28 ms·

Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

56 points by Frostine 13y ago

dclowd9901 13y ago
I've come to the realization not too long ago that some things -- even things that appear to be very influenceable -- you cannot change. A school, especially a charter school, teaching an agenda that parents don't oppose is one of those things. Just like wages, unemployment or gas prices, there are larger, more primordial forces directing these things. So what's the point of this article? A naive answer would be "pure exposition." But surely there's an agenda to focus on these institutions, and all it will do is further divide a country where each half thinks the other is evil.
- leephillips 13y ago
  But just these kinds of things have been changed, thanks to organizations such as the ACLU bringing lawsuits, and many Supreme Court and other federal judges not all being insane.
- Frostine 13y ago
  The article specifically mentions legal action. I think they are hoping enough "exposition" might encourage parents or other charter schools to sue considering teaching both creationism and intelligent design in public schools has been ruled unconstitutional.
- FrankenPC 13y ago
  I thought the article mentions that this charter school is taking public money. Therein lies the problem.
- grifpete 13y ago
  One point is to evidence the fact that public money is being spent illegally. Furthermore, to the extent that we tolerate this nonsense we will continue to miseducate a whole generation who will have no tools with which to escape from their family of community's broken belief systems. And this means we will continue to be divided. Incidentally, my observation is that it is inaccurate to characterize the country as one 'where each half things the other is evil.' More accurate, I believe, is 'where one half thinks the other is evil, and the other half thinks the other is lamentably poorly educated with a medieval world view.'
- kordless 13y ago
  Christianity brings a methodology to this part of our society. At a glance it encourages equal treatment of others, guides for parenting, finding happiness and even tips on raising children. I think the primary problem with it is that it fails to expose the underlying rationalizations and rule set for why these are good things to teach to people. At times that can cause issues, especially where intent or fears are misaligned with the goal of understanding. Understanding we don't understand how the universe works takes a lot of brain power, so someone somewhere just has to have faith why that statement is true. Unfortunately this also opens up the possibility of someone who, for whatever reason, wants others to have faith that a supreme being created us 6,000 years ago out of thin air. By that same logic, one other individual could state we need to have faith a supreme being created all of this just this morning at 6:34AM EST, just like you see it here and stuck us all in it with our existing memories. I was raised in a fairly religious household, but thankfully I also had time to think outside the box. If I had to label myself as practicing anything nowadays, it'd be Buddhism. It's much more applicable for me because it maps well into what I believe about the nature of the universe. That's not to say it's a completely accurate representation, but it serves me well enough.
cobrausn 13y ago
So, as someone who went to a private (Catholic, even) high school in Texas that taught evolution, I'm often pretty frustrated by this. Aside from just waiting for those who set these kinds of policies in place to fade away, is there any specific voting pattern that would stop this? I don't live in areas that vote in people who set these policies, so I'm not sure I can actually even affect this.
- herge 13y ago
  Why would a Catholic high school teach anything else other than evolution?
  - tomswartz07 13y ago
    I went to a private school in PA, and we were taught evolution. The teacher made a passing remark that creationism is a 'competing hypothesis' and left it at that.
    - MartinCron 13y ago
      A hypothesis implies falsification via observation or experimentation. Creationism does not (and cannot) meet that definition. Calling creationism a "competing hypothesis" is an insult to science.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  Catholics are in general more accepting of scientific evidence than Protestants, the latter being far more concerned with dogma and traditionalism. Evolution is officially supported by the Catholic Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - mnw21cam 13y ago
    > Catholics are in general more accepting of scientific evidence than Protestants In my experience, the opposite is true (in the UK, at least). Consider the condom issue.
kordless 13y ago
Hacking biases to establish pools of control. Humans are exceedingly good at this.
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Although this is a heinous butchery of education, it's been practiced for a long time and I do believe that all private schools (including charters, who have higher control of their curriculum despite receiving public funding) have the right to teach whatever inanity they decide. It's depressing that such a primal culture of anti-intellectualism and deceit like this is thriving in the Deep South, but given the deeply ingrained religious paleoconservative culture, it's unavoidable and only likely. It does however teach one that formal schooling cannot be trusted and should not be used as an accurate descriptor of intelligence and knowledge. The parents who support this have ideological agendas. If these institutions didn't exist, they would stick to homeschooling, as many of them already do. It's a shame, too. Homeschooling is a viable alternative to the mess of public schooling, but too many people pursue it for wrong reasons.
- poorelise 13y ago
  "I do believe that all private schools (...) have the right to teach whatever inanity they decide" In a way I agree, because it's kind of like free speech. On the other hand, shouldn't a society be responsible for protecting children? Schools teach children, after all. It's different from somebody voluntarily picking a topic to learn about. Seems to me children being taught Creationism might be seriously disadvantaged. Then again, by what standard? For example, what if being immersed in some cult brings total happiness, even if it looks insane from the outside? Should it be disallowed to raise kids as devote cult members?
  - gress 13y ago
    I went to one of the top 5 private high schools in the country. Evolution was split out into a separate class, and alongside it, there was a creationism class. Parents could choose one or both classes. I can guarantee you the kids who did the creationism only track were not 'disadvantaged' compared to 99% of kids in public school who were taught evolution.
    - poorelise 13y ago
      Maybe they sere not disadvantaged because general standards are low? Actually the topic is a can of worms, we could go on about the purpose of school. I suspect teaching critical thinking is not what schools really want - they want to provide the industry with willing workers. In that context creationists perhaps aren't worse off much, but that doesn't mean much.
izzydata 13y ago
And Texas continues to be the most backwards state and least progressive. Not really news though.
- angersock 13y ago
  Tell that to my openly lesbian mayor. Or go look at the AP computer science results from 2013--most diverse. Way to just parrot nonsense though!
jswinghammer 13y ago
Given that public schools can barely teach reading, writing, or math I don't really worry too much about what they are teaching children about much else. It also does not matter what schools anywhere teach if your children do not attend that school.
- uptown 13y ago
  "It also does not matter what schools anywhere teach if your children do not attend that school." How do you figure? These people eventually enter the workforce. Maybe they become politicians, and base their political direction on misinformation. Even if they remain in the private sector, someone that is the product of a misguided education will lack the tools necessary to impact society in an informed way, and will have an artificial ceiling on their potential due to lack of knowledge. Education has a massive impact on the world around those who are educated. Considering knowledge to be an isolated, personal thing isn't remotely accurate.
  - jswinghammer 13y ago
    I know a lot of successful people who don't know anything about the current state of evolutionary biology. I'm guessing you do too. It's totally superfluous to most occupations.
    - subsection1h 13y ago
      I don't think a lack of an understanding of biology is the problem; the problem is a disregard for empirical evidence. Whenever the evolution vs. creationism debate comes up in the context of a presidential election, some people argue that it doesn't matter whether the POTUS understands biology. But as I wrote, a lack of an understanding of biology isn't the problem; the problem is a disregard for empirical evidence. If a presidential candidate has no regard for empirical evidence in the context of biology, they likely have no regard for empirical evidence in the context of other subjects, including important subjects such as health economics. That's the problem. So while you're correct that a person can lack an understanding of biology and still be successful, a successful person who has little regard for empirical evidence is a threat to civilization.
jostmey 13y ago
Evolution is a theory that is almost self-evident. I hope that the pupils in these classrooms can determine the truth for themselves.
- jostmey 13y ago
  And I must admit, the accusations in this article are outlandish. I found them hard to believe.
  - grifpete 13y ago
    Which accusations and why?
    - jostmey 13y ago
      The part about "feminism forced women to turn to the government as a surrogate husband" being taught in a charter school is the accusation I found hard to believe. I can actually believe that there are some people against the teaching of Evolution, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would be stupid enough in this country (USA) to teach a misguided view about women's rights in this in a public school, even if it is just a charter school.
      - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
        Keep believing that, then. I don't even consider myself a feminist and I'm very critical of postmodern feminism, but it's true that the far-right conservatives in the USA are keen on undermining women's achievements and the history of the struggle for their rights. Largely for religious reasons.
- jonlucc 13y ago
  I think this is true if you embrace the facts. It seems that many people I've discussed this with merely disregard the scientific process and experts in the field as biased.
- jtbigwoo 13y ago
tokenadult 13y ago
I had to digest after reading this article for a while. (I've also shared the link among my Facebook friends, so that they can help me digest this.) On the whole, I like the author's take that charter schools are a good idea, a good enough idea that while Texas limits the number of charter schools to 300 statewide, it is important to make sure that each charter school offers a sound curriculum. And I think the author is correct that the Responsive Ed charter school curriculum is simply unsound both as to science and as to history. Regulation of schools is the job of state governments in the United States by default. Political forces in the state legislature in Texas make it hard to fix this problem solely by state legislation, because the Responsive Ed curriculum does represent the point of view of some highly motivated and politically active Texas voters. The article author points out that federal constitutional principles ban teaching religious doctrine in the guise of teaching school curriculum content, so that is one possible response to the skewed curriculum in these charter schools. Another, too little considered in most articles about school choice in general, is simply for other schools to boldly proclaim that their curriculum is better, and explain why it is better. The Responsive Ed schools surely find agreement among some parents shopping for schools in Texas, but they would also be embarrassed to have to defend point by point all of the ridiculous things they say in their curriculum. In particular, it would be good for other schools to specifically mention the many lines of evidence for macroevolution[1] as they promote their curriculums. Comparative advertising is still an under-used tool for promoting school reform, even in states like mine with pervasive public school open enrollment. I think John Stuart Mill got the policy balance correct more than a century ago, when school attendance was not compulsory in Britain nor in most parts of the United States: "A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body." John Stuart Mill On Liberty (1859) [1] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
- mschuster91 13y ago
  Allowing home schooling is even more sick than that kind of bullshit these Texans are doing. In public schools one at least knows what the teachers are teaching. Home-schooled kids are not protected from anything ranging from creationist crap to domestic violence (you as a teacher can spot if a pupil turns up beaten every other day). Not to mention the fact that home-schooled kids are far, far behind "ordinary schooled" kids in terms of knowledge. How should they be other, after all? Edit: for all those who down-vote, I'm writing this from a German point of view. Here, nearly every non-state/church-schooling effort has been plagued with massive problems: inadequate knowledge of teachers, sexual harrassment, violence scandals. Name the problem, you've had it.
bdfh42 13y ago
Don't panic - I was taught all sorts of daft stuff in school - when I think back on it a staggering proportion of (say) history or geography was completely untrue. It helps in a way that some of it was so crazy it got me questioning the basis for the rest. Thats when you stop being taught stuff and start researching and learning. Not suggesting that every pupil taught creationism will respond in this way - many are probably pre-programmed by the religious affiliations to believe it anyway - but the intellectual health of the pupil body is not a lost cause.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  The people who can freely dispel from themselves the intellectual dishonesty and lies that they've been taught to accept as fundamentals, is low. You sound like you weren't heavily ingrained into the dogma to begin with, and had a tendency to autodidact, which helps kill off the rest and make your own conclusions. Yet most people don't and they take whatever they're formally taught for granted, or selectively choose to believe whatever fits their ideological predispositions. Many of these kids will be stuck with lifelong delusions. Their parents may mold them to a certain path, but their schooling will solidify it completely. Even still, this is a very abhorrent thing to do. "Hey kid, everything you know about history, geography, geology and natural science is a lie! Read up on the facts and realize you've been living in a matrix all this time!" I mean, people with perseverance can totally get through it and then in retrospect have a laugh at the bullshit they were taught, but even with this in mind at best the whole thing is a major inconvenience.
  - bdfh42 13y ago
    It may have helped that I was brought up a Catholic. Perceiving the shaky foundations of Christianity and the astonishing hypocrisy of that particular version probably helped clarify a lot of things for me and gave me the freedom to revisit the prejudices that had been foisted upon me in my early youth.
- GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
  How do you know you have re-learned all of the stuff that you were taught wrong and not just a portion of it?
FrankenPC 13y ago
How does one "teach" creationism? Answer: you don't. Simply reciting "god did it" over and over is sufficient. No, this is Christian apologetics that they are teaching. In other words it's a religion class, NOT a science class. If this school is taking public money, those funds need to be withdrawn until the curriculum is properly labeled.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  As an Atheist, I am not generally opposed to a religion class, even a compulsory one. Religion is a reality, and ignoring it is as bad as ignoring any other reality. Teaching creationism is worse than a mere study of religion because it promotes rote memorization of demonstrably incorrect ideas as facts.
  - stephenhuey 13y ago
    A fellow Christian and scientist named Dr. James Tour explained that many creationists do not understand the limits of the scientific method. Dr. Tour concludes, "I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion." http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/ http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-... So in response to people clamoring for creationism in the classroom, he suggests this: "So what should be taught in schools regarding evolution? As I wrote, I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design for the reasons I state above: I can not prove it using my tools of chemistry to which I am bound in the chemistry classroom; the same tools to which I commensurately bind my evolutionist colleagues. But I think that a better approach might include more teaching about evolution, namely coverage of legitimate scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinism and disputes about the origin of the first life. That would be more balanced."
    - FrankenPC 13y ago
      That sounds like a fair and lively scientific discussion to have. It's a shame that won't happen.
Glyptodon 13y ago
These charter school conservative 'Christians' are essentially attempting to destroy the US and turn it into a theocratic state without modern medicine or technology. Forget Snowden and Manning. It's these America-hating hacks who should be charged with sedition and treason for attempting to overthrow the Constitution and replace with mandatory religious practices.
grifpete 13y ago
This is beyond depressing. The idea that the USA, currently the world's leading first world country, hosts this kind of medieval nonsense is just depressing.
- robmcm 13y ago
  "the USA, currently the world's leading first world country," citation needed.
rayiner 13y ago
I obviously don't support teaching creationism as science or anti-feminism. At the same time, I think articles like this are a pointless move in the culture war. In the U.K. Christian-oriented religious education is not only allowed in state schools, but mandatory. Everywhere! Apparently, until recently, it was the only mandatory part of the curriculum. Yet we haven't seen British society crumble into ruin as a result.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Well, on the other hand, the UK doesn't have a 220-year-old Bill of Rights that literally opens with a prohibition on laws pertaining to religion. And, while it doesn't seem to have caused the UK's culture to crumble (and indeed it doesn't seem to have done much of a favor to Christianity's influence in the UK), you don't think it's a little batshit to have a national law mandating that schools teach the primacy of Christianity among all religions practiced in the UK?
  - gadders 13y ago
    What, in a Christian country? No. When I was in my teens, I resented the fact that I went to religious assemblies at school and couldn't opt out. Now I'm older and look back on these assemblies, they taught moral lessons that could be applicable regardless of your opinion of the supernatural.
thejteam 13y ago
I went to a very good public school system in Maryland. More than one math teacher taught me that while we suspect that there are an infinite number of prime numbers, we can't prove it. I found out later that there exists a relatively simple proof known to Euclid. Lots of college students honestly believe that 0.999… (repeating 9's) is NOT exactly equal to 1. My upper level analysis teacher spent an entire class period dispelling this myth. We were all taught the wrong answer by multiple public school teachers in many different districts. Now, is the teaching of creationism any worse than teaching wrong math? If public school teachers can't get cut and dried math facts right, how many are going to be able to understand the nuances between "hypothesis", "theory", "law", etc?
- tmzt 13y ago
  Do you have any reference/proof/etc. for 0.999... === 1? As one of those taught to believe it is not, I would like to see it. Unfortunately, text books conserve non facts for very interesting reasons. Some good examples are at http://www.textbookleague.org/ http://www.textbookleague.org/
  - thejteam 13y ago
    A very informal proof: Let X = 0.999… Then 10X = 9.999… 10X - X = 9.999… - 0.999… = 9 = 9X Therefore X = 1. Being able to do the subtraction infinitely is a little hand-wavy, but should suffice as a demo for middle and high schoolers. More formal proofs involve limits that one wouldn't normally encounter until a course in real analysis. Wikipedia has a whole page devoted to the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
DanielStraight 13y ago
I really think both sides get this issue very wrong. Creationism is not valid science, obviously. But that's because it isn't science at all. It is a religious belief, which is by definition non-scientific. Here is where the science side gets things wrong. Creationism is a NON-scientific belief, not an ANTI-scientific belief. It's not anti-intellectual or stupid or backward either. It's a choice to believe in the supernatural. Lots of people, even non-religious people, believe things on grounds other than science. Science is an excellent way of explaining the world, but it isn't the only way. People have the right to inform their beliefs with a source other than science. Here is where the creationism side gets things wrong. Same basic principle, creationism is not a scientific belief. Christians, even those who accept evolution, believe a lot of things which are clearly not scientifically sound. Bodily resurrection from the dead is perhaps the most obvious and most fundamental. It's absurd to accept the resurrection of a deity without seeking scientific evidence and then try to make scientific evidence support creationism. Even if you convince someone that creationism is scientific, you aren't going to convince them that a deity being bodily resurrected from the dead is scientific. Given that Jesus' resurrection is the fundamental belief of Christianity, it's silly to make such a big deal of something that is comparatively non-important. So my suggestion, teach evolution in science class without mentioning creationism at all. But require at least one class in religion/philosophy so students understand that there are other ways of understanding the world. I'm not saying to teach the beliefs of any particular religion, just to explain some of the ways other than science that people have historically and continue today to understand their world. The overwhelming majority of people on Earth today are at least nominally religious. Schools shouldn't teach students to be religious, but they should teach them to understand religion... and not just as a cute, prehistoric way of explaining things that science now has exclusive domain over. Religious beliefs, as non-scientific beliefs, are non-falsifiable. Students need to understand this. Modern science does not falsify religious beliefs. It provides an alternative based on empirical evidence. But there is no requirement that everyone on Earth only accept things based on empirical evidence. It may seem odd to you to deliberately choose to believe something which isn't based on empirical evidence, but many people do (knowingly at that) and that is their right. Students should understand that science is not a tool for disproving religion, it is a tool for explaining the world in a different way than religion does.
angersock 13y ago
Flagged. This article has nothing to do with hacking or technology: it's almost entirely religion and politics, and done without any of the background philosophy or discussion that would otherwise redeem such an article. Moreover, it's pretty obvious flame-bait: as seen already in this thread, you have the band-wagon of whiskey-swirling "mmm yes religion how droll" neckbeards, you have the "haha fuck texas more like backwater amirite" jerks, and you have the "homeschooling cannot possibly educate anyone" folks. All of these are trivially proved false, but that doesn't matter, and instead we're just going to get a gigantic circlejerk of people either attacking or defending something which is, at best, a regional concern. You know, as opposed to any of the things which impact the world of tech at large (NSA, Snowden, RSA compromises, new programming languages, web framework of the day, etc.). I appreciate that it's a lot easier to make fun of Texas than it is to make any meaningful change in your own little pocket of reality, but don't take up space here to do it.
piokoch 13y ago
The funniest this is that's creationism is a side effect of a strange, but very popular view of "tolerance". We are told that tolerance means that various points of view on any issue must be accepted, regardless if they make sense or not. As a result with hava a wide stream of various absurdities comming from "the left" (gender people claiming that there are no differences between boys and girls) and from "the right" (creationism) are propagated instead of radiculed and thrown away. The same with Homeopathy and countless other things. Another interesting thing is what happened with protestant churches. Once they were seen as progressive and modern (in Calvin, Luther times). Now they are either bunch of annoying old bishop-ladies ignored by everyone, who think that having gay priests is the most important thing on the World (Church of England) or radiculous morons who claim that earth was created 6000 years ago. BTW it's somehow incorrect to call them Christians. They do not follow tradition and intellectual heritage of Roman Catholic Church. I guess that Thomas of Aquin and other great Christian philosophers are rolling in their graves seeing such widespread grow of stupidity among people who call themselves Christians.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  BTW it's somehow incorrect to call them Christians. They do not follow tradition and intellectual heritage of Roman Catholic Church. No True Scotsman, lad! The Roman Catholic Church were not the first and "true" Christians. The Gnostics were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Gnosticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Gnosticism Movements and cultures naturally stratify and disband. Just as postmodern, radical, anarchist and separatist feminists are just as legitimate as more traditional feminists (no matter how much they might try to claim the contrary), the same way all these Christian denominations are Christians like all others.
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  BTW it's somehow incorrect to call practitioners of the Roman Catholic Church. They do not follow the traditions and intellectual heritage of the Early Christian Church. Fuck off. Christianity split multiple times, not just Roman Catholic and Protestant, but also the Early Christian church into the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Catholic (more commonly called the Eastern Orthodox church) churches. Claiming that because someone doesn't follow the Roman Catholic church they can't possibly be a Christian is ridiculous. The Roman Catholic church elevated the Bishop of Rome above the other bishops, something that wasn't done in the Early Christian church, and still isn't done in the Eastern Orthodox churches. The Eastern Orthodox churches are closer to "traditional Christianity" than the Roman Catholic church. Learn you some Christian history if you're going to try to argue about it. And I say this as someone who doesn't affiliate with any religion.
xname 13y ago
The essence of the story is that liberals cannot wait for the progressive change in culture. Modern liberals do not believe progressivism, they believe extremism, revolutionarism. They want to destroy bad tradition as soon as possible. They just cannot wait. They hate people who are different from them (read: stupid). BTW. I am a science person. I think creationism is trash, but I am OK with other people to believe creationism or whatever. I know there are billions year ahead of human evolution and cultural evolution. I don't expect to see all these changes in one night. I don't believe use government to impose cultural change to its citizens is a right thing to do! As for the "public" school thing. That's simply because people do not have a choice. The dominance of public school in pre-college education destroyed the education market and made private schools hard to exist. That's why many religious people want to change the so called "public" schools, which is the only place they can send their children to. I do not blame them. This is just a minor collateral damage of the centralized education system. There are many much worth things in public education. Public money? Come on, that's also their money. Where do you think those money come from?

56 points by Frostine 13y ago

I've come to the realization not too long ago that some things -- even things that appear to be very influenceable -- you cannot change. A school, especially a charter school, teaching an agenda that parents don't oppose is one of those things. Just like wages, unemployment or gas prices, there are larger, more primordial forces directing these things. So what's the point of this article? A naive answer would be "pure exposition." But surely there's an agenda to focus on these institutions, and all it will do is further divide a country where each half thinks the other is evil.

leephillips 13y ago
But just these kinds of things have been changed, thanks to organizations such as the ACLU bringing lawsuits, and many Supreme Court and other federal judges not all being insane.
Frostine 13y ago
The article specifically mentions legal action. I think they are hoping enough "exposition" might encourage parents or other charter schools to sue considering teaching both creationism and intelligent design in public schools has been ruled unconstitutional.
FrankenPC 13y ago
I thought the article mentions that this charter school is taking public money. Therein lies the problem.
grifpete 13y ago
One point is to evidence the fact that public money is being spent illegally. Furthermore, to the extent that we tolerate this nonsense we will continue to miseducate a whole generation who will have no tools with which to escape from their family of community's broken belief systems. And this means we will continue to be divided. Incidentally, my observation is that it is inaccurate to characterize the country as one 'where each half things the other is evil.' More accurate, I believe, is 'where one half thinks the other is evil, and the other half thinks the other is lamentably poorly educated with a medieval world view.'
kordless 13y ago
Christianity brings a methodology to this part of our society. At a glance it encourages equal treatment of others, guides for parenting, finding happiness and even tips on raising children. I think the primary problem with it is that it fails to expose the underlying rationalizations and rule set for why these are good things to teach to people. At times that can cause issues, especially where intent or fears are misaligned with the goal of understanding. Understanding we don't understand how the universe works takes a lot of brain power, so someone somewhere just has to have faith why that statement is true. Unfortunately this also opens up the possibility of someone who, for whatever reason, wants others to have faith that a supreme being created us 6,000 years ago out of thin air. By that same logic, one other individual could state we need to have faith a supreme being created all of this just this morning at 6:34AM EST, just like you see it here and stuck us all in it with our existing memories. I was raised in a fairly religious household, but thankfully I also had time to think outside the box. If I had to label myself as practicing anything nowadays, it'd be Buddhism. It's much more applicable for me because it maps well into what I believe about the nature of the universe. That's not to say it's a completely accurate representation, but it serves me well enough.

cobrausn 13y ago

So, as someone who went to a private (Catholic, even) high school in Texas that taught evolution, I'm often pretty frustrated by this. Aside from just waiting for those who set these kinds of policies in place to fade away, is there any specific voting pattern that would stop this? I don't live in areas that vote in people who set these policies, so I'm not sure I can actually even affect this.

herge 13y ago
Why would a Catholic high school teach anything else other than evolution?
- tomswartz07 13y ago
  I went to a private school in PA, and we were taught evolution. The teacher made a passing remark that creationism is a 'competing hypothesis' and left it at that.
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    A hypothesis implies falsification via observation or experimentation. Creationism does not (and cannot) meet that definition. Calling creationism a "competing hypothesis" is an insult to science.
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Catholics are in general more accepting of scientific evidence than Protestants, the latter being far more concerned with dogma and traditionalism. Evolution is officially supported by the Catholic Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- mnw21cam 13y ago
  > Catholics are in general more accepting of scientific evidence than Protestants In my experience, the opposite is true (in the UK, at least). Consider the condom issue.

kordless 13y ago

Hacking biases to establish pools of control. Humans are exceedingly good at this.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

Although this is a heinous butchery of education, it's been practiced for a long time and I do believe that all private schools (including charters, who have higher control of their curriculum despite receiving public funding) have the right to teach whatever inanity they decide. It's depressing that such a primal culture of anti-intellectualism and deceit like this is thriving in the Deep South, but given the deeply ingrained religious paleoconservative culture, it's unavoidable and only likely. It does however teach one that formal schooling cannot be trusted and should not be used as an accurate descriptor of intelligence and knowledge. The parents who support this have ideological agendas. If these institutions didn't exist, they would stick to homeschooling, as many of them already do. It's a shame, too. Homeschooling is a viable alternative to the mess of public schooling, but too many people pursue it for wrong reasons.

poorelise 13y ago
"I do believe that all private schools (...) have the right to teach whatever inanity they decide" In a way I agree, because it's kind of like free speech. On the other hand, shouldn't a society be responsible for protecting children? Schools teach children, after all. It's different from somebody voluntarily picking a topic to learn about. Seems to me children being taught Creationism might be seriously disadvantaged. Then again, by what standard? For example, what if being immersed in some cult brings total happiness, even if it looks insane from the outside? Should it be disallowed to raise kids as devote cult members?
- gress 13y ago
  I went to one of the top 5 private high schools in the country. Evolution was split out into a separate class, and alongside it, there was a creationism class. Parents could choose one or both classes. I can guarantee you the kids who did the creationism only track were not 'disadvantaged' compared to 99% of kids in public school who were taught evolution.
  - poorelise 13y ago
    Maybe they sere not disadvantaged because general standards are low? Actually the topic is a can of worms, we could go on about the purpose of school. I suspect teaching critical thinking is not what schools really want - they want to provide the industry with willing workers. In that context creationists perhaps aren't worse off much, but that doesn't mean much.

izzydata 13y ago

And Texas continues to be the most backwards state and least progressive. Not really news though.

angersock 13y ago
Tell that to my openly lesbian mayor. Or go look at the AP computer science results from 2013--most diverse. Way to just parrot nonsense though!

jswinghammer 13y ago

Given that public schools can barely teach reading, writing, or math I don't really worry too much about what they are teaching children about much else. It also does not matter what schools anywhere teach if your children do not attend that school.

uptown 13y ago
"It also does not matter what schools anywhere teach if your children do not attend that school." How do you figure? These people eventually enter the workforce. Maybe they become politicians, and base their political direction on misinformation. Even if they remain in the private sector, someone that is the product of a misguided education will lack the tools necessary to impact society in an informed way, and will have an artificial ceiling on their potential due to lack of knowledge. Education has a massive impact on the world around those who are educated. Considering knowledge to be an isolated, personal thing isn't remotely accurate.
- jswinghammer 13y ago
  I know a lot of successful people who don't know anything about the current state of evolutionary biology. I'm guessing you do too. It's totally superfluous to most occupations.
  - subsection1h 13y ago
    I don't think a lack of an understanding of biology is the problem; the problem is a disregard for empirical evidence. Whenever the evolution vs. creationism debate comes up in the context of a presidential election, some people argue that it doesn't matter whether the POTUS understands biology. But as I wrote, a lack of an understanding of biology isn't the problem; the problem is a disregard for empirical evidence. If a presidential candidate has no regard for empirical evidence in the context of biology, they likely have no regard for empirical evidence in the context of other subjects, including important subjects such as health economics. That's the problem. So while you're correct that a person can lack an understanding of biology and still be successful, a successful person who has little regard for empirical evidence is a threat to civilization.

jostmey 13y ago

Evolution is a theory that is almost self-evident. I hope that the pupils in these classrooms can determine the truth for themselves.

jostmey 13y ago
And I must admit, the accusations in this article are outlandish. I found them hard to believe.
- grifpete 13y ago
  Which accusations and why?
  - jostmey 13y ago
    The part about "feminism forced women to turn to the government as a surrogate husband" being taught in a charter school is the accusation I found hard to believe. I can actually believe that there are some people against the teaching of Evolution, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would be stupid enough in this country (USA) to teach a misguided view about women's rights in this in a public school, even if it is just a charter school.
    - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
      Keep believing that, then. I don't even consider myself a feminist and I'm very critical of postmodern feminism, but it's true that the far-right conservatives in the USA are keen on undermining women's achievements and the history of the struggle for their rights. Largely for religious reasons.
jonlucc 13y ago
I think this is true if you embrace the facts. It seems that many people I've discussed this with merely disregard the scientific process and experts in the field as biased.
jtbigwoo 13y ago

tokenadult 13y ago

I had to digest after reading this article for a while. (I've also shared the link among my Facebook friends, so that they can help me digest this.) On the whole, I like the author's take that charter schools are a good idea, a good enough idea that while Texas limits the number of charter schools to 300 statewide, it is important to make sure that each charter school offers a sound curriculum. And I think the author is correct that the Responsive Ed charter school curriculum is simply unsound both as to science and as to history. Regulation of schools is the job of state governments in the United States by default. Political forces in the state legislature in Texas make it hard to fix this problem solely by state legislation, because the Responsive Ed curriculum does represent the point of view of some highly motivated and politically active Texas voters. The article author points out that federal constitutional principles ban teaching religious doctrine in the guise of teaching school curriculum content, so that is one possible response to the skewed curriculum in these charter schools. Another, too little considered in most articles about school choice in general, is simply for other schools to boldly proclaim that their curriculum is better, and explain why it is better. The Responsive Ed schools surely find agreement among some parents shopping for schools in Texas, but they would also be embarrassed to have to defend point by point all of the ridiculous things they say in their curriculum. In particular, it would be good for other schools to specifically mention the many lines of evidence for macroevolution[1] as they promote their curriculums. Comparative advertising is still an under-used tool for promoting school reform, even in states like mine with pervasive public school open enrollment. I think John Stuart Mill got the policy balance correct more than a century ago, when school attendance was not compulsory in Britain nor in most parts of the United States: "A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body." John Stuart Mill On Liberty (1859) [1] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

mschuster91 13y ago
Allowing home schooling is even more sick than that kind of bullshit these Texans are doing. In public schools one at least knows what the teachers are teaching. Home-schooled kids are not protected from anything ranging from creationist crap to domestic violence (you as a teacher can spot if a pupil turns up beaten every other day). Not to mention the fact that home-schooled kids are far, far behind "ordinary schooled" kids in terms of knowledge. How should they be other, after all? Edit: for all those who down-vote, I'm writing this from a German point of view. Here, nearly every non-state/church-schooling effort has been plagued with massive problems: inadequate knowledge of teachers, sexual harrassment, violence scandals. Name the problem, you've had it.

bdfh42 13y ago

Don't panic - I was taught all sorts of daft stuff in school - when I think back on it a staggering proportion of (say) history or geography was completely untrue. It helps in a way that some of it was so crazy it got me questioning the basis for the rest. Thats when you stop being taught stuff and start researching and learning. Not suggesting that every pupil taught creationism will respond in this way - many are probably pre-programmed by the religious affiliations to believe it anyway - but the intellectual health of the pupil body is not a lost cause.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
The people who can freely dispel from themselves the intellectual dishonesty and lies that they've been taught to accept as fundamentals, is low. You sound like you weren't heavily ingrained into the dogma to begin with, and had a tendency to autodidact, which helps kill off the rest and make your own conclusions. Yet most people don't and they take whatever they're formally taught for granted, or selectively choose to believe whatever fits their ideological predispositions. Many of these kids will be stuck with lifelong delusions. Their parents may mold them to a certain path, but their schooling will solidify it completely. Even still, this is a very abhorrent thing to do. "Hey kid, everything you know about history, geography, geology and natural science is a lie! Read up on the facts and realize you've been living in a matrix all this time!" I mean, people with perseverance can totally get through it and then in retrospect have a laugh at the bullshit they were taught, but even with this in mind at best the whole thing is a major inconvenience.
- bdfh42 13y ago
  It may have helped that I was brought up a Catholic. Perceiving the shaky foundations of Christianity and the astonishing hypocrisy of that particular version probably helped clarify a lot of things for me and gave me the freedom to revisit the prejudices that had been foisted upon me in my early youth.
GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
How do you know you have re-learned all of the stuff that you were taught wrong and not just a portion of it?

FrankenPC 13y ago

How does one "teach" creationism? Answer: you don't. Simply reciting "god did it" over and over is sufficient. No, this is Christian apologetics that they are teaching. In other words it's a religion class, NOT a science class. If this school is taking public money, those funds need to be withdrawn until the curriculum is properly labeled.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
As an Atheist, I am not generally opposed to a religion class, even a compulsory one. Religion is a reality, and ignoring it is as bad as ignoring any other reality. Teaching creationism is worse than a mere study of religion because it promotes rote memorization of demonstrably incorrect ideas as facts.
- stephenhuey 13y ago
  A fellow Christian and scientist named Dr. James Tour explained that many creationists do not understand the limits of the scientific method. Dr. Tour concludes, "I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion." http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/ http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-... So in response to people clamoring for creationism in the classroom, he suggests this: "So what should be taught in schools regarding evolution? As I wrote, I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design for the reasons I state above: I can not prove it using my tools of chemistry to which I am bound in the chemistry classroom; the same tools to which I commensurately bind my evolutionist colleagues. But I think that a better approach might include more teaching about evolution, namely coverage of legitimate scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinism and disputes about the origin of the first life. That would be more balanced."
  - FrankenPC 13y ago
    That sounds like a fair and lively scientific discussion to have. It's a shame that won't happen.

Glyptodon 13y ago

These charter school conservative 'Christians' are essentially attempting to destroy the US and turn it into a theocratic state without modern medicine or technology. Forget Snowden and Manning. It's these America-hating hacks who should be charged with sedition and treason for attempting to overthrow the Constitution and replace with mandatory religious practices.

grifpete 13y ago

This is beyond depressing. The idea that the USA, currently the world's leading first world country, hosts this kind of medieval nonsense is just depressing.

robmcm 13y ago
"the USA, currently the world's leading first world country," citation needed.

rayiner 13y ago

I obviously don't support teaching creationism as science or anti-feminism. At the same time, I think articles like this are a pointless move in the culture war. In the U.K. Christian-oriented religious education is not only allowed in state schools, but mandatory. Everywhere! Apparently, until recently, it was the only mandatory part of the curriculum. Yet we haven't seen British society crumble into ruin as a result.

tptacek 13y ago
Well, on the other hand, the UK doesn't have a 220-year-old Bill of Rights that literally opens with a prohibition on laws pertaining to religion. And, while it doesn't seem to have caused the UK's culture to crumble (and indeed it doesn't seem to have done much of a favor to Christianity's influence in the UK), you don't think it's a little batshit to have a national law mandating that schools teach the primacy of Christianity among all religions practiced in the UK?
- gadders 13y ago
  What, in a Christian country? No. When I was in my teens, I resented the fact that I went to religious assemblies at school and couldn't opt out. Now I'm older and look back on these assemblies, they taught moral lessons that could be applicable regardless of your opinion of the supernatural.

thejteam 13y ago

I went to a very good public school system in Maryland. More than one math teacher taught me that while we suspect that there are an infinite number of prime numbers, we can't prove it. I found out later that there exists a relatively simple proof known to Euclid. Lots of college students honestly believe that 0.999… (repeating 9's) is NOT exactly equal to 1. My upper level analysis teacher spent an entire class period dispelling this myth. We were all taught the wrong answer by multiple public school teachers in many different districts. Now, is the teaching of creationism any worse than teaching wrong math? If public school teachers can't get cut and dried math facts right, how many are going to be able to understand the nuances between "hypothesis", "theory", "law", etc?

tmzt 13y ago
Do you have any reference/proof/etc. for 0.999... === 1? As one of those taught to believe it is not, I would like to see it. Unfortunately, text books conserve non facts for very interesting reasons. Some good examples are at http://www.textbookleague.org/ http://www.textbookleague.org/
- thejteam 13y ago
  A very informal proof: Let X = 0.999… Then 10X = 9.999… 10X - X = 9.999… - 0.999… = 9 = 9X Therefore X = 1. Being able to do the subtraction infinitely is a little hand-wavy, but should suffice as a demo for middle and high schoolers. More formal proofs involve limits that one wouldn't normally encounter until a course in real analysis. Wikipedia has a whole page devoted to the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

DanielStraight 13y ago

I really think both sides get this issue very wrong. Creationism is not valid science, obviously. But that's because it isn't science at all. It is a religious belief, which is by definition non-scientific. Here is where the science side gets things wrong. Creationism is a NON-scientific belief, not an ANTI-scientific belief. It's not anti-intellectual or stupid or backward either. It's a choice to believe in the supernatural. Lots of people, even non-religious people, believe things on grounds other than science. Science is an excellent way of explaining the world, but it isn't the only way. People have the right to inform their beliefs with a source other than science. Here is where the creationism side gets things wrong. Same basic principle, creationism is not a scientific belief. Christians, even those who accept evolution, believe a lot of things which are clearly not scientifically sound. Bodily resurrection from the dead is perhaps the most obvious and most fundamental. It's absurd to accept the resurrection of a deity without seeking scientific evidence and then try to make scientific evidence support creationism. Even if you convince someone that creationism is scientific, you aren't going to convince them that a deity being bodily resurrected from the dead is scientific. Given that Jesus' resurrection is the fundamental belief of Christianity, it's silly to make such a big deal of something that is comparatively non-important. So my suggestion, teach evolution in science class without mentioning creationism at all. But require at least one class in religion/philosophy so students understand that there are other ways of understanding the world. I'm not saying to teach the beliefs of any particular religion, just to explain some of the ways other than science that people have historically and continue today to understand their world. The overwhelming majority of people on Earth today are at least nominally religious. Schools shouldn't teach students to be religious, but they should teach them to understand religion... and not just as a cute, prehistoric way of explaining things that science now has exclusive domain over. Religious beliefs, as non-scientific beliefs, are non-falsifiable. Students need to understand this. Modern science does not falsify religious beliefs. It provides an alternative based on empirical evidence. But there is no requirement that everyone on Earth only accept things based on empirical evidence. It may seem odd to you to deliberately choose to believe something which isn't based on empirical evidence, but many people do (knowingly at that) and that is their right. Students should understand that science is not a tool for disproving religion, it is a tool for explaining the world in a different way than religion does.

angersock 13y ago

Flagged. This article has nothing to do with hacking or technology: it's almost entirely religion and politics, and done without any of the background philosophy or discussion that would otherwise redeem such an article. Moreover, it's pretty obvious flame-bait: as seen already in this thread, you have the band-wagon of whiskey-swirling "mmm yes religion how droll" neckbeards, you have the "haha fuck texas more like backwater amirite" jerks, and you have the "homeschooling cannot possibly educate anyone" folks. All of these are trivially proved false, but that doesn't matter, and instead we're just going to get a gigantic circlejerk of people either attacking or defending something which is, at best, a regional concern. You know, as opposed to any of the things which impact the world of tech at large (NSA, Snowden, RSA compromises, new programming languages, web framework of the day, etc.). I appreciate that it's a lot easier to make fun of Texas than it is to make any meaningful change in your own little pocket of reality, but don't take up space here to do it.

piokoch 13y ago

The funniest this is that's creationism is a side effect of a strange, but very popular view of "tolerance". We are told that tolerance means that various points of view on any issue must be accepted, regardless if they make sense or not. As a result with hava a wide stream of various absurdities comming from "the left" (gender people claiming that there are no differences between boys and girls) and from "the right" (creationism) are propagated instead of radiculed and thrown away. The same with Homeopathy and countless other things. Another interesting thing is what happened with protestant churches. Once they were seen as progressive and modern (in Calvin, Luther times). Now they are either bunch of annoying old bishop-ladies ignored by everyone, who think that having gay priests is the most important thing on the World (Church of England) or radiculous morons who claim that earth was created 6000 years ago. BTW it's somehow incorrect to call them Christians. They do not follow tradition and intellectual heritage of Roman Catholic Church. I guess that Thomas of Aquin and other great Christian philosophers are rolling in their graves seeing such widespread grow of stupidity among people who call themselves Christians.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
BTW it's somehow incorrect to call them Christians. They do not follow tradition and intellectual heritage of Roman Catholic Church. No True Scotsman, lad! The Roman Catholic Church were not the first and "true" Christians. The Gnostics were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Gnosticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Gnosticism Movements and cultures naturally stratify and disband. Just as postmodern, radical, anarchist and separatist feminists are just as legitimate as more traditional feminists (no matter how much they might try to claim the contrary), the same way all these Christian denominations are Christians like all others.
dkuntz2 13y ago
BTW it's somehow incorrect to call practitioners of the Roman Catholic Church. They do not follow the traditions and intellectual heritage of the Early Christian Church. Fuck off. Christianity split multiple times, not just Roman Catholic and Protestant, but also the Early Christian church into the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Catholic (more commonly called the Eastern Orthodox church) churches. Claiming that because someone doesn't follow the Roman Catholic church they can't possibly be a Christian is ridiculous. The Roman Catholic church elevated the Bishop of Rome above the other bishops, something that wasn't done in the Early Christian church, and still isn't done in the Eastern Orthodox churches. The Eastern Orthodox churches are closer to "traditional Christianity" than the Roman Catholic church. Learn you some Christian history if you're going to try to argue about it. And I say this as someone who doesn't affiliate with any religion.

xname 13y ago

The essence of the story is that liberals cannot wait for the progressive change in culture. Modern liberals do not believe progressivism, they believe extremism, revolutionarism. They want to destroy bad tradition as soon as possible. They just cannot wait. They hate people who are different from them (read: stupid). BTW. I am a science person. I think creationism is trash, but I am OK with other people to believe creationism or whatever. I know there are billions year ahead of human evolution and cultural evolution. I don't expect to see all these changes in one night. I don't believe use government to impose cultural change to its citizens is a right thing to do! As for the "public" school thing. That's simply because people do not have a choice. The dominance of public school in pre-college education destroyed the education market and made private schools hard to exist. That's why many religious people want to change the so called "public" schools, which is the only place they can send their children to. I do not blame them. This is just a minor collateral damage of the centralized education system. There are many much worth things in public education. Public money? Come on, that's also their money. Where do you think those money come from?