For Texas Textbooks, a Victory For Evolution 626
An anonymous reader writes "The Texas Board of Education has unanimously come down on the side of evolution. In an 8-0 vote, the board today approved scientifically accurate high school biology textbook supplements from established mainstream publishers — and did not approve the creationist-backed supplements from International Databases, LLC."
Re:Proof? (Score:2, Informative)
My guess is they may fear becoming irrelevant.
My guess is they lose half the nation (by population) if they approve creationism (with a quarter supporting the change, and a quarter not caring). There is a risk to losing their power by being crazy.
I'd love to see the textbook power shift to CA, as they are supporting open textbooks, which could save the education system billions/year. In both royalties, and the ability to use paperless solutions.
Re:A victory for dogma! (Score:4, Informative)
A bit on the wrong side, aren't you? Evolutionary theories aren't dogma - like most scientific theories they are constantly being revised as new discoveries are made, and they form a central part of the the basis of modern biology. "Free thinkers" who profess the "religious creationism in a fancy dress" like Intelligent Design are pushing forward conclusions that predate genetics and other discoveries. Are there other conclusions (made thousands of years ago by nomadic tribesmen sitting around a campfire) you also will consider more valid than modern science? Should we perhaps abandon these fancy cars for trusty old camels?
Evolution deniers are skeptics in much the same way Holocaust deniers are skeptics. Should history classes teach historical revisionism? Or what about introducing contra-factual history ("what if" scenarios) at an early age to sow confusion? Should physics classes also teach the element-based world view? How about re-introducing the liquid balance principles in medicine?
Re:You mean... (Score:5, Informative)
One question I'd like to ask Darwin, if he were still alive, is this: If man evolved from apes, then why do we still have apes? Why didn't all species evolve like man supposedly did?
Seriously, pick-up a decent book on evolutionary biology. Even AIG advise against this argument.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use [answersingenesis.org]
Re:Have to share this - holy crap! mod parent up (Score:5, Informative)
You deserve to be flamed, if only for your blatant ignorance of biology. There is no difference between micro and macro evolution.
The concept that there is a difference is a "talking point" (read: "logical fallacy") promoted by cretins... sorry, creationists. Since their first stance - "Nobody has ever seen evolution happen" - has been conclusively disproved by the existence of antibiotic resistant bacteria, they've moved the goalpost, created an imaginary distinction between micro and macro evolution and pretended that macro evolution hasn't been observed.
So it's at least two fallacies for the price of one. And it's biologically incorrect. You will never, ever see a credible biologist talk of macro and micro evolution, and seeing a person claim a distinction should be a red flag as to their dishonesty or ignorance, depending on how kindly you wish to view them.
In genuine biology, what creationists call macro evolution is instead called speciation. And it's universally understood that speciation occurs as a result of the accumulation of small changes, i.e. what a creationist calls micro evolution. Now, not only has speciation been observed, making the "Nobody has seen macro evolution" argument outdated, but pretending that there must exist a single speciation event, rather than an accumulation of change, makes the creationist's argument more convincing. They're playing on the general public's ignorance of biology.