That's the front line, and I hope they do what's right.

It's tempting to speculate that the Miller and Levine text was made a target because one of the authors, Ken Miller, gave testimony at the trial in which teaching intelligent design in public schools was declared unconstitutional.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/ ... text-book/

Bill Nye goes off on this:

"This textbook business is, to my way of thinking, a very serious matter, because of the economic impact," Nye said in an email to HuffPost. "Everyone should take a moment and think what it will mean to raise a generation of students who might believe that it is reasonable to think for a moment that the Earth might be 10,000 years old. It's an outrageous notion," Nye continued. "It's not a benign idea. It's inane or silly. These students will not accept the process of science, which will stifle or suppress innovation."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/2 ... 30218.html

Interbane wrote:That's the front line, and I hope they do what's right.

Do you want to tell us what's "right" for the nation, please?

Yes, let's let Creationists determine what should be in our science curriculum based on their religious beliefs. Makes perfect sense. We can teach students that the earth is either billions of years old or maybe it's 8,000 years old, depending on which version of reality you want.

from the article . . .

"They voiced questions about the book's assertions on natural selection, noting that the theory of evolution is only part of the explanation for how life developed on Earth."

What are those other explanations again? I'd like to hear them.

Do you want to tell us what's "right" for the nation, please?

I would love to! Not teaching creationism in science classrooms is a good place to start.

People who think creationism is science aren't alone in being reality-deniers, if it's of any consolation to them. We all have this ability.

Editor's letter: Reality-deniers extraordinaire
Ajit Varki and Danny Brower's intriguing theory of why human beings enjoy an evolutionary advantage over other creatures came to mind as Toronto Mayor Rob Ford admitted to drug use after months of denial.
By James Graff | November 7, 2013, The Week

What makes human beings the most successful of all earthly creatures? Earlier this year a book advanced the theory that it’s our singular ability to deny reality when it’s staring us in the face. Ajit Varki and Danny Brower argued that consciousness brings no evolutionary advantage if it awakens us to the depressing fact that we’re doomed to die. The first person to have that “all-encompassing, persistent, terror-filled realization,” they wrote, would likely lose out in the struggle to find a mate and pass on his or her genes. So unlike self-aware chimpanzees, dolphins, and orcas, said the authors of Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind, humans developed “neural mechanisms for denying reality.” That’s why we’re running the show on this planet, but it’s also why we eat in ways we know will kill us and keep spewing out enough carbon to cause the seas to rise.

This intriguing theory came to mind this week, thanks to the lavish feast of denial laid out by Toronto Mayor Rob Ford (see Best columns: International). After months of insisting he didn’t use drugs, Ford finally admitted that he had smoked crack cocaine in “one of my drunken stupors.” He said he would rein in his excessive drinking in public, while insisting that he’s no alcoholic and will keep right on drinking in his basement. His half-defiant explanation—“I’m only human”—may be cause for some sympathy. But it’s a poor excuse for chronic misbehaving. As Varki and Brower wrote, “It is only by understanding reality denial as an enemy within that we might be able to overcome it.” To Ford and the rest of us reality-deniers, I say good luck with that.

"What Texas decides is important nationally because the state is so large that many books prepared for publication there also are marketed elsewhere around the country." (AP storied "Evolution debate again engulfs Texas Board of Ed")

I think I've found the problem.

Brooks127 wrote:

"What Texas decides is important nationally because the state is so large that many books prepared for publication there also are marketed elsewhere around the country." (AP storied "Evolution debate again engulfs Texas Board of Ed")

I think I've found the problem.

I've heard this a lot over the years, that the state of Texas establishes textbook standards by the sheer size of the state. But I really doubt there's much truth in it. Even if Texas went Creationist in their science books (which is highly unlikely), the rest of the nation certainly would not follow suit.

What some board of education members want is some sort of disclaimer that cast doubt on evolution. But Pearson has flat out refused to do so because this would be a lie. Pearson's current disclaimer reads as follows:

"All historical records are incomplete, and the history of life is no exception. The evidence we do have, however, tells an unmistakable story of evolutionary change," the Pearson text reads."

Here's another article about the Texas situation.

http://www.genomeweb.com/blog/texas-sci ... n-evolving

Eugenie Scott has been on the front line of the evolution-Creationist conflict for many years and participated in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, which effectively stopped the ID movement in its tracks. This is a great article about her. She's on YouTube as well and has been a guest on the Skeptic's Guide podcast.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/scien ... hools.html

geo wrote:Yes, let's let Creationists determine what should be in our science curriculum based on their religious beliefs. Makes perfect sense. We can teach students that the earth is either billions of years old or maybe it's 8,000 years old, depending on which version of reality you want.

from the article . . .

"They voiced questions about the book's assertions on natural selection, noting that the theory of evolution is only part of the explanation for how life developed on Earth."

What are those other explanations again? I'd like to hear them.

Also from the article:

"Delaying the book's approval pending outside review was a proposal championed by some of the most conservative members among the board's 10 Republicans. But its five Democrats joined with more moderate Republicans in questioning whether reviewers' objections were factually correct."

Let's wait to hear what the facts are related to the central issue here which is whether the reviewers objections are factually correct.
Unless you know precisley what they are? - please, supply us with the information we are missing.

I'll suspend judgement until all the facts are in.