Texas School Standards: Age of the Universe Erased

[Hydrogen]

Not tired of attacking biological evolution, creationists are now going for cosmology. It can't be too long before they finally repudiate (among other things) quantum mechanics, relativity, nuclear medicine, x-rays and finally what can be seen through a telescope.

Anyway, here's another sad story of the smallminds:



Texas School Standards: Age of the Universe
Erased

Texas school standards next attack: Removing references to the age of the universe.

(PhysOrg.com) -- The fight over the new education and curriculum standards for the public schools in Texas has been long and publicized. Most of the publicity, though, focuses on the school board's focus on "intelligent design" as it relates to the biological question of evolution. Because evolution has long been contested in public schools, it is no real surprise that this has gotten the most play from the media. But one thing that hasn't been mentioned as much is the fact that the Texas school standards also remove
mention of the age of the universe. Long-standing ideas of cosmology are being challenged as well.

Originally in the Texas school standards was this phrase: "concept of an expanding universe that originated about 14 billion years ago." However, board member Barbara Cargill thought this wasn't good enough. It
was too definite. The standards now read, "current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe." You can bet that the age of the earth is not listed in the Texas curriculum as about 4.5 billion years old -- in spite of the fact that most of the people my age and older have known (or rather, estimated) this for years.

There certainly are many different theories about the formation of the universe. Whether it was a big bang or a big bounce are two of them. Cosmologists and astronomers wonder about the rate of expansion in the
early universe, and they debate the effects of gravity (not to mention its nature) as well as consider questions about the composition of the universe and the kinds of particles that exist. However, despite the questions that do exist about the origination of the universe, there is very little debate about its age.

Right now, the latest estimate is that the universe is 13.73 billion years old, plus or minus 120 million years. This information is the latest from results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe (WMAP). While the age of the universe is likely to be fine tuned in coming years, it is extremely likely that it will remain in the neighborhood of 14 billion years. And few scientists see the age of the earth being cast in doubt as well. But it appears that cosmology could now be thrown into the fray of science v. religion.

Until now, matters of space have been very little addressed in terms of religion. After all, couldn't God have created the universe well before putting humans on Earth? But it appears that by working from Earth outward, some are becoming concerned. If God created humans on Earth just a few millennia ago, then Earth can't be 4.5 billion years old. And if Earth isn't as old as all that, surely the universe isn't, either. It's an interesting train of logic. And one that could result in all we know about space science being brought under attack.

© 2009 PhysOrg.com

 

[Second_in_pie]

No offense to any creationists at all, but I just think that going into schools and to basically stop teaching children some things is just wrong. Right now, the facts are pointing to the theory of evolution and the big bang. Creationists can maintain their faith and disbelief in these theories, but they shouldn't be allowed to interfere in other people's beliefs.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

how can i take part in such a conversation without having someone take personal offense and then demand i be banned and censored due to critical analysis of their beliefs?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Perhaps they should also include "but the universe definitely isn't created in 7 days."

AoD

 

[Second_in_pie]

how can i take part in such a conversation without having someone take personal offense and then demand i be banned and censored due to critical analysis of their beliefs?

This.
Some people take offense simply to people having different views than them, then advocate for the person to be censored due to some stupid reason.

Sometimes I hear an obviously religious person make a comment about the Big Bang theory or evolution and I take offense to it, but I don't make a big deal out of it. Some people can be really horrible about it actually.

EDIT: I mean those people can be really horrible in that they attack other people's views (in this case a religious person attacking me because I believe in Evolution)

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Perhaps they should also include "but the universe definitely isn't created in 7 days."

AoD

pfff, of course it wasn't! it was created in 6! everybody knows the 7th day was a day off. i think the grand architect used it to go to the supply store and pick up a new protractor or something. but he must have got lost or something along the way because he hasn't attempted to make any improvements or revisions since then.

 

[bleeepbluuup]

That is just crazy. Crazy that it's even an issue, and crazy that it's so prevalent it's been institutionalized. What a fundamental failure of reason. How long before universities and colleges start looking at applicants from Texas with extreme prejudice? Maybe there ought to be a section on evolution on the SATs.

 

[urbanboom]

how can i take part in such a conversation without having someone take personal offense and then demand i be banned and censored due to critical analysis of their beliefs?

Well, there's a difference between attacking a system of beliefs - which is fine, and then there is attacking the person for holding those beliefs.

For example, I find Bill Maher quite interesting on his points on religion, until he goes on his rampage on how "they" (the religious people) are irrational for holding those beliefs. It's this dividing between "us" and "they" that really are at the root of any conflict, imho.

I find respectful, and intelligent discussions very enlightening on a personal level. But being as this is the internet, someone will inevitably come and cause a train-wreck.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Well, there's a difference between attacking a system of beliefs - which is fine, and then there is attacking the person for holding those beliefs.

of course there is but some can't tell the difference. for some, if you criticize the belief, you are attacking the person. you'll be called a bigot, closed minded, xenophobic, racist, communist, {insert belief here}phobic, etc. all because you are being critical of ideas and documents someone holds dear.

 

[Brandon716]

Wow. Just.. Wow.

Subjecting nearly 20 million residents of one of the largest US states to intellectual abuse is so wrong.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

teach the controversy!

 

[urbandreamer]

I support this idea. Not everyone has to follow the PC line.

In 3009, scientists might say the world is only 1700 years old, and have proof to back it up. Ultimately, who cares?!

Think about how many Torontonians attended Easter services or Passover Seder's this past weekend: are they just as "stupid" as these Texans?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

I support this idea. Not everyone has to follow the PC line.

In 3009, scientists might say the world is only 1700 years old, and have proof to back it up. Ultimately, who cares?!

Think about how many Torontonians attended Easter services or Passover Seder's this past weekend: are they just as "stupid" as these Texans?

what do you mean by PC line? politically correct? who's being PC?


i don't think that "In 3009, scientists might say the world is only 1700 years old, and have proof to back it up." unless of course, the words scientist and science has a completely different meaning or if instead of using earth years, we use something else.


also, there is a higher turnout for religious services this year. i've read many articles in which religious clerics are literally frothing at the mouth and almost praising the economic recession, home foreclosures, unemployment, etc. for making more people turn to god and attend services. they are just stopping short of saying "so you though you didn't need god" and giving off an evil laugh. almost like a drug dealer telling an addict trying to come clean "come on you know you want it, you need it, and i can give it to you. yes that's it, it feels soo good. doesn't it feel soo good. this one's on me. that's it, swallow the pills. the pills are your friend. everything will be okay if you swallow the pills. muhahhahhaa!"

 

[wonderboy416]

Why is just one religious theory out of thousands being taught as an alternative to evolution?

I think George Carlin said it best when he said what's the difference between god and aliens... people have seen gliens.

 

[urbanboom]

what do you mean by PC line? politically correct? who's being PC?


i don't think that "In 3009, scientists might say the world is only 1700 years old, and have proof to back it up." unless of course, the words scientist and science has a completely different meaning or if instead of using earth years, we use something else.


also, there is a higher turnout for religious services this year. i've read many articles in which religious clerics are literally frothing at the mouth and almost praising the economic recession, home foreclosures, unemployment, etc. for making more people turn to god and attend services. they are just stopping short of saying "so you though you didn't need god" and giving off an evil laugh. almost like a drug dealer telling an addict trying to come clean "come on you know you want it, you need it, and i can give it to you. yes that's it, it feels soo good. doesn't it feel soo good. this one's on me. that's it, swallow the pills. the pills are your friend. everything will be okay if you swallow the pills. muhahhahhaa!"

Well, if a recession can do at least one thing, it can force people to reevaluate their lives. I guess people are forced to think about what's really important to them.