Evolution causes some hot debate

Science curriculum in Texas is evolving and a controversy is raging over the way evolution and its counterpoint, creationism, will be represented for the next decade and perhaps beyond. The State Board of Education has debated the issue and took a preliminary vote last week to drop a two-decade-old requirement that critics claim is used to undermine the theory of evolution.

The change would drop a mandate that science teachers address both "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theory. A panel of science teachers had recommended that the language be dropped.

The new standards would be in place for the next decade.
 The education board had two days of heated debate before supporting the change, but the final vote is not expected until March. The standards adopted also will dictate how publishers handle the topic in textbooks.

Now it's true that federal courts have ruled against forcing the teaching of creationism and the similar theory of intelligent design.
But that doesn't mean that teachers can't at least present both sides of the argument and use that to stimulate classroom discussion and demonstrate that there is room for both schools of thought.

After all, both sides claim to have solid evidence to support their beliefs. But they are still beliefs with no definitive answer available. It's the chicken and egg proposition all over again.

And truly, why does state government have to establish some sort of declaration on this issue?
Why not let individual school districts decide how evolution will be presented in individual communities? There's a lot to be said for local control.

Sure, school districts (as well as those who teach science) would have to make decisions based on federal guidelines due to the religious nature of creationism. But there's nothing to preclude an open presentation of both strains of belief without open advocacy of either. It's very similar to the acceptable option of offering courses in comparative religion as opposed to having an instructor who advocates one particular denomination or religion in class.

Plus it would be easier for individual school districts to make sure no teachers are running afoul of federal rulings than to have a state agency trying to monitor thousands of classrooms.

The weekly Question:

Are you concerned by the way evolution is taught in Texas public schools?

Yes                           No
67%                         33%

>> madsysone: I am very concerned with the way ‘evolution' is taught in our government schools. The main reason became evident when I read your poll question; ‘Are you concerned by the way evolution is taught in Texas public schools?' You used the word evolution by itself, as if it were a fact. It is not a fact and has never been proven as fact. That is why it should be referred to as the ‘theory of evolution,' which totally conflicts with second law of thermodynamics. There is no more proof supporting that theory than there is proof supporting the theory of creation. They both require faith to believe, so I choose to believe in a creator. Other people choose to believe man evolved. The preamble to the Constitution of the United States presumes we are endowed by our creator with our rights. No creator, no rights. Government gets rights from people; the people do not get their rights from government! Seems to me that replacing teaching ‘evolution' with ‘civics' would be much better for this country. Why should government schools promote one faith over another?

>> constancemrn: Yes, I'm concerned about the way evolution is taught in Texas public schools on two counts: 1) The suppression of presenting the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution, to me, is a suppression of free speech. What are they afraid of? 2) I think they do have reason to be afraid, because there are serious weaknesses. For about a decade I've been aware of and in contact with an organization called Reasons to Believe. It was started more than 20 years ago by a Ph.D.-prepared astrophysicist. He has been joined by four or five additional Ph.D.-prepared scientists in fields like biochemistry, astronomy and physics. They have written a number of well-documented books and papers, and have appeared on several hundred university campuses to make presentations. Their website is www.reasons.org. I would like to see this group get informed about these weaknesses.

>> rrdavis: I am very concerned about how evolution is taught in our schools. For one reason, it is taught as a fact of truth when in reality it is nothing more than a very poor theory. The truth is being suppressed. Please check out this website, www.bible.ca/

>> rayehudson: The definition of ‘theory' vs. ‘law' depends upon the ability to re-perform tests that confirm the ‘theory.' We cannot duplicate time, then no test is available. Also, if there are unknowns then it is ‘theory.' The question is ‘why is it important' unless we are trying to remove any possibility that a creator exists. Perhaps someone is confusing ‘how' with ‘who.'  This problem has existed from the time of Darwin when avowed atheists used evolution to bolster their beliefs.