Wow, some actual heartening news out of the doomed state of Texas! State Board of Education members are fighting back at the idea of teaching fundamentalist religion as a science in Texas school.
As you may remember, Governor Rick Perry of Texas has appointed a very, very unqualified man by the name of Don McLeroy to be the head of the State Board of Education. McLeroy thinks the Earth is 6000 years old, evolution is wrong, and that abstinence education works!
He lives in a fantasy world. However, as head of the Board, he has power to impose that fantasy on reality.
Well, according to the article linked above, 2/3 of the Board’s members object to brainwashing children, which is heartening. They don’t want to include Intelligent Design in the Texas science curriculum.
But wait! Maybe we’re being unfair to McLeroy! After all…
McLeroy, R-College Station, said he doesn’t want to change the existing requirement that evolution be taught in high school biology classes. But he joined several of his colleagues in arguing that biology textbooks should cover the weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
In fact, this is standard creationist rhetoric, and it’s a lie. This is all part of the leaked Wedge plan to get religion taught as science; first they try to show the weaknesses of science, then they make the "if not A then B" argument, which is bad logic (the only kind most promoters of creationism are capable of). If one scientific explanation is weak, why then, creationism must be right!
Feh.
But let’s be positive here:
Other board members who said they believe the curriculum should continue to include evolution and not be changed to accommodate intelligent design were: Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, R-Dallas; Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands; Gail Lowe, R-Lampasas; Bob Craig, R-Lubbock; Mavis Knight, D-Dallas; Rick Agosto, D-San Antonio; Lawrence Allen, D-Houston; and Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi.
Show them your love, folks. They need our support, for surely they have an uphill battle.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I am amused that this post and http://www.reallivepreacher.com/node/1400 were right next to each other on my LJ friends page (I read both you and him via LJ’s RSS support).
August 24th, 2007 at 11:31 am
It seems like every day I see something that makes me happy I don’t live in Texas.
Also, this popped up with another article on my RSS reader to make an interesting combination…
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/3750/picture1sw3.png
August 24th, 2007 at 11:35 am
I still hope he goes through with this. We are going to face this battle in court sooner or later, it’s inevitable. Given that, I can’t imagine a better person to implement it. His comments show a clear religious intent and a clear desire to mix science and a particular religious doctrine in public schools, both overt violations of the first amendment under the Lemon test used by federal courts. If we want to win this court case we need someone who will sabotage the Discovery Institute’s underhanded and deceitful tactics, and this guy is perfect for that.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:56 am
A couple of disconcerting bits here.
First, those board members said they wouldn’t require the teaching of ID. But this is just a standard ID talking point. They’re not all that interested in requiring it…its enough that it is merely allowed. Those board members have said nothing there the Discovery Instutute would object to.
Second, they focus too much on the label – Intelligent Design – and not the arguments that make up that so-called “thoery”. But the creationists have already shown that they have no qualms whatsoever about simply changing the name of their bag of notions. Scientific Creationism begats Creation Science which begats Intelligent Design which is now begatting Teach the Strenths and Weaknesses (or Teach the Controversy, or most bizarrely – Teach Evolution). They’re all the same bag of arguments with some of the more overtly Biblical ones removed in some cases to try and skirt the legal roadblocks.
So you may get that lawsuit yet TheBlackCat.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
What I found just as disturbing as the proposal was that the comments under the article showed the same hatred and lack of understanding of what science is. I think you better reinstate a full “Doomed” status.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Phil, you should really stick to astronomy.
I love coming here and reading about things involving space, but the blogging on politics is beneath you.
You do know that Intelligent Design is not the same as Creationism, right?
In any case, if I did believe that evolution was a lie (I’m not saying I do), and I didn’t want it being taught to my children, isn’t that my right? Just as much as it’s my right to not let Creationism be taught to my kids. Really, the only way out of this is to not teach anything about the origins of the universe in school. The teachers would have to tell their students to ask their parents, instead.
Honestly, I’m all for that approach. Or, this one just came to me, we can have different schools for different parent’s kids. I think I’d be up for that, too.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I’m agree with Tim. I went to the article and was slightly encouraged until I scrolled down and started reading the comments. Very scary.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Ethan:
Perhaps you’re actually being snarky and my irony meter is malfunctioning, in which case I apologize.
If you’re being serious, have you read Dr. Plait’s excellent post “Politics, science, me and thee” yet? If you have, then why did you even bother to open with “Phil, you should really stick to astronomy”? And how is blogging about politics beneath anyone? Last I checked we lived in a representative democracy, and I for one don’t want to leave politics to the politicians lest we lose it.
Sticking up for my female man crush,
-astro groupie
August 24th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
So Ethan, do you think that we shouldn’t teach students geography because some people think the world is flat? Or that we should skip Egypt and Mesopotamia in history classes because it conflicts with some peoples’ opinions on Noah’s flood? Or skip the Holocaust in modern history because some parents don’t want their kids to hear about it? Because of course we don’t want students to be taught anything that might conflict with their parents’ preconceived notions. We all know that parents have the ability to change the universe at will so that what is true for everybody else is not true for their children.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Its been stated before that since Texas has such a large population, the decisions of its education board affect what publishers put in all their textbooks. Isn’t it scary that what are children are taught as basic science comes down to the majority opinion of 15 Texans? Shouldn’t there be some sort of academic entity composed of educated biologists who determine what is taught as fundamental biology? Knowledge is not democratic!
To Ethan -
Absolutely not! Evolution is not a belief and should not be treated as such. Education should not be subject to the preconcieved falsehoods that past generations grew up with. Our children deserve to be in tune with the modern world. They should be learning science in science class with material from scientific sources, not be left to ponder how things work at church camp or on the internet.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
You do know that Intelligent Design is not the same as Creationism, right?
Uh…wrong, Ethan, it is.
Unless you are willing to accept the notion that the Intelligent Designer whom ID supporters, almost all of whom are conservative Christians, propose is not in fact God. Which would then seem to me to make ID the ultimate blasphemy, because here you have thousands of Christians suggesting that some other Designer than God actually created everything.
Lay off the kool-aid, Ethan. You’ve bought the ID propaganda wholesale. The thing about the Discovery Institute Wedge Strategy document Phil mentions, which you really ought to read, is that it makes it undeniably clear in plain English that ID is just Christian “scientific creationism” by a more respectable name, and that the goal of ID is to introduce Christianity into science classes.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
It wouldn’t be as bad if that was the case. The truth is that the wedge document makes it undeniably clear that the goal of ID is to completely destroy all science and force people to abandon all knowledge gained by science. Introducing Christianity into science classes is just an early step in this plan.
From the wedge document.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Re Ethan
“Really, the only way out of this is to not teach anything about the origins of the universe in school. The teachers would have to tell their students to ask their parents, instead.”
Mr. Ethan shows his total ignorance of the subject matter with this statement. Let us make it perfectly clear so that there will be no misunderstanding. The origin of the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. They are two separate and distinct entities. Repeat: the origin of the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. I suggest that Mr. Ethan educate himself on the subject matter before making ignorant comments.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I wonder how many of these nitwits realize how much of their every day life is a direct result of science? Starting with the bloody computers they are using to spread their 14th century nonsense.
Staggering.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Whoawhoawhoa. Clicking the “continue reading” button on the front page of the BA blog to read the rest of your post, I am now getting full page ads with the “click here to continue to your requested page” link on them.
I hate those types of ads.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I sent an email to the Governor about this issue and wrote a letter published in UT’s newspaper. But Perry doesn’t care, he’s a YEC himself, why do you think he picked McElroy?
A really troubling part of this is that McElroy represents College Station, a town dominated by Texas A&M University, probably the second or third most prestigious university in Texas. This is supposed to be a scholarly place, but it’s known to have GWB politics.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I always feel it’s like this:
“We teach that 2+2= whatever we want.”
“No, it’s just four.”
“Well, let’s say it could be four, or it could be whatever we want.”
“No, it’s just four.”
“Some people say it’s 4.1…”
“No, it’s just four.”
August 24th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Ethanon,
The current politics of your president Bush, undermine Science and other legitimate ways of understanding the Truth of Nature. Therefore, Phil is quite justified in exposing problems caused by politics – as Astronomy is a branch of Science. Unfortunately , some religious people seek to distort science to try and justify their false views of the Universe.
The arguments put forward by creationists especially those espousing ‘Intelligent Design’ actually tend to prove the non-existence of an ‘Almighty God’!
If Humans are too complicated to occur naturally, then any ‘Almighty God’ would be much much more complicated in order to create Humans, therefore an ‘Almighty God’ cannot arise naturally and would require an even more ‘Almighty God’ to create Them – and so on. Hence postulating an ‘Almighty God’ as creator is self contradictory.
There are many things we do not know, and scientists are well aware of their ignorance, but that does not stop them from attempting to learn more. Which they do, hence we have theories of: rocket propulsion, gravity, evolution, and many other things.
Scientists seek to understand, rather than to believe.
-Nivag
August 24th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Everytime one of these debates starts up I recite my own personal mantra, “You can have faith in science, but you cannot have science in faith.”
August 24th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
an ‘Almighty God’ cannot arise naturally and would require an even more ‘Almighty God’ to create Them – and so on.
Yep, it’s elephants all the way down.
J/P=?
August 24th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
About three years ago, to take a job, I was forced to move to San Antonio from Nashville. I bitched and moaned about it, but then an amazing thing happened: I’ve come to really like the place. San Antonio is one of the most diverse cities in the U.S. The point is not everyone here is a bible-thumping idiot.
It really drives home a great quote from “Contact”: Dr. Drummand (msp?) tells Ellie “Unfortunately, we don’t in that world.” To which Ellie replies “Funny. I always thought the world is what we make it.”
August 24th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Ethan
Good responses to your comment above. Just a couple more things…
The Theory of Evolution doesn’t have anything to do with the origin of the universe. Creationists often try to conflate the two.
It’s a science teacher’s job to teach science. Deferring subjects to parents will diminish science education for all.
They are not teaching a “belief”, as you put it. Evolution is something to be accepted or rejected based on the scientific evidence, not something to “believe in” based on philosophy or religion.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:46 am
To Ethan and his kin,
Oh Boy…sigh!
Alien_from_Europe
August 25th, 2007 at 5:38 am
Ethan said:
You do know that Intelligent Design is not the same as Creationism, right?
………………………………………..
‘Pandas and People’
“cdesign proponentists.”
“Smoking gun”
No?
–
August 25th, 2007 at 5:41 am
Phil, a suggestion for your comments script.
Provide little checkboxes before the text box to simplify responses for a significant number of your commenters. Choices should include:
a) You should stick to your astronomy; just like all of us commenters stick to their trained fields when commenting;
b) I have heard an opinion I do not like, and I am leaving to go sulk now. I said, I AM LEAVING TO GO SULK NOW! ANYONE HEAR ME? HELLO?
C) You liberal peepants have got it all wrong, Bush is great, and to prove it, I’m going to dodge the topics of discussion and harp about Clinton, or simply make stuff up.
Should save a bit of time all around.
August 25th, 2007 at 6:09 am
The topics like this reminds me of seeing a program that talked about when more people began to use science to figure out the world and go against preconcieved notations. I forgot who showed it, but it struck a cord with me.
It did so, because this surge of Creationism/ID/whatever-name-they’ll-use-next seems to be the fundimentalist side fighting back. It seems to me that these people that try to wedge their religion into science are sore that people looked to science for reason.
In other words, they’re acting like jealous little kids that want attention. And they don’t care that there view sets back the US a couple of centuries in reasoning abilities.
That’s my take on this.
I do hope the good fight is fought and won. The country needs to move FOREWARD, not in reverse.
August 25th, 2007 at 6:11 am
D’oh! I forgot to ask, Phil!
What is the truth behind abstinence education, and why it doesn’t work? I never saw discussions regarding this.
I only ask, because, well, it seemed to work with me. Not that I support it, though….
August 25th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Ethan, you wrote:
“You do know that Intelligent Design is not the same as Creationism, right?
“In any case, if I did believe that evolution was a lie (I’m not saying I do), and I didn’t want it being taught to my children, isn’t that my right? Just as much as it’s my right to not let Creationism be taught to my kids. Really, the only way out of this is to not teach anything about the origins of the universe in school. The teachers would have to tell their students to ask their parents, instead.”
You absolutely have a right to teach your children whatever you want — but no expectation that your personal beliefs be taught to others’ children. Intelligent Design has no factual scientific basis behind it. None at all. It’s a nice conclusion you or I can draw based on the beauty of the universe, but nothing more. One could make an equally strong argument that there is not intelligent design in the universe at all, based on all the random, horrible, chaotic events that occur each and every day.
To paraphrase the late, great Kurt Vonnegut, if the universe is so perfect, why do giraffes get the clap?
Yes, I teach theology. Just spent yesterday reassuring my students that the Great Flood never happened as described in the Bible. Couldn’t have. From other pieces of literature from the Ancient Near East, it would seem likely that there was a terrible flood at one time somewhere. And there have been many terrible floods since then. But an ark? No more likely than the great cube in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
And we can’t forget that there never was that much water on the earth. Physically impossible.
Yes, I had a few students who said, “But God could do it!” And I replied, “No, God could not. God did not.”
And we will go on from there.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Hey, badabing! Overkill, as usual in the type of discussion at hand.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I posted this on Pharyngula but I’ll post it here as well.
Nah, ID isn’t the same thing as creationism…
Warning, you may experience [Bad Word Deleted by The Bad Astronomer] overload! Not just the evolution one, I looked at the homosexuality one and that was quite bizarre too, but believe it or not, it was less so. There server seems to have slowed down so I couldn’t look at the rock music one featuring Madonna Dahmer. Oh well, maybe it’s for the best. ;^)
August 25th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
So,,,tired,,,,of ,,,,bull,,,
SO, I created you in MY own image and since I’m a bull headed, stubborn, iconoclastic, S.O.B., with rings on my fingers, bells on my toes and lightening in my hair, I expected you to be just like me. How come it’s ONLY the atheists that seem to have a firm grasp of that. HAVEN”T YOU BEEN LISTENING? I wrote the code, but you are the output.
Evolve, dammit. It’s lonely here in eternity,,,
God 7
August 25th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
So let’s just eliminate public education. Taxpayers send their $ & kids to the school of their choise, if you have no $, no schooling for your kids, unless some benevolent organization provides thieir tuition in an institution of the benevolent organization’s choise.
August 25th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Sorry Phil, but 8 of the 11 people interviewed were on the Texas SBOE in 2003. And according to McLeroy’s 2005 speech (to which you linked), “[I]n the 2003 biology book adoption in Texas this principle was followed strictly. There wasn’t a board member that wasn’t trying to get the weakness of evolution into the debate.”
For more details, I have a blog post here.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:46 am
@Grand Lunar
When people checked the rates of premarital sex, teen pregnancy, STD’s, and such they found that “abstinence only” sex education are no better, and in some aspects likely worse, then no sex education at all. On the other hand more complete education programs that include abstinence but also birth-control methods (particularly condoms) cause significant reductions in both pregnancy and STD’s. So not only does abstinence-only education not work, it likely makes things slightly worse and there are alternatives that make things significantly better.
August 26th, 2007 at 3:53 am
OK, I know I’m a bit after the event here, but I also would like to reply to Ethan’s comment.
Ethan said:
“Phil, you should really stick to astronomy.
I love coming here and reading about things involving space, but the blogging on politics is beneath you.”
Phil has pre-empted you on this one. Go and read his earlier blog entry.
“You do know that Intelligent Design is not the same as Creationism, right?”
Actually, this is false. ID is a form of creationism, because it requires that certain structures and systems have been designed and hence created. More prosaically, ID is simply re-badged creationism, because it uses almost all of the exact same arguments. It just tries to hide them behind new terminology.
“In any case, if I did believe that evolution was a lie (I’m not saying I do), and I didn’t want it being taught to my children, isn’t that my right? Just as much as it’s my right to not let Creationism be taught to my kids.”
It is not your place to decide what is good science and what is not. That is decided by a consensus emerging from the scientific community.
Your kids have the right to be taught what is correct, irrespective of whether you believe in it or not. You do, of course, have the option of lying to your children as much as you wish – that’s why so many creationists home-school.
“Really, the only way out of this is to not teach anything about the origins of the universe in school.”
There are several things wrong with this.
(1) The only way out of this is to teach good science at schools throughout the US. Maybe then, in 20 years’ time, when today’s high-school students are parents themselves, this spectre will have been quote properly laid to rest.
(2) Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. That is covered by Big Bang theory. They are actually very easy to tell apart, which you would know if you made even a cursory attempt to become informed on these topics.
Here’s a clue: Evolutionary theory is a biological theory; Big Bang theory is a physical theory.
(3) Evolutionary theory also has nothing to do with the origin of life on Earth : that is a separate theory of biology and is called abiogenesis.
“The teachers would have to tell their students to ask their parents, instead.”
How would this inform students about how reality is?
This is absolutely key. Science is the best mechanism we humans have for finding out how the universe works. It is, in the (slightly mangled) words of Richard Feynman, a means of not lying to ourselves.
For any nation to succeed in a world in which science and technology have an increasing impact on our lives, it is imperative that the population has some understanding of that science and those technologies. Science is the only way we have of obtaining objective information on which to base rational decisions.
“Honestly, I’m all for that approach. Or, this one just came to me, we can have different schools for different parent’s kids. I think I’d be up for that, too.”
I would vehemently opppose this. Science is the only available mechanism for achieving any consensual basis for what constitutes truth. This is because everything we learn through science has been checked against reality.
Ultimately, science is not about opinions. It is about using reality as an arbiter of truth. Any attempt to sidestep or subvert science education deprives the children of access to the most reliable form of truth avaiable.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:03 am
I’ll be the final judge here.
Let me run the Doom-O-Meter.
(beep)
(boop)
(blip)
(beep)
(zrgfx)
(boop)
(DING!)
Nope. Still doomed.
August 26th, 2007 at 6:32 am
I am originally from Texas and can say that it is a truly wonderful place to live. Please don’t base your opinion of state on what is reported in the press or on the fact that there are some stupid people in politics. I’ve traveled all over the country and have experienced the same thing in every state I’ve been in. Hawaiians want to have their native folklore taught in schools as fact, but it isn’t big news. Native American tribes want their folklore taught as fact, but it isn’t big news. On and on. But, Texas does something and it becomes big news.
I was taught evolution in grade schools while growing up in Texas and there was no mention of creationism or any other faith-based teaching. And, this was in the period of time before the Supreme Court said you couldn’t do it. In other words, they were legally free to teach it, but didn’t.
I could take any little bit of news about any state and make the same comparisons. What I have found is that every part of the country I have spent time in is beautiful and wonderul. So is Texas. We are far from ‘doomed.’
Go Cowboys!
August 26th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Don’t they say that we need some kind of initiative to speed up exploration of the moon? I’ve got two: 1) All Bad Readers move there to get away from this DOOMED world. 2) Send these guys to colonize the moon, and leave the Earth to everyone else. Gentlemen, we have the technology. We CAN avoid a new dark age.
(Just joking, of course)
August 26th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Thanks for the info, TheBlackCat.
Personally, KaiYeves, I wanna go to Jupiter. Well, one of the moons. Maybe Europa. Then I could put up a large sign that says “Attempt no landing here”.
Something wonderful……
August 26th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Physics309, in fact I like many aspects of Texas. I’ve been to Austin a few times, and love it. But that’s irrelevant. I’m not judging Texas by the governor and SBOE (though many commenters) are; I am judging its future. Conclusion: bleak.
August 26th, 2007 at 10:26 am
“In any case, if I did believe that evolution was a lie (I’m not saying I do), and I didn’t want it being taught to my children, isn’t that my right?”
It is your right to take your kids out of public school and teach them (or not) at home or find a religious school of your choice but the public school system has the obligation to teach english, math, history, and science no matter what any local crackpot believes. Your rights stop where mine begin and I take offense at fundies dumbing down everyone to their level.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Oops, sorry BA, I didn’t realize that such words weren’t allowed here. Won’t happen again.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:11 am
What amazes me the most,
Is that those who support ID, never seem to notice that it is easily proven to be demonstrably wrong.
As their so called “theory” goes, it has no scientific legs what-so-ever.
Where as, Evolution, is one of the best tested and validated theories of science.
It kind of makes ID creationists – hypocritical.
They support something demonstrably wrong (ID), as opposed to something very well proven (Evolution).
Folcrom
August 27th, 2007 at 5:48 am
The whole “You don’t know everything, therefore, you don’t know anything” is actually a rather hypocritical line of reasoning for the ID crowd to use, if you think about it.
Christianity is classified as a revealed religion. This means that, according to its adherents, the only reason we know anything about God at all is because He has deigned to let us know them.
However, there are still plenty of mysteries that have left the best theological minds scratching their heads. How do predestination and free will coexist, for example? Exactly which divine attributes did Christ surrender and which did He retain when He became a human being?
Should we be attempting to dismantle Christianity because its adherents don’t know everything about God? (Or, if you insist on making it more general, should we attempt to dismantle ID because we don’t know everything about whatever created or how it was done?)
For the record, I think we should be dismantling ID, but because it’s a vapid proposition with no scientific weight. That alone should be enough to remove it from scientific discussion.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Well, I, for one, like Phil’s wide-range of ramblings and observations.
Maybe I’m biased since I share many of his views, who knows.
Ever notice how it’s always people who don’t like his political opinions that start whining about how he should “just stick to astronomy” ?
How much you want to bet that if Phil parroted their favorite pet religious/political/social perspective they’d be incredibly supportive and helpful?
Maybe Phil should drop in a fake post supporting government censorship of science and the notion that the world is ten thousand years old and see what kind of nutty responses he gets.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Being not American I have a question here:
What does the American Constitution say about the rights of children vs. parents when it come to schools and education? Do parents have the right to teach there children whatever they want? Is there a borderline drawn somewhere?
If I follow the argumentation of Ethan this would mean, parents can teach their children for example that people with a darker skin should not have the same rights as the more pink ones? All that on a legal base by home schooling?
I don’t think your constitution treats children as personal posess of their parents? (Only with things you posess, you can do what you want)
Thank you for a little advice here.
Andre
August 27th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
[...] a recent post (the third in a most likely infinite series) about Texas, I said that several of the members of the [...]
August 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Europa sounds great, Grand Lunar. If BA can supply the rockets, I’ll call my friends at Woods Hole and get us some minisubs to search for life. Any other takers for this expedition?
August 27th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
AndreH said:
Difficult topic to address. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly address the role of parents vs. children – that is not it’s function. The U.S. legal code does deal with that issue, though I am not aware of a single formal declaration. (IANAL). Essentially, it is usually considered that parents have the legal authority and responsibility for the rearing of their children. What children learn in the home as their attitudes toward live, treatment of other people, and religious views are all protected by the First Amendment protections of free expression and free religion. It is legal to teach your children that skin color matters, that the Earth is flat, etc. This is independent of homeschooling laws. Homeschooling sets up guidelines for education mandates that match formal public school requirements with regard to testing – math, science, English, etc. These laws are, I believe, state and not federal.
There are some legal limitations on parental control, however. Again, these are state issues, but all states have some level of protection against abuse of children by their parents. Some people have tried to argue legally about certain beliefs, such as refusal to pursue medical treatment on religious grounds. I do not know the current status of any particular state, but I know this is contentious.
The short answer is that parents do not have free reign to do whatever they want, but they do have broad authority to teach whatever beliefs they wish to instill.
August 28th, 2007 at 3:21 am
@ Irishman
Thanks for the reply. I thought it must be complicated.
It is clear that (in any country) parents will teach there children what they want at home.
But in most European countries we have (as in the states I guess) laws that children have to be educated. In some countries there is even a part of the constitution which gives children the right “of proper education”.
Then standards are put up by government boards (or similar organisations, not necessarily controled by government). These standards have to be thought in school. These standards are also valid for all private schools and even home schooling (which is very rare at least in Germany). So even if parents teach there children at home only crap, there is still the school as another source.
What baffles me, is that in the U.S. the conception of “individual freedom” seems to go as far as parents can decide it is enough for there children to read the bible as sole textbook and mathematics means +,-,x,/.
What is with the right of the children to have a proper education?
Do the rights of parents go so far they can keep their children as stupid as they want? No protection for the children?
Andre
August 28th, 2007 at 10:57 am
[...] Doomed or not? Phil Plait said there is good news out of Texas, the state’s not doomed, since the State Board of Education members said they don’t want to force intelligent design [...]
August 29th, 2007 at 4:21 am
[...] he’s so getting spanked for this. He suggests that perhaps Texas isn’t doomed after all, because a significant majority of the Texas Board of Education has come out saying that they [...]
August 29th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Seriously, nobody for Europa? We can design mission patches and name our ships and everything! Maybe one should be called the Jol-El for Superman’s father, ’cause we are leaving a ‘doomed’ planet.
September 3rd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
[...] he’s so getting spanked for this. He suggests that perhaps Texas isn’t doomed after all, because a significant majority of the Texas Board of Education has come out saying that they [...]
September 10th, 2007 at 9:13 am
[...] he’s so getting spanked for this. He suggests that perhaps Texas isn’t doomed after all, because a significant majority of the Texas Board of Education has come out saying that they [...]