Earth and Space Science amendments

Craig offers to amend ESS 4:

Earth in Space and Time. The student knows how Earth-based and space-based astronomical observations reveal differing theories about the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe.

to read:

4) Earth in Space and Time. The student knows how Earth-based and space-based astronomical observations reveal information about the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe.

This was the recommendation of the ESS writing committee.

Motion fails, 7-8. Agosto breaks with the good guys.

Dunbar offers an amendment to 8(A), which currently reads:

Evaluate a variety of fossil types, proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits and assess the arguments for and against universal common descent in light of this fossil evidence;

to read:

analyze and evaluate a variety of fossil types, such as transitional fossils, proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness, and alignments with scientific explanations in light of this fossil data;

She acknowledges that transitional fossils exist.

Leo objects that this changes the meaning, which it may well do, but the language was amended from that proposed by the writing group, so what's the problem? This amendment still sucks, but at least it isn't trying to paint a target on evolution.

Knight asks for clarification on "proposed transitional fossil." Dunbar says that for some things, it isn't clear whether they are actually transitional.

Leo objects that no explanation other than universal common descent offered in the standards.

Craig thinks it's a good amendment. It isn't.

Motion passes, 9-6.

On to environmental systems.

Categories

More like this

I'm getting too old for this. The idiots keep making the same arguments, over and over again, and they just get dumber with every iteration. Bryan Fischer makes me want to stick an icepick in my brain just to stop the stupidity coming out of his mouth. His latest article is Defeating Darwin in four…
Last week, we began talking about understanding the size of the Universe, and we continued this week with some information on distances and motion in the Universe. This brings us to my favorite application, which leads to the Hubble expansion: Redshift. You see, whenever an atom or molecule emits…
Earlier this week, I wrote about an article that appeared in Nature, New Scientist and other places. The article -- and especially the popular writeups -- talked about a problem with dark matter and how MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) solves those problems. And I'm livid about it. Another…
GilDodgen over at Dembski's place has a post with excerpts from an article that appeared in Crisis, a Catholic magazine. The article, written by George Sim Johnston (whoever that is), is about the Darwin exhibit now showing at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In just the short…

Let me get this straight - they kept "differing theories" of the age of the Earth/universe? It's 2009, right?

The only good thing about that is that Stephen Meyer himself is now publicly OK with a ~4.5 billion year old Earth.

Question: Are there plans to develop lesson plans or teaching strategies for science teachers that will help them...work around... the new standards? I can't believe these people are a freaking school board.

By Steve Masy (not verified) on 27 Mar 2009 #permalink

Texas - It's The NEW KS!

Please tell me that the ACLU or someone with a brain will stop this BS. Thanks,