"Antievolutionist appointed to head Texas state board of education.
On July 17, 2007, Don McLeroy was appointed by Texas governor Rick Perry (R) to chair the state board of education, succeeding Geraldine Miller. A member of the board for the last eight years, McLeroy was described by the Dallas Morning News (July 18, 2007) as "aligned with social conservative groups known for their strong stands on evolution, sexual abstinence and other heated topics covered in textbooks" and as "[o]ne of four board members who voted against current high school biology books because of their failure to list weaknesses in the theory of evolution."
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/20...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, here. Is the objection that the books chosen would include weaknesses in the theory of evolution? And that would be bad...why?
Teaching our children sexual abstinence would be bad...why?
Please help me to understand the objections, here??
2007-07-31 07:54:05 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Many fear a regression back to a time when people had values and morals.
2007-07-31 07:59:14 · answer #1 · answered by L.C. 6 · 3⤊ 5⤋
I took "Archaelogy 101" as an elective my freshman year of college (1982-1983) and just the fundamental data "proved" in that class without a doubt, that "Evolution" is much more than a "valid theory..."
It's a fact...(and I wasn't even a "Science" major...)
And, if you take any college Biology courses that touches on "Genetics..."
It's all over, people...!!!
"Evolution" is an undeniable fact, and can even be seen happening right in front of your nose during your own growth and development, and can be proven everyday in a High School or College classroom...
(so, if you're religious, simply tell yourself that your "God" created an "evolutionary process" in order to slowly create and develop higher lifeforms...lifeforms that are hopefully evolving better "noses" to smell the B.S. (Bad Science) being advocated by our "uneducated" politicians, and "forced" into our classrooms to be taught as "Science...")
There's a very profound reason our Founding Forefathers (who were religious themselves) insisted on a "separation" between "Church, which is sheer speculation, and "State," which is real, elected, and "provable..."
If you've never had a chance to take a science class in High School or College...
Then please read some science material on your own...they don't just ask you to "believe," they show you with repeatable, personal, hands-on experiemnts that always come up with the same "proven" and "verifiable" results, regardless of your religious background...thus, not relying on someone else's 2000 year old primitive speculations...
Which have been "proven" to be "untestable" and "unverifiable..."
After that...if you still want to believe in primitive superstitions, so be it...but at least you'll have a chance to "wake up" one day and get a clue...
And (by the way) I have no problem with teaching our "children" abstinence...
It's when we try to teach that behavior to "adults" that I have a problem with...Sex is "hard-wired" in our being...ignore it and "abstain" from it at your own psychological and physical peril...they've already proven that healthy sexual activity (married or not) in a person's life is not only "pleasurable," it's "crucial" to having a healthy and fulfilling life...
Teach the "good" AND the "bad" things about sex...but don't sweep the whole thing under the rug because (like everything else in life that's done wrong and in excess) some parts of it can be "destructive..."
Especially trying to teach things that are "untestable," "unreliable," and sheer "wishful thinking...!!!"
2007-07-31 08:34:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The objection is that they books will probably misrepresent the weaknesses. In the theory of evolution, there are some answers that need to be answered further, but it is the only theory as to the origin of the species, and it is one of the strongest theories we have. To represent it another way is wrong. The problem with abstinence education is that it usually leaves out protection education. In other words, it only teaches abstinence, and nothing else. Not even how to use a condom. And that is bad since you are one preparing students for one situation (abstinence) and not others (like safe sex).
2007-07-31 08:09:52 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If he didn't get the job by a public vote, there is a problem that needs to be fixed in Texas government. Appointing someone very religiously biased to a position like that is foolish. Next he'll suggest the girls be taught to cook, clean and raise babies only, and not be allowed to participate in sports, so they'll be weak and uneducated, perfectly suited to be subservient xian wives obedient to their controlling husbands. Then all the boys will have a mandatory participation in the ROTC with lots of practice in killing anyone not an American xian. Sheesh! Maybe we atheists should take the president's advice and leave the country before it comes to that crap. It's a shame what this country is close to becomeing.
2007-07-31 08:12:20 · answer #4 · answered by RealRachel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Maybe I'm misunderstanding, here. Is the objection that the books chosen would include weaknesses in the theory of evolution? And that would be bad...why?"
You know full well that the objection is to allowing dishonest creationist propaganda to masquerade as science in the public schools.
Organized creationism is not about improving education - it's about censoring science when science conflicts with the religious beliefs of a conservative group.
2007-07-31 08:05:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The objection is that many want the alternative theories to evolution taught, which there are none in a scientific sense. In science class, there is no alternative to evolution.
With regards to abstinence, it is not the teaching of abstinence, but rather the teaching of "abstinence-only" education. This means that students are not taught about condoms and other forms of birth-control out of some ridiculous notion that teaching safe-sex encourages them to go out and do it. Teaching safe-sex practices simply reduces STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
2007-07-31 08:00:16 · answer #6 · answered by chlaxman17 4 · 7⤊ 0⤋
In no other area of HS education to we deliberately set aside precious time to discuss perceived weaknesses in the prevalent concensus, and if we did, the logical place is History (which at the HS level is traditionally chocked full of mistakes, propaganda and outright lies).
To truly be able to examine and critique something, one needs to learn it and understand it - something most creationists have yet to demonstrate. This dialogue is gonig on, especially at the post-graduate level, by those who grasp what they are speaking of.
As for abstinence education, the right wing has twisted this into abstinence-only eduacation, which has completely failed everywhere it has been attempted (unless you consider higher pregnancies and STDs as "success"). Abstinence-only education tends to incorporate a lot of falsehoods, as well.
2007-07-31 08:07:55 · answer #7 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem is
A) there are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Particularly in relation to high school education.
B) Abstinence has been demonstrated as a horrible sexual education method when safe sexual practices are not taught.
2007-07-31 08:00:29 · answer #8 · answered by The Bog Nug 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I believe the objection is that there are better ways of going about sexual education (i.e. don't forget the health info) and the push for a textbook with "weaknesses" in the theory of evolution is just a thinly-veiled attempt to inject religion into the classroom.
BTW, I'd like to know what the "weaknesses" of evolution are.
2007-07-31 08:02:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
it is your experience of right and incorrect, a geared up-in sinnometer God gave anybody. anybody's sinnometer is affected by the ambience and upbringing. Christians attempt to coach their sinnometer by using interpreting the Bible and employing the ideas of their on a daily basis lives. Others, who forget with regard to the proddings of their sinnometer over the years, make it numb and quickly what grew to become into seen "undesirable" will become "ok" and in step with risk even "good". And as you are able to probable tell by using now, Vot has fallen in love with the time era "sinnometer". :-)
2016-10-08 22:06:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "weaknesses" don't actually exist. It's creationist propaganda. Evolution is one of the most solidly supported theories in all of science.
If this guy doesn't know that, then he has no business influencing education.
Rick Perry should be ashamed.
2007-07-31 08:00:28 · answer #11 · answered by Minh 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋