Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Home > Blogs > Springfield Schools News and Issues > Archives > 2009 > January > 27 > Entry
Could Texas evolution battle spill into Ohio schools?
One of the great education debates of the last several decades has popped up again.
It’s a few hundred miles away — the Texas State Board of Education split over evolution during its ten-year review of science standards — but could reach to other states, according to reports.
Here’s the deal. Moderates and liberals on the state board wanted to get rid of language that insists teachers include “strengths and weaknesses” of theories in their discussions.
This addendum was put in 20 years ago and proponents of teaching evolution in schools say it opened the door to teaching creationism in science classes.
That debate could go on and on and I’m sure some of you would like to share your opinions on the subject. But alas, that will have to wait for another blog.
What I’m concerned with today is a section about six paragraphs in the Times’ piece and a notion I’ve seen in other articles as well:
Whatever the 15-member board decides then will have consequences far beyond Texas, since the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks in the nation. The new standards will be in place for the next decade, starting in 2010, and will influence the writing of the next generation of biology texts, which the state will order this summer.
So what they decide to do down in Texas, or New York or California or Florida, could impact Ohio’s students?
In terms of student population, Ohio is one of the larger states but there are still some out there that are bigger. California and Texas are two of the biggest.
In this case, Texas could have adopted a more conservative position than Ohio has in regard to the evolution debate. It’s easy to imagine another state, New York or California, for example, making a decision that would adopt a more liberal position on an issue.
Every state has its own standards, and many textbooks are based on those, of course. In some cases, those standards are slightly more specific. Social studies, for example, because some of the standards deal heavily with local and state government and history.
But science is an area where textbook companies can afford to be a bit more general because, really, chemistry is chemistry no matter where the lab is, right?
If textbooks did include a concept that Ohio standards didn’t touch on, of course teachers could just skip it in the books and most kids aren’t cracking open their textbooks at home to see what else is in there. But some might be or, more likely if they’re like I was about 10 years ago, they’re flipping ahead when they’re bored in class.
Picking textbooks is a long, involved process because they are used for so many years. And teachers do supplement their books often with other materials, for example to address new concepts not included in old books or address other standards.
Does it concern you that decisions in other areas could affect the information Ohio students have in their books?
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: Ohio
Comments
By King of the Lizard People
January 27, 2009 8:25 AM | Link to this
Creationism is a religious theory that holds no weight in the real scientific community. All we have to do is look at the fossil records to see that the concepts behind evolution are correct. It would ignorant and irresponsible to allow religious concepts to slip into our learning curriculum in the disguise of science. I am disappointed that anyone associated with education would even consider implementing a curriculum that included ‘creationism’ as a serious opponent of evolution and allow it to be taught to our youth in a public classroom.By David
January 27, 2009 8:38 AM | Link to this
Are the educational elite so insecure in their position that they cannot even acknowledge the existence of SCIENTIFIC evidence that contradict the THEORY of evolution? Why do they stifle debate then claim there is no evidence that contradicts evolution? True science is about examining and discussing ALL evidence.By Socialist
January 27, 2009 11:23 AM | Link to this
What scientific proof validates creationism? I am professor of the social sciences (not an expert of either creationism or evolution) however I never read anything that remotely constitutes scientific evidence that life is anything more than a product of evolution…is there some new evidence that supports creationism. The entire concept behind creationism is “a doctrine / theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis”, and including creationism requires the belief and ultimately the proof of a god in order to be proven true. The concepts behind evolution of life does have merrit based on the scientific study of fossils and present day living organizisms. This is a very old debate of whether religion should play a role in public education and in my opinion religion should not be included in any curriculum of the public education system. I would support elective courses of religious studies within the public education system but only the course was able to provide equal weight to all the major religions in the world and also dive into the study of some pagan religions - in otherwards an overall & non biased study of all religions in general.By Socialist
January 27, 2009 11:24 AM | Link to this
What scientific proof validates creationism? I am professor of the social sciences (not an expert of either creationism or evolution) however I never read anything that remotely constitutes scientific evidence that life is anything more than a product of evolution…is there some new evidence that supports creationism. The entire concept behind creationism is “a doctrine / theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis”, and including creationism requires the belief and ultimately the proof of a god in order to be proven true. The concepts behind evolution of life does have merrit based on the scientific study of fossils and present day living organizisms. This is a very old debate of whether religion should play a role in public education and in my opinion religion should not be included in any curriculum of the public education system. I would support elective courses of religious studies within the public education system but only the course was able to provide equal weight to all the major religions in the world and also dive into the study of some pagan religions - in otherwards an overall & non biased study of all religions in general.By Gizzermosmom
January 27, 2009 12:15 PM | Link to this
It blows my mind that people find it beyond reason and even ignorant to consider that God created the world that we live in - but those same people have no problem believing that everything just happened to come together in such a way to produce the complexities found in the human anatomy, let alone all of the other living breathing things in this world. I’m sorry, but that just seems to be a stretch of the imagination. It makes much more sense to me to acknowledge that a creator with much more intelligence than you or I will ever had purposely put together this world that we live in and everything in it. As one who works in the healthcare field I know without a doubt that science is anything but exact - and the unexplained happens everyday - could it possibly be God?By King of the Lizard People
January 27, 2009 12:41 PM | Link to this
If god created everything as the creationism theory dictates then which god created it…was if the god from Chistianity or Islam or Buddha or was it Zues or…this can go on as there are literally thousands of religions out there that have existed throughout the history of mankind and each havve there ideal of gods or goddesses. I am not saying there is or is not a god - it all comes down to your religious beliefs & faith and we should not allow that to be taught in our public schools. If we do then we have to ignore other religious beliefs, so which do we ignore and who decides what religious beliefs are more important than others? In my opinion it is a stretch of the imagination to believe that there is one god that just out of the blue said let there be light and wham-o we have a world full of life - but that is my opinion and I do not support teaching my opinions in a classroom either. Religious beliefs should be left to be taught in the home by the parents and our tax dollars should not go to support ANY religious teachings. If anyone can provide any documented evidence to support the creationism theory…such as we have for evolution within the fossil records…then I would be more than happy to support such a theory to be taught using taxpayor dollars - until then it is a matter of myth, faith, belief, etc and should at best be allowed to be taught in the philosophy curriculum.