In case anyone's interested in the US school happenings. Few days old, only found it then.

Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change

AUSTIN, Tex. — After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

They don't come out and say it but there's undertones of creationism teaching and abandoning darwinism. Though it said a few will be leaving the panel before it goes through so perhaps it'll change.

Edit: In before sparta, perhaps lunacy was too strong a word heh.

Double edit: Texas matters so much because they purchase so many books the publishers generally tailor their books to the outlines set by Texas.

If education in the States is anything its anything like it is here, it's got a big left wing tilt to it anyway. They might just be going for a bit of balance, which is a good thing regardless of your political persuasion.

questioning the Founding Fathers

Yeah that will go down well. Obviously the people who founded america have no idea what it's like to run a REAL country.

presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light

Yay racism, yay torture, yay for guns, yay for ineffective and mostly useless medical care, yay for greed. sounds like a good read and a fantastic thing to teach kids.

as a parent I don't understand in any way shape or form why you would care what the school attempts to teach
if you really wanted to take an interest in your children you'd take it much further than school

if you want a religious schooling, send them to a private school
likeways if you dont want a religious schooling, send them elsewhere

if I wanted my kids to believe in god, I'd teach it (lols god)
but if i want my kids to have a clue i'll teach them about evolution myself

but if i want my kids to have a clue i'll teach them about evolution myself

That's where most issues start though. Some parents are too busy/lazy to help teach their kids important stuff.

If education in the States is anything its anything like it is here, it's got a big left wing tilt to it anyway. They might just be going for a bit of balance, which is a good thing regardless of your political persuasion.

Opinions opinions :D

Anyway, watch this (An interview with one of the board members) video and see if you think they're just balancing it up

If education in the States is anything its anything like it is here, it's got a big left wing tilt to it anyway.

Doubtful, they have those retarded Teabaggers who think having government-funded health care means killing off old people.

presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light

Yay racism

You really know your history well.

Founded in Ripon, Wisconsin, in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers,[9] the Republican Party quickly surpassed the Whig Party as the principal opposition to the Democratic Party.

I hear Jeffry Dahlmer started out as a nice guy, might not have ended up the same though.

Syco, that's a long bow you are drawing.

Sir, I do no such thing, I am plotting it!

Watch that video I linked before, they're not just "providing some balance".

questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government
Yeah that will go down well. Obviously the people who founded america have no idea what it's like to run a REAL country.

I would kinda hope of the founding fathers of the USA would get some sort of Col Jessep voice going if they were in a Futurama-like glass jar:

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution of the United States of America, and read the God-Damned things.

The main issues are inclusion of minorities, American exceptionalism, and the role Christianity played in the founding of our country. But let me take you back. Again, we haven't even begun to get there to that part. It is coming tomorrow.

DON MCLEROY, TEXAS BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBER: The issue that's most important to me, I guess, I'll be making an amendment about American exceptionalism. I'd like to add that to the U.S. history. And what I see is American exceptionalism is it's American values, the values of the individual, the values that we have of the limited government, that those things that have made us great, have made us different from the rest of the world. I don't want to be just like the rest of the world. I don't want to share the world's values. America's different. Our students need to understand that.

Other things they mention is the view taken of Jefferson Davis (the first and only Confederate president), they feel his portrayal in current textbooks is simplistic and unsympathetic.

Also, if you had read the article you'd know it is unrelated to creationism, even though the bloke quoted is a fundamentalist/creationist.

Also, if you had read the article you'd know it is unrelated to creationism, even though the bloke quoted is a fundamentalist/creationist.

If that was in reference to me then I'll throw a "if you had read" my post right back at ya.

AUSTIN, Tex. — After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum

Straight back at ya.

the role Christianity played in the founding of our country

Oh oh I know this one! Nothing.

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man" - Thomas Jefferson

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches" - Benjamin Franklin

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it" - John Adams

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how it has happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed" - John Adams

This is a bad case of dumb people with power.

I know that some people cannot be seen as stupid simply for believing in a religion, they where influenced that way. Yet having all the evidence that your religion is false presented to your face, then you reject it simply because you can't or don't wish to understand it, that is stupidity.

"One nation under God"

"In God we trust"

"So help me God"

Etc.

Oh i'm not saying it isn't a christian country now. When it was formed though it was a totally different story

Yeah those God phrases nF quoted were added decades later.

Straight back at ya.

In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.

Now read what I posted...

Wasn't all that stuff amended in though nF?

I know 'In god we trust' was only put in during the Civil war, almost 200 years after America became America. Long after those dudes were dead. "One nation under god" was only very recent as well.

Don't know much about 'So help me god' though, you mean like in the Court Rooms?

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure. reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Now read what I posted...

Unrelated. click and click

A solid majority of the State Board of Education, which will rewrite the science curriculum for public schools next year, is against the idea, even though several members say they are creationists and have serious doubts about Charles Darwin's theory that humans evolved from lower life forms.

Oh i'm not saying it isn't a christian country now. When it was formed though it was a totally different story

hahaha

Jesus, would only take a second to read what I wrote.

They don't come out and say it but there's undertones of creationism teaching and abandoning darwinism.

I didn't say that it was all about science, but it's a slippery slope. Watch the video I linked for some more odd things they banned, tried to ban or shuffled around.

last edited by Syco at 21:06:02 16/Mar/10

Oh, so you didn't totally misread the article. It was just the vibe you were getting. Right.

Oh, so you didn't totally misread the article. It was just the vibe you were getting. Right.

It's the vibe they're giving. They mentioned it, I didn't pull it out of the air. If the board is made up with enough of them and they're getting through some wacky changes now it's not a huge leap to believe that it may be next.

It seems more a case of dodgy reporting than it having an actual basis. The article is far more balanced.

"Creationism and intelligent design don't belong in our science classes," said Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, who described himself as a creationist. "Anything taught in science has to have consensus in the science community – and intelligent design does not."

note to self: add syco to the list of 'take-opinions-with-a-grain-of salt' posters

"Creationism and intelligent design don't belong in our science classes," said Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, who described himself as a creationist. "Anything taught in science has to have consensus in the science community – and intelligent design does not."

Cool, one bloke said something, the rest must also feel this way despite them also saying in the same article:

In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principle

Of course maybe they mean "a bloc of conservatives who *just happen to* question Darwin's theory of evolution (yet do not want the way it's taught altered in fact I'm not sure why we even mention this, it has no bearing on the article what so ever)". Who knows?

Edit: You're referring to the second article with the video? I'm replying to you replying to my OP with the first article linked.

note to self: add syco to the list of 'take-opinions-with-a-grain-of salt' posters

Because nf's confusing articles or because you believe the Americans should chop and change history as they see fit to add political slants?

last edited by Syco at 21:31:54 16/Mar/10

ITT Syco not knowing when to back down gracefully

Cool, one bloke said something, the rest must also feel this way despite them also saying in the same article:

In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principle

You are making the same, in this case baseless, assumption that the NYTimes article makes. That someone who questions evolution believes that intelligent design should be taught along side evolution in science classes. Yet the very same person they are making that accusation against says he is against that idea.

"Creationism and intelligent design don't belong in our science classes," said Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy

From your precious first article:

“We are adding balance,” said Dr. Don McLeroy, the leader of the conservative faction on the board, after the vote. “History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left.”

The leader of the conservatives says "intelligent design don't belong in our science classes".

Edit: You're referring to the second article with the video? I'm replying to you replying to my OP with the first article linked.

I'm referring to the reality of the situation. Not some singular misleading article, and more specifically a singular misleading line from it. You've read from that single line that they've actively pushed for intelligent design in science classes, when clearly the majority are against it, despite their own personal beliefs.

And the actual story here is not about changing history, its about how certain events are interpreted. The conservatives are claiming there is a leftish bias to the way history is taught.

None of the listed amendments are changing history, rather including facts that had been omitted, mentioning the black panthers in addition to MLK, WW2 internment of Italians and Germans - not just the Japanese, etc. THOSE EVIL CONSERVATIVES!!!

Kill all religious people so they can get closer to their God and leave us atheists to ponder our unique position in the universe and nature.

This is actually a well thought out argument from both sides, and I'm thoroughly impressed.

Please continue.

I'm over these bag america threads.

America in my eyes is the worlds enemy.

They only came to power due to untapped natural resources, once they where the worlds super power they made out as if they where the good guys on this planet, the sand n*****s and chinks are the enemy, right?

It's the other way around if you ask me, America is running out of natural resources so they openly invade another country to steal their resources. Nobody seems to care, to question it means you are against freedom.

America is the only country to actually drop a nuclear bomb another country, with the intent to kill. They consume the most products and have the largest carbon footprint. Rarely do I see true talent come out of the country, Benjamin Franklin was a good inventor, but he was definitely not a scientist. They did do a pretty good job at blowing up other countries though.

Now they are ~$7 trillion in dept to China, expected to triple. This wont stop America from raping other countries just yet however.

Oh yea and Christians are annoying, another reason to hate 95% of America.

What a stupid and uninformed rant that was.

Yeh, worst post of the year candidate, and there's been some whoppers to date.

I'm referring to the reality of the situation. Not some singular misleading article, and more specifically a singular misleading line from it. You've read from that single line that they've actively pushed for intelligent design in science classes, when clearly the majority are against it, despite their own personal beliefs.

I'm referring to what the article offers, I made a simple statement, something along the lines of "there's undertones of creationism", I'm still not really sure where I went wrong unless you didn't read the first article but did the second I linked and missed it, there's conservatives on the board who (according to the article) question Darwin's theory of evolution, it's not insane to think that they will keep pushing after making more headway with the smaller things. Are you actually saying that there's no chance they would? There's no chance they might get more like minded members on board?

Like I said;

(article) In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principle

(me) Of course maybe they mean "a bloc of conservatives who *just happen to* question Darwin's theory of evolution (yet do not want the way it's taught altered in fact I'm not sure why we even mention this, it has no bearing on the article what so ever)". Who knows?

This wasn't a large part of what caught my eye about the article or what the article is about but you've turned it into the larger argument in the thread. Well done.

Good on ya Blue, don't listen to the yankee lovers, they are probably fans of rap music.

I'm referring to what the article offers, I made a simple statement, something along the lines of "there's undertones of creationism", I'm still not really sure where I went wrong unless you didn't read the first article but did the second I linked and missed it, there's conservatives on the board who (according to the article) question Darwin's theory of evolution, it's not insane to think that they will keep pushing after making more headway with the smaller things. Are you actually saying that there's no chance they would? There's no chance they might get more like minded members on board?

What you are saying is just the uninformed ramblings of someone who can't accept that religious conservatives understand the value of science.

Neither of the articles you posted (I read both) have anything at all to do with evolution versus intelligent design. I gave you a quote from the LEADER of the conservatives who said he doesn't think that intelligent design belongs in science. The article weakly draws links between the two, but I can't find any articles at all that at any point intelligent design was on the table in the science curriculum. If you had read any of the articles I posted, you'd see they are actually moving in the opposite direction from that (by no longer requiring the teaching of contradictory evidence for evolution).

I have no idea why you are even still posting, because you've been shot down fairly thoroughly here.

Neither of the articles you posted (I read both) have anything at all to do with evolution versus intelligent design. I gave you a quote from the LEADER of the conservatives who said he doesn't think that intelligent design belongs in science. The article weakly draws links between the two, but I can't find any articles at all that at any point intelligent design was on the table in the science curriculum. If you had read any of the articles I posted, you'd see they are actually moving in the opposite direction from that (by no longer requiring the teaching of contradictory evidence for evolution).

Jesus dude, I made an off-cuff comment about a paragraph in an article and you've turned it into a giant debate, but, if we're going to keep going down this road could you answer the queries I had earlier? Do you really believe they won't push for it after attaining these smaller victories? Also do I really need to quote the paragraph from the first article mentioning the whole "have been locked in a debate" between again?

I turned it into a giant debate?

You created the thread, you spaz.

Also do I really need to quote the paragraph from the first article mentioning the whole "have been locked in a debate" between again?

You are still arguing based on a singular line in a singular article which is clearly ambiguous and misleading. Will you give it up already?

If a direct quote from the leader of the conservatives on the board can't persuade you that you have misread that line to suit your argument, then you must surely be a moron. It's pretty simple, you've said (implied in the thread title no less) that conservatives are moving closer to teaching intelligent design as a valid scientific theory. I gave you an article that says the board has moved further away from there, and that the most conservative (and God fearing) members don't even want it and you still can't drop the argument.

Do you really believe they won't push for it after attaining these smaller victories?

I think that they should be debating and making decisions based on what's tabled, don't you?

You are still arguing based on a singular line in a singular article which is clearly ambiguous and misleading. Will you give it up already?

I linked an article and said that "They don't come out and say it but there's undertones of creationism teaching and abandoning darwinism.". You said "Also, if you had read the article you'd know it is unrelated to creationism, even though the bloke quoted is a fundamentalist/creationist.". How can *the article* be unrelated to something it states within it?

If a direct quote from the leader of the conservatives on the board can't persuade you that you have misread that line to suit your argument, then you must surely be a moron. It's pretty simple, you've said (implied in the thread title no less) that conservatives are moving closer to teaching intelligent design as a valid scientific theory. I gave you an article that says the board has moved further away from there, and that the most conservative (and God fearing) members don't even want it and you still can't drop the argument.

In 2003 McLeroy led efforts by proponents of creationism and intelligent design to de-emphasize discussion of evolution in proposed new biology textbooks. He was one of only four board members who voted against biology textbooks that year that included a full account of evolution.

In before lolwikipeida

Edit:

I think that they should be debating and making decisions based on what's tabled, don't you?

I'd hope so, I'd hope it remains somewhat even in votes also.

last edited by Syco at 20:24:32 17/Mar/10

That was 7 years ago maybe he changed his mind.

That was 7 years ago maybe he changed his mind.

Maybe, but this storm in a teapot is over me making a comment about the article as presented, I'm just resorting to throwing out other quotes.

They don't come out and say it but there's undertones of creationism teaching and abandoning darwinism.

That was just his (the article writers) opinion wasn't it?

That was just his (the article writers) opinion wasn't it?

Yes, and that was all I was commenting on in my OP, the article.

The bias article based of the opinion of one bias/scared individual?

That was 7 years ago maybe he changed his mind.

I hear Jeffry Dahmer is a pretty nice bloke now.

Spoiler:
Yes, I'm aware he is dead

In 2003 McLeroy led efforts by proponents of creationism and intelligent design to de-emphasize discussion of evolution in proposed new biology textbooks. He was one of only four board members who voted against biology textbooks that year that included a full account of evolution.

I don't think you understand what that means, nor does wikipedia by the sounds of it.

Under the science curriculum standards recommended by a panel of science educators and tentatively adopted by the board, biology teachers and biology textbooks would no longer have to cover the "strengths and weaknesses" of Charles Darwin's theory that man evolved from lower forms of life.

Opponents of the requirement had warned that it would eventually open the door to the teaching of creationism in science classes. Board members who backed the rule insisted that was not their intention.

By the way, the citation on wikipedia is actually the same article i linked.