory is.

If he can't remember the difference between evolution and Big Bang Theory, I suspect that he failed to absorb the material that was clearly and appropriately taught.

I don't know anyone that doesn't put stock in some variation of an expanding universe.For what it's worth, the evolution material that I was taught as fact in the classroom was proven to be invalid 8 years after I graduated from high school and a "revised" story of evolution was inserted. Always bothered me. So it goes.

I think everyone came out of this show looking terrible. A no win all around. Especially for the kids.

For what it's worth, you have no idea what you're talking about.

"For what it's worth" Awesome

 

[Toad_1234]

It was intellectually disingenuous of her to present evolution as fact when there are Mack-sized holes in the theory. No one can prove or disprove evolution and she gave the magic Lucky Charms version.

You should go back and punch every science teacher you ever had for not teaching what a scientific theory is.

If he can't remember the difference between evolution and Big Bang Theory, I suspect that he failed to absorb the material that was clearly and appropriately taught.

I don't know anyone that doesn't put stock in some variation of an expanding universe.For what it's worth, the evolution material that I was taught as fact in the classroom was proven to be invalid 8 years after I graduated from high school and a "revised" story of evolution was inserted. Always bothered me. So it goes.

I think everyone came out of this show looking terrible. A no win all around. Especially for the kids.

For what it's worth, you have no idea what you're talking about.

"For what it's worth" Awesome

Predictable

 

[Henry Ford]

It was intellectually disingenuous of her to present evolution as fact when there are Mack-sized holes in the theory. No one can prove or disprove evolution and she gave the magic Lucky Charms version.

You should go back and punch every science teacher you ever had for not teaching what a scientific theory is.

If he can't remember the difference between evolution and Big Bang Theory, I suspect that he failed to absorb the material that was clearly and appropriately taught.

I don't know anyone that doesn't put stock in some variation of an expanding universe.For what it's worth, the evolution material that I was taught as fact in the classroom was proven to be invalid 8 years after I graduated from high school and a "revised" story of evolution was inserted. Always bothered me. So it goes.

I think everyone came out of this show looking terrible. A no win all around. Especially for the kids.

For what it's worth, you have no idea what you're talking about.

"For what it's worth" Awesome

Predictable

What do you want him to do, debate with you? You don't even have any idea what the Theory of Evolution is.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

"The moon? We never landed on the moon! The Newtian Law of Preferable Motion #22 says that the polarity and gravittivity of the telesphere can't be penetrated by an object flying faster than the speed of sound squared! It's all in this book I read by a professor of Astralphysics at Bob Jones.""You don't know what you're talking about.""Predictable!"

 

[GoL]

What an embarrassing hackjob of a documentary. I don't understand why they can't say that there are 2 schools of thought and that some believe evolution and some believe intelligent design. The crackpots at the Texas Freedom network act like the world is going to fall apart if evolution isn't taught in schools and what's worse they are trying to present evolution as fact. Science also believed the world was flat at one time.I remember being taught evolution in 7th grade. It was taught to me as fact that the world sprang forth from a tiny dot and the teacher never explained where the tiny dot or anything else came from. It was ridiculous coming out of her mouth. I had a hard time believing anything else she taught after that.Love Stanley Tucci as an actor, but I've lost respect for him attaching his name to this nonsense. I would expect no less from Michael Moore however.

First of all if one believes in evolution they are no less ignorant than someone who believes in intelligent design. Science doesn't believe anything and evidence for a curved earth was being discussed by scholars three centuries before the birth of Christ and probably by fishermen before that. Here's my big problem with science education in this country. The material presented is well beyond the capacities of the students. Rather than develop critical thinking skills based on analysis of carefully obtained evidence they get black box explanations that are treated as doctrine. They should not be isolating DNA from frozen strawberries in the 3rd grade, they should be growing strawberries. Observing plant development, and identifying key structures but why in the world would you try to present the idea of DNA as if it was a concept within their grasp. No wonder so many students "can't do" science.If you're going to believe in something by all means believe in God. Its a wonderful belief that you can share with other spiritual individuals. Do not tell people that you believe in evolution, that you believe in global warming, that you believe the earth moves around the sun, that you believe germs cause diasease, or that you believe any other scientific theory regardless of how well accepted it has become. If you can explain the evidence for those theories you don't need belief and if you don't know what the evidence is you certainly can't suggest that maintaining your ignorance is in any way an equivalent alternative.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Bottom line:1. Creationism/I.D. should not be mentioned in Science textbooks because they are not Science. Period. 2. Including the words "strengths and weaknesses" when talking about evolution is silly and a clear indicator that one does not understand evolution or the basic principles of scientific theory.

 

[Mario Kart]

Can anyone explain the word "stasis" as well as McLeroy?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Can anyone explain the word "stasis" as well as McLeroy?

I love how he waits until his patients are in his chair with a mouthful of dental crap and then he starts preaching to them. I'd bite his thumb off.

 

[AcerFC]

Can anyone explain the word "stasis" as well as McLeroy?

I love how he waits until his patients are in his chair with a mouthful of dental crap and then he starts preaching to them. I'd bite his thumb off.

Thats a good song isnt it?What else was the poor girl going to say. He looks like the kind of guy that if she were to say no, would pull her teeth out just to prove Gods will

 

[Henry Ford]

So knightmcgee is Toad_1234 now?

 

[matuski]

Can someone take a minute and define "entry level computer work" for me?

 

[matuski]

What an embarrassing hackjob of a documentary. I don't understand why they can't say that there are 2 schools of thought and that some believe evolution and some believe intelligent design. The crackpots at the Texas Freedom network act like the world is going to fall apart if evolution isn't taught in schools and what's worse they are trying to present evolution as fact. Science also believed the world was flat at one time.I remember being taught evolution in 7th grade. It was taught to me as fact that the world sprang forth from a tiny dot and the teacher never explained where the tiny dot or anything else came from. It was ridiculous coming out of her mouth. I had a hard time believing anything else she taught after that.Love Stanley Tucci as an actor, but I've lost respect for him attaching his name to this nonsense. I would expect no less from Michael Moore however.

What an embarrassing hackjob of a documentary. I don't understand why they can't say that there are 2 schools of thought and that some believe evolution and some believe intelligent design. The crackpots at the Texas Freedom network act like the world is going to fall apart if evolution isn't taught in schools and what's worse they are trying to present evolution as fact. Science also believed the world was flat at one time.I remember being taught evolution in 7th grade. It was taught to me as fact that the world sprang forth from a tiny dot and the teacher never explained where the tiny dot or anything else came from. It was ridiculous coming out of her mouth. I had a hard time believing anything else she taught after that.Love Stanley Tucci as an actor, but I've lost respect for him attaching his name to this nonsense. I would expect no less from Michael Moore however.

golddigger?

 

[joffer]

good ole Kansas

The American Civil Liberties Union is urging a Kansas school district to cancel mandatory student assemblies that feature a pro-creationism speaker, the group announced in a statement last week.

The Kansas and Western Missouri chapter of the ACLU is raising concerns with Hugoton Public Schools extending an invitation to Creation Truth Foundation founder Dr. G. Thomas Sharp to give a presentation titled "Truth About Dinosaurs" at two school assemblies for middle and high school students in the district. According to teaching materials on the group's website, the presentation focuses on the "Biblical view explaining the origins, extinction and possible existence of dinosaurs," and cites "evidence" that the dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex was still in existence "fewer than 100,000 years ago."

"It is now a matter of historical record that Western thought and culture has come under the total domination of a 'scientific' based mind-set called evolutionary materialism," reads the organization's mission statement. "As a Christian worker and professional educator for the past 40 years, I have been keenly aware that every aspect of life in America has been negatively influenced by the subtle and godless philosophy of evolutionism for some time ... As a result Creation Truth Foundation, Inc. was organized."

On Friday, the ACLU sent a letter to Hugoton Public Schools superintendent Mark Crawford urging the school district to call off the assemblies.

"Teaching or otherwise promoting creationism is, simply put, unlawful. As the District is surely aware, the federal courts hav been unequivocally clear that efforts to inject religious beliefs regarding the origin of life into public school science curricula are constitutionally impermissible, no matter what form they may take," reads the letter. "We respectfully request that the District take immediate and concrete steps to remedy these problems. The first step would be to cancel the planned mandatory school assemblies now set for next week."

As the AP reported, Crawford said he will not be canceling the events.

"I agree with the ACLU, in that, if a mandatory all-school assembly where creationist truths or creationist beliefs were expressed, that would be inappropriate public-school content, and that is not the case," Crawford said. "It's completely and totally school appropriate."

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

And again...

Texas still seeing attempts to limit evolution in school textbooks Stop us if you've heard this before: one textbook reviewer suggests teaching creationism. by John Timmer - Sept 9 2013, 5:10pm PDT

"These plants look designed to me too. In Texas, we call that science!"
Lawrence Berkeley Lab
Texas' school board, which has waged an ongoing battle over science education (among other topics), is back at it. In 2009, a bruising battle created science standards that questioned common descent and the age of the universe. Since then, textbook publishers have attempted to craft science texts that implement Texas' standards.

That process has reached the point where the board invited outside experts to critique the textbooks. In keeping with the school board's history, that process has also gone badly astray. Rather than choosing scientific experts and educators, the school board chose two people (Walter Bradley and Raymond Bohlin) who have been involved in the Discovery Institute, the organization that has backed the intelligent design movement. Bradley in particular was involved in crafting the wedge document, which calls for a cultural effort to get rid of science's focus on natural causes in the hope that it would advance theistic views.

Another person asked to review the texts is Ide Trotter, a retired engineer. He's a key figure in a group called Texans for Better Science Education. That group's URL, strengthsandweaknesses.org, echoes language that was specifically removed from the standards because it is used to enable religiously motivated attacks on evolution education. With the exception of two works by Darwin, the group's recommended books are all products of the Discovery Institute. (We reviewed one and found it to be largely unscientific.)

The Texas Freedom Network, which advocates for separation of church and state (among other causes), has now used the state's Public Information Act to request the results of this group's textbook reviews. And they're about what you'd expect and, most likely, what some members of the school board were hoping for.

In the evaluation of one textbook, a reviewer openly advocated for introducing religion into the science classroom. "I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, this is a theory. As an educator, parent, and grandparent, I feel very firmly that 'creation science' based on biblical principles should be incorporated into every biology book that is considered for adoption. Students should have the opportunity to use their critical thinking skills to weigh the evidence between evolution and 'creation science.'"

A push for creationism was also made in subtler terms. For instance, one reviewer suggests, "The fossil record can be interpreted in other ways than evolutionary with equal justification. Text should ask students to analyze and compare alternative theories." The "alternative theories" were left unstated.

The reviews also indicated some basic misunderstandings of biology. There was a suggestion that genetic drift was not a mechanism of evolution, and that one standard definition of evolution (change over time) was invalid. Another questioned the existence of transitional fossils.

These reviews suggest that the battle over science education in Texas is far from over. The state is unlikely to try something as blatantly unconstitutional as demanding the teaching of creationism, but the reviews may give them another opportunity to try and undercut science education while inserting unscientific criticisms of evolution.

 

[joffer]

Been following TFN on Facebook. I think I'm going to the hearing on the 17th at the capital.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Been following TFN on Facebook. I think I'm going to the hearing on the 17th at the capital.

 

[joffer]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358500/texas-texts-kevin-d-williamson

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358500/texas-texts-kevin-d-williamson

Online petition

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Great news.

Textbook publishers ignoring Texas school board’s inane interventions

Textbook publishers have largely ignored the suggestions made by reviewers appointed by the Texas State School Board. Various members of the board have been attempting to undercut the teaching of evolution when formulating new science standards. After a tough fight that resulted some confusing requirements, textbook makers were given the chance to implement the new standards. Naturally, when it came time to review the texts, the school board appointed a handful of creationists to the review group.

Just as naturally, those individuals requested that "'creation science' based on biblical principles should be incorporated into every biology book that is considered for adoption," and complained about how evolution was presented. The textbooks were supposed to be revised to reflect these complaints. Now, the publishers have submitted the texts they were supposed to have revised in light of these complaints. And, the good news is that the texts seem fine.

The Texas Freedom Network, which follows (among other things) science education in the state, has had a chance to look over the proposed revisions, and it hasn't found anything objectionable at first glance. Obviously, since teaching creation science is unconstitutional, it didn't make the revised versions. But many of the other complaints about the presentation of evolution were ignored, too. A biologist contacted by the organization agreed with its assessment—the texts seem scientifically sound.

We got in touch with the Texas Freedom Network's Dan Quinn, and he told Ars that the publishers did make some changes in response to the complaints, but did so in a way that didn't dilute the science. For example, reviewers complained about evolution being presented as a fact, in statements like “Evolutionary theory offers the most logical explanation." In the revised version, that got changed to “Scientists who analyze and evaluate these data make the professional judgment that evolutionary theory offers the most logical explanation." In another case, the texts mention that we evaluate some early experiments more critically than they were viewed at the time, which is true; nevertheless, the excerpt accurately notes that the general conclusion drawn from the early work has withstood more recent experiments.

"The publishers are clearly aware of the ideological motivations behind some of the required curriculum standards and the anti-evolution objections raised by reviewers," Quinn told Ars.

At this point, the reviewers get the next say, and will rate the texts for their adherence to the state science standards. There's still a chance they could give the science books low ratings. But, from the sound of things, none of the books that are available will make the critics of evolution very happy.

 

[joffer]

this is another big week

link

Dallas Observer Article

As the Texas state board of education is preparing for its final public hearing on science textbook adoption, the Dallas Observer (November 14, 2013) published a marvelously detailed look at Texas antievolutionism past and present. The article begins with Raymond Bohlin, Vice-President of Vision Outreach for Probe Ministries and a Fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Although Bohlin earned a master's degree in population genetics and a doctorate in molecular and cell biology, he "never accepted the hypothesis central to his discipline, hardened in the crucible of 150 years of experimentation, validated by the advent of modern genetics." Bohlin told the Observer that he undertook his studies in order to be able to debunk evolution: "If I'm going to be a critic of evolution, I have to make sure I understand in detail how it's supposed to work."

Bohlin is relevant to the Texas science textbook adoption because, the Observer explains, "His great investment in a field he entered to debunk had led him to the Texas State Board of Education, where he was appointed to be an expert reviewer of high-school biology textbooks. This, he believes, is where the war against secularism will be won or lost." As NCSE previously reported, ideologues on the official state textbook review teams attacked the treatment of evolution and climate change in science textbooks under consideration in Texas — and Bohlin was a primary offender, offering misguided advice about evolution and climate science alike.

Ron Wetherington, Professor of Anthropology at Southern Methodist University (and a recipient of NCSE's Friend of Darwin award), commented, "There are no intelligent people on the side of creationism who are still urging the teaching of creationism in form or function," adding, "It's not worth it for them to do that, so they're putting all their eggs in the basket of undermining evolution." But the signs are that the publishers are not willing to capitulate: presumably paraphrasing, Wetherington described one publisher as responding to a creationism-inflected critique of its textbook by replying, "Up yours, we're not going to change anything."

The publishers are emboldened by the fact that the board's decision is not as important as it was, the Observer suggests, since "school districts are free to make their own purchasing decisions now ... A thorough vetting from the state board still represents a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval that smaller districts will rely on to ensure their books meet Texas' curriculum standards. The board's vote will be influential for years to come, but is no longer the edict [it] once was." In the future, battles over Texas textbooks may occur at the level of the individual school district — of which there are over one thousand in the state — rather than at the board.

The textbooks are scheduled to be addressed during a public hearing before the Texas state board of education, starting at 1:00 p.m. on November 20, 2013, in Room 1-104 of the William B. Travis Building, 1701 N. Congress Avenue in Austin.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

this is another big week

link

Dallas Observer Article

As the Texas state board of education is preparing for its final public hearing on science textbook adoption, the Dallas Observer (November 14, 2013) published a marvelously detailed look at Texas antievolutionism past and present. The article begins with Raymond Bohlin, Vice-President of Vision Outreach for Probe Ministries and a Fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Although Bohlin earned a master's degree in population genetics and a doctorate in molecular and cell biology, he "never accepted the hypothesis central to his discipline, hardened in the crucible of 150 years of experimentation, validated by the advent of modern genetics." Bohlin told the Observer that he undertook his studies in order to be able to debunk evolution: "If I'm going to be a critic of evolution, I have to make sure I understand in detail how it's supposed to work."

Bohlin is relevant to the Texas science textbook adoption because, the Observer explains, "His great investment in a field he entered to debunk had led him to the Texas State Board of Education, where he was appointed to be an expert reviewer of high-school biology textbooks. This, he believes, is where the war against secularism will be won or lost." As NCSE previously reported, ideologues on the official state textbook review teams attacked the treatment of evolution and climate change in science textbooks under consideration in Texas — and Bohlin was a primary offender, offering misguided advice about evolution and climate science alike.

Ron Wetherington, Professor of Anthropology at Southern Methodist University (and a recipient of NCSE's Friend of Darwin award), commented, "There are no intelligent people on the side of creationism who are still urging the teaching of creationism in form or function," adding, "It's not worth it for them to do that, so they're putting all their eggs in the basket of undermining evolution." But the signs are that the publishers are not willing to capitulate: presumably paraphrasing, Wetherington described one publisher as responding to a creationism-inflected critique of its textbook by replying, "Up yours, we're not going to change anything."

The publishers are emboldened by the fact that the board's decision is not as important as it was, the Observer suggests, since "school districts are free to make their own purchasing decisions now ... A thorough vetting from the state board still represents a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval that smaller districts will rely on to ensure their books meet Texas' curriculum standards. The board's vote will be influential for years to come, but is no longer the edict [it] once was." In the future, battles over Texas textbooks may occur at the level of the individual school district — of which there are over one thousand in the state — rather than at the board.

The textbooks are scheduled to be addressed during a public hearing before the Texas state board of education, starting at 1:00 p.m. on November 20, 2013, in Room 1-104 of the William B. Travis Building, 1701 N. Congress Avenue in Austin.

So awesome.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

They just won't stop

Evolution debate again erupts before Texas Board of Education

AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Board of Education used a late-night meeting to give preliminary approval to new science textbooks for classrooms across the state late Thursday night, but it blocked signing off on a major new biology text until alleged "errors" in lessons over the theory of evolution are checked by outside experts.

The vote just before midnight did not reject the biology book by Pearson, one of the country's largest publishers. But it delayed approval until three board members appoint a trio of outside experts to check concerns.

Textbook and classroom curriculum battles have long raged in Texas pitting creationists — those who see God's hand in the creation of the universe — against academics who worry about religious and political ideology trumping scientific fact. At issue this time are proposed high school biology books that could be used across the state at least through 2022.

State law approved two years ago means school districts can now choose their own books and don't have to adhere to a list recommended by the Board of Education — but most have continued to use approved books.

The issue is important nationally since Texas is so large that many books prepared for publication in the state also are marketed elsewhere around the country.

Publishers from around the country submitted proposed textbooks this summer, but committees of Texas volunteer reviewers — some nominated by socially conservative current and former Board of Education members — raised objections. One argued that creationism based on biblical texts should be taught in science classes, while others objected that climate change wasn't as settled a scientific matter as some of the proposed books said.

Pearson and many other major publishers weren't willing to make suggested major edits and changes, however.

That prompted some of the board's socially conservative members to call for delaying approval of the book because of concerns including how long it took Earth to cool and objection to lessons about natural selection because "selection operates as a selective but not a creative force."

Members outside the socially conservative bloc claimed their colleagues waited until the dead of night to try to impose ideological edits.

"To ask me — a business degree major from Texas Tech University — to distinguish whether the Earth cooled 4 billion years ago or 4.2 billion years ago for purposes of approving a textbook at 10:15 on a Thursday night is laughable," said Thomas Ratliff, a Republican from Mount Pleasant.

He added: "I believe this process is being hijacked, this book is being held hostage to make political changes."

 

[joffer]

http://ncse.com/news/2013/12/final-victory-texas-0015248

good news

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

http://ncse.com/news/2013/12/final-victory-texas-0015248

good news

Although it is a little sad that we have to celebrate a victory like this in 2013.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Texas Charter Schools Teaching Complete Bull####

 

[joffer]

Texas Charter Schools Teaching Complete Bull####

I'm sure Governor Hairdue will put an end to this.Oklahoma getting into the act

Senate Bill 1765 (document), styled the Oklahoma Science Education Act, is the second antiscience bill of the year. As is increasingly common with antiscience legislation, SB 1765 would, if enacted, in effect encourage science teachers with idiosyncratic opinions to teach anything they pleased — proponents of creationism and climate change denial are the usual intended beneficiaries of such bills — and discourage responsible educational authorities from intervening. No scientific topics are specifically identified as controversial, but the fact that the sole sponsor of SB 1765 is Josh Brecheen (R-District 6), who introduced similar legislation that directly targeted evolution in two previous legislative sessions, is suggestive.

SB 1765 would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught"; it would prevent such authorities from "prohibit[ing] any teacher in a public school district in this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."

In late 2010, Brecheen announced his intention to file antievolution legislation in a column in the Durant Daily Democrat (December 19, 2010): "Renowned scientists now asserting that evolution is laden with errors are being ignored. ... Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings[,] is incomplete and unacceptable." In a subsequent column in the newspaper (December 24, 2010), he indicated that his intention was to have creationism presented as scientifically credible, writing, "I have introduced legislation requiring every publically funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution using the known science, even that which conflicts with Darwin's religion."

What Brecheen in fact introduced in 2011, Senate Bill 554, combined a version of the now familiar "academic freedom" language — referring to "the scientific strengths [and] scientific weaknesses of controversial topics ... [which] include but are not limited to biological origins of life and biological evolution" — with a directive for the state board of education to adopt "standards and curricula" that echo the flawed portions of the state science standards adopted in Texas in 2009 with respect to the nature of science and evolution. SB 554 died in committee. In 2012, Brecheen took a new tack with Senate Bill 1742, modeled in part on the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act; SB 1742 likewise died in committee.

In 2013, Brecheen modified his approach again. Senate Bill 758 followed the lead of Tennessee's "monkey law" (as it was nicknamed by House Speaker Emeritus Jimmy Naifeh), enacted (as Tenn. Code Ann. 49-6-1030) over the protests of the state's scientific and educational communities in 2012. The major difference is that SB 758 omitted the monkey law's statement of legislative findings, which cites "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning" as among the topics that "can cause controversy" when taught in the science classroom of the public schools. SB 758 died in committee. Brecheen's latest effort, SB 1765, is virtually identical.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Texas Charter Schools Teaching Complete Bull####

I'm sure Governor Hairdue will put an end to this.Oklahoma getting into the act

Senate Bill 1765 (document), styled the Oklahoma Science Education Act, is the second antiscience bill of the year. As is increasingly common with antiscience legislation, SB 1765 would, if enacted, in effect encourage science teachers with idiosyncratic opinions to teach anything they pleased — proponents of creationism and climate change denial are the usual intended beneficiaries of such bills — and discourage responsible educational authorities from intervening. No scientific topics are specifically identified as controversial, but the fact that the sole sponsor of SB 1765 is Josh Brecheen (R-District 6), who introduced similar legislation that directly targeted evolution in two previous legislative sessions, is suggestive.

SB 1765 would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught"; it would prevent such authorities from "prohibit[ing] any teacher in a public school district in this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."

In late 2010, Brecheen announced his intention to file antievolution legislation in a column in the Durant Daily Democrat (December 19, 2010): "Renowned scientists now asserting that evolution is laden with errors are being ignored. ... Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings[,] is incomplete and unacceptable." In a subsequent column in the newspaper (December 24, 2010), he indicated that his intention was to have creationism presented as scientifically credible, writing, "I have introduced legislation requiring every publically funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution using the known science, even that which conflicts with Darwin's religion."

What Brecheen in fact introduced in 2011, Senate Bill 554, combined a version of the now familiar "academic freedom" language — referring to "the scientific strengths [and] scientific weaknesses of controversial topics ... [which] include but are not limited to biological origins of life and biological evolution" — with a directive for the state board of education to adopt "standards and curricula" that echo the flawed portions of the state science standards adopted in Texas in 2009 with respect to the nature of science and evolution. SB 554 died in committee. In 2012, Brecheen took a new tack with Senate Bill 1742, modeled in part on the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act; SB 1742 likewise died in committee.

In 2013, Brecheen modified his approach again. Senate Bill 758 followed the lead of Tennessee's "monkey law" (as it was nicknamed by House Speaker Emeritus Jimmy Naifeh), enacted (as Tenn. Code Ann. 49-6-1030) over the protests of the state's scientific and educational communities in 2012. The major difference is that SB 758 omitted the monkey law's statement of legislative findings, which cites "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning" as among the topics that "can cause controversy" when taught in the science classroom of the public schools. SB 758 died in committee. Brecheen's latest effort, SB 1765, is virtually identical.

Oof.

 

[joffer]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2015-06-22/abbott-sides-with-homeschoolers/

Good ole Abbott. Her kids never went to public school, but now she's chair of the SBOE. Former Director of Communications for Dan Patrick? This should be good.

 

[joffer]

Don McLeroy finally has a successor.

http://www.chron.com/news/education/article/Texas-teacher-who-says-Obama-was-a-gay-6864825.php

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Don McLeroy finally has a successor.

http://www.chron.com/news/education/article/Texas-teacher-who-says-Obama-was-a-gay-6864825.php

Ug.  Nice going, Texas.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

This crazy broad needs her own thread.