theweaselking: (Default)
[personal profile] theweaselking
Texas HB220: Amend the state's education code to require that textbooks approved by the state be free from factual errors, "including errors of commission or omission related to viewpoint discrimination or special interest advocacy on major issues, as determined by the State Board of Education," and satisfy general textbook content standards to be defined by the board.

Charlie Howard, the bill's sponsor, recently told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that HB 220 would enable the board remove evolution segments from science textbooks. "Evolution is a theory. ... It is a theory, it's not a fact. There is no fact for evolution, none. ... Why are we teaching a theory, when we have [another] position -- creation -- that the majority of the people in this country believe?"

Kill all Humans!

Date: 2005-05-05 05:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lurkerwithout.livejournal.com
Must. Stop. The. Stupid.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-05-05 06:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sivi-volk.livejournal.com
I wish the idiots would understand the scientific meaning of a "theory". When they say "theory", what they mean is hypothesis.

When scientists say "theory", what they mean is "as close to proven as possible". They avoid saying "rule" or "law" when it comes to things like this, in the case that they're wrong, or not entirely right. Either way, "theory" carries far more weight in scientific circles than it does otherwise, because the definition is different.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-05-05 06:41 pm (UTC)
jerril: A cartoon head with caucasian skin, brown hair, and glasses. (Hordestealer)
From: [personal profile] jerril
... so if it's an unproven bit of science, it's a theory. If it's an unproven bit of theology, it's a fact. o.O
Ow. My brain hurts.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-05-05 07:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ryusen.livejournal.com
when are people going to stop sounding stupid by saying "this theory is only a theory?"

(no subject)

Date: 2005-05-05 08:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zenten.livejournal.com
So they're not going to be teaching physics or chemestry or anything like that either?

(no subject)

Date: 2005-05-06 01:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eyenot.livejournal.com
i don't really care about this religion-in-school bull crap. if the 'publicans and whomever else really really really want it that bad, let them have the public schools, already. let the taxpayers pay for religion in the schools and NO SCIENCE FUNNY STUFF. fine! but first, [1] let's not make anybody pay for public schooling (through their taxes) who doesn't have children actually IN the public schools! that's a great idea, isn't it? then. [2] then -- let's take all the universities and all the colleges and all of THEIR money and set up a private school system where people actually get to learn things. and the cost of attending the private, real schools? it should come to about the same amount of money you used to spend in taxes to send your kids to dopey public schools (see [1].) maybe it will even cost a bit less considering they won't have to hire lawyers because the general public won't be suing them over what they teach! isn't that a great idea? and then public school can teach all the talking donkeys, invisible friends, 6,000-year-old-flat-earth, and what have you all day long while portraying the stoning/burning of witches, sorcerors, and harlots at pep rallies. who's against it? i think most people are FOR this sort of plan, myself.

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Feb. 6th, 2026 07:02 am