Bill in Texas Legislature Would Protect Students and Professors Who Question Evolution

Colleges are hostile to the concept of magic because it’s childish nonsense.

http://darwinkilledgod.blogspot.com/

Next will be a law prohibiting the teaching of the New Deal, or the teaching of the advantages of flat earth theory for geography majors.

Hey – it’s Texas – and Texas is different!!

The concept of an elite postsecondary institution includes the ability of its faculty to establish what elite level performance is, rather than to have some outside political process constrain it for various political ends. If Texas passes this law, it will make its college less elite. This will have unintended consequences, as all such efforts to barter elitism for political popularity do. Second-rate grad students will flood its campuses. Second-rate professors will get the tenure roles as first-rate faculty flee to more elite universities elsewhere. Research funding, based on competitive grant applications, will plummet. Programs will simply stop doing research and focus exclusively on teaching (creationism and intelligent design). This anti-elitism will spread like a cancer across the other sciences. Eventually, it will affect economic growth…but only eventually. This is happening at the same time that Texas is trying to increase the number of Research 1 institutions in its state: and for that, the prognosis is none too good, if this law were to pass.

Sometimes, it can be real embarrassing living in this state. Of all the education issues that need to be addressed here, Rep. Zedler chooses this as his centerpiece. Maybe he can follow this up with bills prohibiting discrimination against those who believe in the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy, and Santa Claus. Chalk it up to another case of misplaced priorities.

Wow! What incredibly hostile posts! And here I was, after almost 24 years of college teaching, thinking that we are OPEN to discussing ALL ideas equally and without prejudice or ridicule.

I do have to agree that legislators should have something else to do with their time than legislate what goes on in college. Where is all of this hostility toward colleges coming from????? Here in arizona it is illegal (4 years sentence no less) for a professor to voice an opinion in class that might be abhorent or opposed to that of a student.

WOW!!! Bring out the torches and the pitchforks, why don’t you?

Let’s slowly reread this post with an eye towards critical thinking skills.

“Public colleges in Texas would be prohibited from discriminating against students and professors for studying intelligent design and other ideas that disagree with the theory of evolution…”

In other words, instead of being fodder for unofficial debate on internet message boards where there can be anonymous screaming, intelligent design would have to stand up to academic scrutiny. And as archman said, he can still fail those students if he requires an understanding of evolutionary theory and they refuse to learn it. All this says to me is that if a student can fully and articulately explain evolutionary theory but feels there is something inherently wrong with the theory, archman (or anybody else) cannot lower the student’s grade as a result.

And then there is Rep. Zedler’s quote: “We can have the academic freedom to have all kinds of ideas and philosophies but, lo and behold, even mention intelligent design and there are people that want to run you out of town on a rail.”

I think many of you posting early here just illustrated his point.

And katisumas, yes, geocentrists should be able to state their opinion. And then they have to support those opinions. If they can’t, then their perspective won’t take them very far, will it? (And I won’t comment on the Arizona law you also replied to, because I have not looked at it at all to be able to surmise if your interpretation and the original poster’s description is accurate.)

I think this whole issue has little to do with the “freedom” of discussing intelligent design at all. What it’s *really* about is how we mean old scientists teach logic and scientific thinking to college students who grew up in religious households that may subscribe to intelligent design or not subscribe to current evolutionary theory.

When Billy or Jane get through Biology 101 and begin to start arguing with Mommy & Daddy or Pastor Martin about stuff like evolution and birth control, the pre-college social harmony is disrupted. There are cries of “Indoctrination!” and “Brainwashing” directed at professors, when ironically it’s usually the college experience that is *removing* pre-existing* indoctrination.

I would bet real money that Congressman Zelder is acting as the spokesman for a religious group that feels its youth is being “corrupted” by college educators teaching students how to think for themselves. We are such infernal heretics…

I think the issue might be a conflation of “origin of the cosmos,” and “origin of the species” theories? It’s certainly true that a theory about the existence of the universe is beyond testing, but the theory of evolution doesn’t start there. The theory of evolution starts with the given organic properties and surface conditions of the earth some 4.5 billion years ago.

It is not the case that each side has evidence that they weave into whichever narrative most suits them. It is the case that science has accumulated evidence that suggests that evolution shaped the variety and number of species on the planet. The other two positions either 1) Baselessly refute that evidence because of its non-adherence to a religious text, or 2) Suggest that the process described by science must have been initiated by an intelligent designer, because of its complexity.

The first position we can discount wholesale; the second is philosophical rather than scientific, until some physical evidence indicates the presence, or mark, of a designer. Searching for these things is difficult, because such a search lends itself too easily to confirmation bias (see, for example, Ray Comfort, who believes the banana was “designed” for the human hand).

My Dear 11274501: You ask where all this hostility toward colleges (in Texas) comes from. Actually, I do not believe any of the prior comments are directed toward Texan colleges. They are directed toward the misguided, meddling influence of Texan politicians into the curricular and evaluative components of Texan colleges. Some of the comments are directed against Republicans, but that is not fair (e.g., navydad), because I do not believe that Republicans want to increase people’s ignorance…but again, the ire targets political views, not colleges. I am from Texas and wish it well. I attended graduate school in Texas and received excellent training there. I want Texan higher education to succeed and thrive, But is is hardly likely to do so if this bill passes, and I would hope that other political leaders just say no to such nonsense.

Very glad to see “educational system” identified as one addressing lifelong learning. So often, we fall into the trap suggested by your intro: “if we just meet a goal of post secondary completion, all will be fine.” NO, that’s not the case … Lifelong learning is NOT an option! Preparation to become good lifelong Learners has to be one of the goals of formal, required education. But as pointed out, there will always be reasons people of all ages will want to or have to return to formal education; the system must be prepared for such individuals.

The goal of completing one’s education is wrong in the most fundamental way. It is an easily counted outcome with no real meaning. The appropriate goal is to optimize the learning for every person. Yes, harder to detect or count but so very important. If each person understands and accepts the importance of optimizing their education for their and their country’s benefits AND if the system provides not only the formal education opportunities lifelong as well as facilitates the development of effective learning and effective problem-solving skills, then there is a goal worth tracking. It’s not the diploma or degree being completed that’s the goal; such an event is but one milestone along the way. The goal has to be different.

It is quite clear, as also noted, that the goals listed are often much more difficult (but so critical) than simply completing the degree. Since, really, much of the list really relates to the local needs, it suggests the importance of a thriving Education Community as I’ve been calling it – a group of motivated parents / families, students, general citizens, and yes teachers and administrators committed to addressing local issues. Such issues as impact of poverty and lack of parental responsibility won’t be solved by throwing more and more resources and government programs at them. The outcomes will be much more positive through the effort of the Education Community – with of course access to needed resources (though at lower levels because of more effective use of them AND the elimination of ineffective mandates).

Wonderful to see elements for a built-to-last higher education approach that includes elementary, secondary, and returning education. We would all do well to think about education as a life journey, consider the larger context of education, even as we necessarily focus on the “timeframe” of education that our professions address.

What’s all this “we” stuff anyhow? Every competent teacher’s antennae should be on full alert whenever some bureaucrat beyond the walls of their current employer starts talking about “building” anything. When one selects either an architect or contractor for any new construction, it is wise to see what kind of work they’ve performed in the past. Is their work-product demonstrably a long lasting and attractive recipe for success?

If I were administrator of any local educational activity, my first response to any suggestions/commands from the outside would be, “Gee . . . that’s different. Why don’t you come here and show us how it works? When the bureaucrat begs off with the excuse of being too busy telling EVERYBODY ELSE what to do, then you KNOW that they have no demonstrable confidence in what they’re asking YOU to do either.

A teacher cannot teach that which they do not understand and can personally demonstrate. A competent teacher will not waste precious face-time with students to allowing buffoons to “guest lecture” . . . or to tell them how to run their classroom. The competent administrator will find little if any value in bowing to regulatory/legislative mandate.

Now, if the teacher and/or administrator are demonstrably incompetent, then it’s up to local school boards and parents to rectify the matter . . . and most certainly not the President’s.

The Law and Education
You say: “There are persons who lack education,”
and you turn to the law.
But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning
which shines its light abroad.
The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge
and others do not;
where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach.
In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives:
It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning
to operate freely and without the use of force,
or it can force human wills in this matter
by taking from some of them enough to pay
the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others,
without charge.
But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder
by violating liberty and property.  Frederick Bastiat ~1850

From primary through higher ed…but it all began falling apart slowly 30 years ago, with the decline accelerating in the past 10.