Subscribe now

Log in

Your login is case sensitive

I have forgotten my password


Short Sharp Science: A New Scientist blog

Universe's age erased from Texas school science standards

wmapage.jpgRachel Courtland, online reporter




In an amendment sponsored by board member Barbara Cargill, the board of education voted to replace a requirement to teach the "concept of an expanding universe that originated about 14 billion years ago". According to the National Center for Science Education's Josh Rosenau, teachers must now present "current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe" (emphasis added).

Those two words - theories and estimates  - seem a bit out of place. If anything, astronomers and cosmologists are converging on a single idea for how the universe has expanded over time and a single estimate for the age of the universe. With the latest results compiled by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), that age now stands at 13.73 billion years, plus or minus some 120 million years.

Is the new standard an invitation for young-Earth proponents to teach students that the Earth and the universe beyond it is just a few thousand years old? Some teachers could conceivably see it as an opening. According to a 2008 study, 16% of US science teachers believe humans were created by God in the last 10,000 years.

Perhaps the Texas board is just trying to round out their students' education, by requiring that teachers demonstrate that there are multiple ways to estimate the age of the universe. After all, decoding the cosmic recipe of how much dark energy, dark matter, and ordinary matter the universe contains is just one (quite precise) way to determine its age. But you can also make rough estimates based on the universe's current expansion rate or by looking at the ages of the oldest stars. Let's hope that's the case.

Otherwise, it looks like cosmology, which has remained relatively unaffected by recent religion-based attacks, might soon be on trial. I say, bring it on - while there are many unanswered questions about the universe - for example, what the nature of dark matter is - its age is not one of them. Establishing at a Dover-like trial that the Earth is more than 4 billion years old and the universe is more than 13 billion years old could only be good for the public understanding of science.

(Illustration: NASA/WMAP Science Team)
Facebook iconDigg iconDelicious iconStumbleUpon iconTwitter iconTechnorati iconReddit iconAddThis icon
Subscribe to New Scientist Magazine


When will they learn?

Time and time again the religious have tried to fight against science (or rather, reality), and time and time again they fail: the Sun and the rest of the universe does not revolve around our planet, to name but one instance.

You'd have thought that they might have had the sense to realise how futile the whole exercise is. Unfortunately for the children of Texas they haven't.


Simple. Any number not in the trillions has lost credibility this year.


From the article: 'Those two words - theories and estimates - seem a bit out of place.'

Oh the arrogance. Has an innocent person ever been convicted of a crime, and convicted by people who did not witness the act but came to a conclsion based on the available evidence?

Humans are fallable, humans can get together and collectively agree on something and all be wrong. Our knowledge of how the universe was created, and of it's age, can never be more than a theory and an estimate.


My fear with the whole science vs. religion false-dichotomy is that one side will emerge victorious and claim authority. But really, both should be approached both skeptically and open-mindedly-- and all things for that matter.

Granted, the age of the universe is about as well buttoned up as any cosmological claim. But, history shows us that even our best estimates, based on the best data and math, can be wrong. Knowledge from authority is the real monster, and both "sides" are prone to it.

Instead of deciding whether to teach creationism OR evolution in schools, why don't we just teach kids epistemology and critical thinking? That way, whether the teacher is teaching creationism or evolution, the child will be able to ascertain the validity and plausibility of the theory on their own.

So while I welcome skepticism directed towards authoritative scientific claims (especially cosmology!), I think this will be used as a back-door for non-scientific ideas in science class.


I have to agree with "bring it on." This nation and science can ill afford to deal with Creationist attempts to impose religious and non-scientific beliefs in our schools every few years.

Enough is enough.


Actually most convictions of innocent people are not based on facts, but rather feelings, presuppositions, and the extremely fallible eyewitness, not to mention the intractability of many people to change their views when presented with contradictory evidence after they have made a decision. Very much like religion.

Science, however, isn't like that. (Well, not as much.) Scientist can, and often do, change their ideas based on the incoming new information. And they rarely have to rely on those nearly useless and almost always misleading eyewitnesses.

Here's something for you to try. Look into the sky. You will see several points of light that are actually galaxies. Galaxies that are millions of light years and more away from us. Unless you want to say that the speed of light has a convenience dial, the universe has existed for a very long time. Scientific observation (not eyewitnesses) has pushed that distance and timeline even further back through the use of telescopes. So if you are either ignorant enough, or stupid enough to think the universe is a handful of millenia old, then stand outside at night and experience the glory of the universe telling you that you are wrong.


It is probably niave to think that teenagers can think critically enough to question their teachers. While it is important to teach critical thinking to children, it's use will only come in to play later in life. We have to teach children "facts" and probably steer away from uncertainty. However, it is sad that people are trying to cast a sheen of uncertainty over so many "facts" that are accepted by all mainstream scientists.


High school science must be taught according to the standards given by the scientist themselves.

Who are the scientists? The scientists are those who studied science and publish papers in reputable journals. Allowing other people to decide what to teach in science is simply ridiculous.

This is not against critical thinking. If somebody wants to challenge the standard science that person should do it by publishing peer reviewed articles in reputable journals.

(Sciences like physics and biology do not teach absolutes. Each measurement comes with an estimation of the error and we continuously advance by refining our knowledge)


As an atheist, I believe there are key mandatory classes missing from all high school programs in the US. Most important of all of these is a Modern Religions course. Equal time will be spent on historical examination of all major world religions. This way the creationists will get their word out, but not in the context of science. This will also create more tolerant, open minded graduates.

Teaching science can then be narrowed to subjects where evidence exists and repeatable experimentation prevail.


There was a fascinating programme tonight on English TV BBC channel 2 by Conor Cunningham, who addressed the issues of Creationism, ID, Atheism and Darwin all in the one programme. He looked at the history of orthodox Christianity, the history of Creationism and ID ( Which ARE different) and why such extreme and fundamental views have developed most recently over how the Bible is read and interpreted. It was a revealing story and one I would encourage everyone to view Its title is "Did Darwin kill God". The facts are nothing short of a revelation! and really put this whole subject to bed, so to speak......move on NS....


Since we have not yet any idea as to what Dark Energy actually is, I would not place bets on the number 13.73 billion being the one in the science books of 2050CE



There should be a sheen of uncertainty over everything. You've never even witnessed anything outside of your own mind. There are ONLY subjective observations.

Do you realize how many "facts" have been overturned by new evidence? When we look back in history, we always see ourselves holding strong to ideas, backed by the best evidence at the time, that now seem ridiculous. Do you think that people in the future will look back on us any differently? There are currently major assumptions (i.e. facts) made by humans which will be proven wrong in the future, that is the pattern, we are not special.

It doesn't mean that we should all run around like animals because nothing is certain, but we SHOULD understand that all information falls somewhere on a scale between certainty and uncertainty, and NOTHING reaches the top of the scale.

And that's really the only thing I can be certain of; that I'm not certain about anything. Paradoxical, yes, but not surprising coming from a universe which is "constantly" "changing"!


The worst think about promoting "critical thinking" is that as soon as some science teacher asks kids to start critically thinking about religion and the bible they will be run out of Texas on a rail.

I don't understand how Bible literalists can talk about critical thinking with a straight face.

It is not open to debate. The earth is round, and it's more than 10,000 years old. Anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn't be allowed to teach, vote or reproduce.






Will there be a Texan John Scopes? I hope so.


There's anti-matter, so does that mean there's anti-strong force and anti-electromagnetism? Would either one cancel out gravity? I mean gravity is the weakest force. Scientist figured out a way to shield material from 100 million degrees using an electromagnetic field. Could they combine the 4 forces in the same field and make a 5th force?
I think all the forces interact with each other to make everything we see. Let's cancel out some forces with an electromagnet. I say slap 1 or 2 nuclear engines in between two magnets and see what happens. That should be strong enough to levitate a 1000lb iron ball. Next we would need lasers or something to spin the iron ball to close to the speed of light. That should generate a electromagnetic force field around the ship. I mean in the middle of the earth tons of iron that generates earths magnetic field. Earths magnetic field is so powerful that it can stop atoms or waves from entering. Lets apply that to the ship. So now we have a ship with the same electromagnetic field as the earths. I don't know what that means but it has to mean something. Maybe a field like that could bend space. Does blue light make a magnet stronger? I think so. I might be wrong. Now if we could bent space then moving around in it would be simple. I just don't know the math behind it. Maybe faster than the speed of light if we bend it enough. The rest of the space travel would be our endurance. Could we survive the flight. Let me think about it some more.


Hey folks, God just told me that the universe is actually only 24 hours old and we were all born yesterday. Hope that clears everything up.


I think the 'critical' thing here is the lack of 'thinking'. These red neck, bible bashing morons are right up and there and as dangerous as Islamic (or any other religion) nut job, and they just can't see it. The bible is WRONG, no messing about or PC rubbish, it is wrong - that is the only fact that is relevant. Are the scientists completely right, probably not, but at least they are looking to move forward and work at their assumptions. The reason why the rest of the world looks at the US with trepidation is this blind, unfounded faith in a world that even the Vatican has said is incorrect. We have religious education over here and that is the place to critically review all aspects of every religion; not as an alternative scientific theory thought up by a load of radical extremists. America beware, Islamist loons want Shia everywhere, soon your own loons will be pushing their ill thought out and extreme views on you all.


While it is true, as a few people state, that many scientific "truths" have been later overturned, I do not believe there have been any that have been overturned when the theological argument for the phenomenon was proven correct. Perhaps there have been some cases (have there?), but it is safe to say that the odds are low that this would be the case. So the history of science seems to suggest that in the debate between science and religion, while a scientific "fact" may be proven incorrrect, it is rarely, if ever, done so in favor of the theological argument.

As several writers have pointed out, there are several major religions (Catholicism and Buddhism are two) who believe there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. The Dalai Lama has gone so far as to state that if science finds part of Buddhism is wrong, then "we'll just ... change the religion."

Remember that there are many "theories" in science we take as fact. Gravity, for example, is one. Even though it is pervasive and apparent to all, since we cannot prove that it will occur in ALL occurences, it is no more than a theory. Should we therefore offer alternative explanations based on philosophy or theology for it in schools? I think most would argue not.


I have yet to find a reason why science and the Bible do not agree. And since science is the study of God's creation, that should be the case. I see no reason that the universe is not billions of years old. Genesis states that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty..." There is no reason why billions of years could not have passed between the creation of the heavens and earth in the first sentence and the "Now.." statement which follows in the second sentence. The beginning of the Bible starts with the era of Man. At that time, the earth was already here just formless. Since dinosaurs have been found to be millions of years old then obviously they would not be mentioned in the Bible. They were here before the creation of Man. Science shows this. What ever catastrophic event destroyed the dinosaurs made the earth "formless". God started over with a new era with Man. Since he did not make a new earth the dinosaur bones are still here. I would be interested if someone has opinions as to why this could not be the case.


I think the only way to sort out this mess is to teach what we know to be true of evolution in Science Classes and to teach all about spiritual leaning posts in Religious Education classes - as has been the case in the UK for some time.

This apparent blurring of any division between 'start of it all' stories means that we really ought to teach all of them. If we can include quantum theory and string theory in science, then we should add to religious studies, such topics as throwing salt over ones' shoulder, why you get 7 years bad luck if you break a mirror, and why you should always carry your lucky beads.



I'm the one who made the comment about critical thinking. And it seems that I was more right than I ever dreamed.

You have all proven my point by assuming that I am a "biblical literalist" or even christian. This is the false dichotomy I was talking about.

All I'm talking about is treating EVERYTHING skeptically. There are not two mutually exclusive categories of information: science and religion.

Yes, because of the nature in which the information is obtained, science is more credible than religion. But that doesn't make it infallible, especially in the case of giant measurements which we can barely fathom. Turkey is a more modern and developed country than Afghanistan, but that doesn't make Turkey a utopia.

Saying that wrong scientific ideas were never replaced by right religious ideas is totally beside the point. The ideas were wrong, they don't need to be replaced by anything! My point is that humans are fallible. No one person or institution is a source of infallible information.

Knowledge on authority is dangerous. Period.


Okay, how about this?
1. To date, all physical evidence and scientific measurements are consistent with the notion that the universe is 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years old.
2. To date, no physical evidence or scientific measurements are consistent with the notion that the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

No theory there. Just the facts, ma'am. But I don't think they'd like that in Texas, either.


Dear critical thinking Evan,
I never assumed much about you really, except to treat your comments with scepticism. Does that mean I should be sceptical of your insistence that we should all treat things with scepticism, and therefore not be sceptical of everything else? Oh, the irony of it all.


Yes! Finally someone gets it ;)


To mike:

A theory is not a guess in science. You are confusing the common english usage with a precise scientific term. Once an falsifiable explanation for something has been tested and verified and has not been falsified by any competing scientists, it is promoted to the status of theory. It is the highest stage an explanation can ever reach - just like the theory of gravity and quantum theory.

Secondly, of course all we have is estimates for things, and there is always error in those estimates, but the important question is how much? If I ask you your age, you will give me an estimate, a precise estimate no doubt, but an estimate none the less. We have estimates of the age of the universe from different methods (not different theories), and the point is, they are relatively high precision estimates that match up across different techniques that rely on different areas of physics. It's the equivalent of you providing me with your birth certificate, timed recordings of your birth, testimony from your parents/doctors/teachers, etc., all giving converging estimates of your age.

The point I'm making is that calling it a theory is a compliment in science, and calling it an estimate is stating the bleeding obvious. And so emphasising these terms can only be for some devious, underhanded purpose.


Have these knuckle draggers succeeded yet?


Turnabout is fair play.

DEMAND that churches deliver equal time to alternative theories.

Christ maybe what the church 'experts' believe but it's only a theory.

Equal time for Zoroaster!

After all, Jesus plagerized a bunch of his stuff anyway.

They also need to know about Odin & Ra...


Ah newscientist. The garbage magazine that proclaimed on the cover in bold type that Darwin Was Wrong.

I though you would be happy about this. Your jesus obsessive target audience is really going to be really disappointed to read this.

Can't you make up your mind.

Don't worry too much, your garbage magazine isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I doubt any thinking person reads it any more anyway.


They're all wrong. We were created last week (on thursday), around 4:45 in the afternoon. All of our memories from before that were implanted by God. Just because you remember last Tuesday happening doesn't prove me wrong, that's God testing your faith!


Religion may be considered a suitable subject for scientific study under the social sciences.

It shouldn't matter so much if the viewpoints of both the scientists and religionists are presented in schools - for as long as it is clear where the viewpoints come from so that the issues are not confused.

As for "equal time" for alternatives, I doubt so much that such is possible. I think students should simply be allowed to leave the class without retributions if they don't like the discussions - including the younsters if they or their parents want them not to stay in those classes.


It isn't that what the YECs (Young Earth Creationists) believe is not true, it's that it can't possibly BE true.


Good grief, why can these religious types not leave alone. They seriously think they can can tell scientists which is right and which is wrong based on nothing more than the deranged scibblings of HUMANS a handful of centuries ago.

Personally (and this might be a little extreme) i think the scientific content of science lessons should concern itself with science. Religion can be taught in RE classes, church, sunday school, parks, shopping malls, well anywhere really, just let's leave science alone, please.

"Good morning congregation, today (as required by law) the sermon will be given by Prof. Dawkins *amen*"
You wouldn't like that so much, would you?


I’ve never been so excited reading a blog as it touches me personally.


Well writen post, thanks for this but although I agree with the author it seem like I have read this somewere before.


Anne Hathaway's dress was brilliant, except I'd most likely lose the shoulder pads. I may be incorrect about how the dress would appear without them, but I just hate shoulder pads :)

Twitter Follow us
Twitter updates
Recent comments


Your login is case sensitive

I have forgotten my password


© Copyright New Scientist Ltd.