Slashdot Mirror
Mixed Outcome of Texas Textbook Vote
The Texas Board of Education — as discussed here last week — has voted on the guidelines for textbooks in that state, which represents a large enough market to have influence nationwide. The good news is that the board dropped a 20-year-old requirement that both "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories be taught; score one for the teaching of evolution. The not-so-good news is that in a "compromise," the board also voted to require that students "in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations ... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student." Score one for the Discovery Institute. A Republican board member explained that the words "strengths and weaknesses" have become "code for creationism and [the similar theory of] intelligent design. So by being more clear in the language and using words that aren't seen as code words, we were able to get all of the 15 board members to agree that this is how we'll teach all sides of scientific explanation, using scientific evidence." Reporting on the Texas vote is all over the map, as a US Today blog summarizes. Some reports claim that an amendment was passed that preserves a
requirement that students study the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of common ancestry and natural selection. Other reports claim that the board also adopted language that would have students study the "different views on the existence of global warming."
You are wrong. Maybe you shouldn't get your science from your preacher there, dumbass.
The Theory of Evolution makes predictions about the kinds of fossils that should be found, and guess what, we keep finding them. It has been tested and proven itself quite well.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Superficially, the decision sounds fine - of course we want students to analyze the scientific evidence! The problem is that the creationists are going to come back with a novel definition of 'scientific' evidence that treats Intelligent Design as a scientific hypothesis, and they're going to demand textbooks that include a treatment of all kinds of nonsensical 'theories'. ID is not scientific. It has no evidence in its favor (pointing out that we lack intermediate fossils showing the evolution of the lesser red-necked Argentinian swamp leech is not evidence that it was designed). But the Discovery Institute does have another bad textbook waiting in the wings for the next round of textbook-buying decisions in Texas.
For more details, see here.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
As I have mentioned, Wikipedia already has all the answers in way better wording then I would ever come up with. In fact there is an entire article just dedicated to that question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye.
Your third paragraph "magically decides that it needs to see when it has no concept of sight" seems to say that you don't understand how evolution works at all. There is no causal factor involved here. Perhaps you were just being dramatic. If you still feel confused after reading the article let me know - I work in this field (evo in general) and am happy to explain any of the details involved in evolution.
If the biblical account is confused as you say, why mention it at all. There are better sources to look to then the confused writings of people who lived a long time ago.
I know plenty of people who are Christians as well as scientists - however the great majority see it as some vague metaphor rather than a how to guide for understanding the universe.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Whether you want to call it proof or disproof is a matter of semantics. However, the theory of evolution makes testable predictions. Those predictions have been tested repeatedly; sometimes they've been wrong and the theory has advanced (it's not the same as it was when Darwin proposed it), and often they've been quite accurate. The most dramatic examples are things like predictions that we would find intermediate fossils of a species in between two known fossils.
If you're looking for direct observational evidence of speciation (sometimes called macro evolution), it has been observed in the lab. One of the defining characteristics of E. Coli is the inability to metabolize citrate; this experiment demonstrated that E. Coli can evolve into something that can metabolize citrate.
In general, most modern scientific theories can't be tested in detail in the classroom; testing even Newton's version of gravity is a nontrivial experiment for a high school classroom. That doesn't mean it isn't worth study, though -- a discussion of the experiments is still useful.
Let say our culture eliminates itself, and after 50000 years nearly no traces of us will be left. Still somebody looking at the Genes of the animals *will* find ID. He will find that certain genes were selected far beyond natural selection (actively bred), sometimes different from what you would expect in nature, and that new genes which do not belong to the pool of a species will appear (insulin in bacteria). What i want to say: there are scientific criteria for ID, but usually proposers of ID just want to justify their superstition and therefore hesitate to define these. Would i be in their place i would also hesitate, because this has the big risk of failing spectacularly.
There's a name for what you're describing: artificial selection. It has nothing to do with "intelligent design," which is the claim that all life on earth was created (more or less in its present form) by some unknowable entity. Artificial selection is part of evolutionary theory and you would find no competent evolutionary biologist who would deny its existence.
In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
From what I understand they have issues with the probability of non-life becoming life (abiogenesis), they claim that the theory of evolution cannot account for events like the Cambrian explosion, and the last thing I seem to find as a common theme for issues with evolution is their supposition that mutations are almost never if ever beneficial.
Here is a page for the weaknesses of evolution according to some people that want to play both sides. http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Weaknesses/essential_weaknesses.htm
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
> While I think the evangelical movement is disturbing I don't think their views should be silenced
Their view are not science, and should not be even addressed in a science classroom. There should be no mention of creationism in a biology book. Maybe in a generic science book, as a counter-example to show what untestable stuff is.
They can have theological courses, full of creationism, and other untestable "theories".
How is having confidence in an unproven scientific theory any different that having faith in god?
This is the sentence that shows your misconceptions about science.
One does not have "confidence" in an unproven scientific theory. Unproven theories are tested and tested and REtested. If the theory is incorrect, it's rethought and revised. A theory is NEVER "trusted" until it has stood against rigor.
On the other hand, religion is trusted because, why, exactly? Because it's written in a book?
Religion and science is are two completely different beasts. Whereas religion is deeply personal and highly subjective, science is very much objective, and always reviewed by one's peers.
Evolution is a theory that has been around for some time now. MOUNTAINS of fossil evidence supports it. It has been examined time and time again, and the theories regarding the mechanics behind it have been revisited numerous times, as well. The only logical conclusion is that evolution is a fact; the evidence clearly shows it occurring, we just haven't quite figured out the specifics yet; at least not perfectly.
Also, re-read my first post. My problem is with those who can't reconcile their religious beliefs with science, not with religion in general. Science doesn't invalidate religion, and people who act like it does piss me off. If your "faith" isn't strong enough to survive basic science, then it isn't faith at all. It's ignorance. And calling that "faith" is an insult to anyone who holds true faith; one who can see that the mechanics of the universe doesn't threaten the existence of God, even if those mechanics DON'T match up with the literal reading of a book written thousands of years ago.
My sig can beat up your sig.
Here is a page for the weaknesses of evolution according to some people that want to play both sides. http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Weaknesses/essential_weaknesses.htm
Hmmm... just looking at that page. I think they are a bit behind on the times. First, I will link to this paper:
On the Origins of Cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells by William Martin and Michael J Russell. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 29 January 2003 vol. 358 no. 1429 59-85 (PDF of the full textlink is on the right side of the page)
Now, to address the abiogenesis points from the page you linked to:
- The extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems.
From the origin of the Earth as a solid surfaced planet covered with water to the first fossil evidence of biochemistry is a time span of a few hundred MILLION years, with an additional few hundred MILLION years to the first free living single celled organisms. After that, we have a couple BILLION years before we see more complex life forms. On those time scales, questions of probability seem moot, given the conditions on earth.
- The high probability of breakdown by hydrolysis of amino acid chains if they were to form in the first place.
Given the right conditions and enough time, this seems probable. The paper I just linked to has a very compelling hypothesis for how to keep new biomolecules in high enough concentrations for biochemistry to begin.
- No known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in RNA and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems.
- All natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules.
Again, the paper I linked to has excellent, well-supported hypotheses about how the chiralities of biomolecules was selected.
- Photo dissociation of water vapor has been a source of oxygen since the Earth formed, and there is substantial geologic evidence that a significant amount of oxygen existed in the atmosphere prior to the advent of photosynthesis. Oxygen breaks down amino acids and sugars that are postulated to have formed!
The most likely origin of life is not at the surface, where Oxygen would be an issue, but at deep sea thermal vents. This hypothesis gives the best bet for a continuous energy source and influx of raw materials.
- There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.
No one argues that these processes are random. They are well within the laws of physics and chemistry, and, in being constrained by those laws of the natural universe, are not random.
Hmmm... I could keep going, but I don't have the time right now. Basically, a lot of those supposed weaknesses have been addressed and addressed very well by biochemists and molecular biologists studying the idea of abiogenesis and evolutionary biologists, ecologists, etc. studying other aspects of biology. The theory of Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories mankind has come up with so far. The theory of abiogenesis is certainly gaining ground, and to date seems the most likely case (read the paper I linked for a lot of reasonable hypotheses as well as compelling evidence that supports them).
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
I'd like to point out that believing in a creator or designer (that is responsible for evolution) is not the same as believing in intelligent design. Intelligent Design was a movement aimed at presenting Creationism in a new light, and avoid precedent that may have been set by courts ruling against Creationism.
"Ken Miller on Intelligent Design" (he's Catholic but he testified on the side of scientists in Kitzmiller v. Dover)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Actually the ruling in that case is very instructive on this whole thing, for what I mentioned the relevant quote is "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism." Part of the evidence was the comparisons of different revisions of _Of Pandas and People_, where they essentially used a find+replace to switch Creationism to ID.
I guess what I am trying to say is that Intelligent Design is sort of like a trademark...it has a specific meaning and purpose which is separate from what the actual words in the phrase would lead you to think (gee, I wonder why) and by calling what I have to assume is a combination of belief in God and acknowledgment of evolution "a variant of ID" you are doing yourself a disservice and might give people the wrong impression.
The problem with that particular bit of the Bible is that it's two fricken completely different stories that both got included. People who actually READ the language of the ORIGINAL agree on this. Plus there's the fact that they are both based on different Mesopotamian creation stories. Translation actually has very little to do with it in the case of the Old Testament. Many, many people still read the original language, it's the religious language of the Jews and a modern variant is the spoken language of Israel. there are some bits where current vs. older meanings of words and similar linguistic developments call into question specific meanings and interruptions occasionally. The most popular I can think of being the passage which says, "thou shalt not suffer a 'witch' to live." There's question about whether the word "witch" means "Practitioner of magic", "Evil practitioner of magic", or simply "Poisoner of wells". That's a specific question about word definition and development of language though, not a "How do we read this text, we're not sure" question.
The New Testament can be a bit more persnickety when it comes to translation. No one currently speaks Aramaic as a primary language, and modern Greek is not all that similar. Since the vast majority of the world's Christians have been working from various translations for centuries, doctrinal questions have been answered (or backed up by) some dicey translations.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds
A new survey in the UK found that 29 percent of teachers think creationism and intelligent design should be taught as science
More schools teaching biblical creation are to be established across the north east of England.
The cdesign proponentsists are everywhere. The sooner you recognize the problem exists where you are too, the sooner you can fix it.
Not on point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Read the first paragraph.
Oh, never mind, I'll copy it for you:
"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time."
I don't have to read the fucking website and I don't have to post as an AC
I call Bull..
First, keeping an open mind is one thing, but an extreme belief requires extreme evidence.
1.) Show me reliable statistics demonstrating that those from a particular church have a lower than general population death rate for non-treatable illness.
2.) Show me reliable statistics that show a particular church has a higher 'spontaniously' cured from disease rate than the population at large.
3.) Heck, show me reliable statistics that demonstrate a lower accident rate for those from a particular church than the general population of the area.
That sort of evidence, reliably demonstrated, and shown to be repeatable over time, could open the discusion (by no means proving).
Demanding this data to back up your claim is not being close minded, it is simply being skeptical and consistent about what I chose to believe.
Anecdotes are not evidence; otherwise I would have to believe that Astrology is just as valid, since I've heard so many stories about how a horoscope was just right on for a given person on a given day.
The purpose of high school science education is to present the general scientific method, and to present an overview of each field of science as understood and practiced by professionals in that field. In biology, that means evolution. Rounded to the nearest percentage point, 100% of biologists consider evolution to be absolutely confirmed by the evidence and to be the uncontested foundation of their field. Presenting any picture other than that one to students is outright fraudulent.
Evolution should be treated the exact same way as chemistry.
If students have questions you answer them. You do not put together a curriculum filled with incorrect definitions and scientifically refuted arguments and just plain false statements trying to undermine chemistry. As the extremely conservative Bush-appointed judge determined in the Dover Pennsylvania court case, every single argument they want to present in class has been scientifically refuted. As he ruled, the stuff they want to teach is not science.
Evolution should be treated the exact same way as chemistry.
We should not be singling out one arbitrary field of science for different treatment. We most especially should not be singling out one arbitrary field of science to be undermined in school. Just because some people objected to Galileo, just because some people looked to the Bible and said "The earth does not move", just because some people had the hubris to tell God He is forbidden to run His universe that way, is not a valid reason to undermine proper science education.
Proper science education means an ACCURATE presentation of science as understood and practiced by professionals in that field. And in biology, for 100% of biologists, that is evolution.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I was thinking the same about science. If you have to hide the weaknesses of a theory from students, then it does not deserve to be taught.
I'd phrase it a bit differently, but I agree with your point. However that's not what we're talking about here. In the Dover Pennsylvania court case an extremely conservative Bush-appointed judge spent weeks listening to the best experts and best evidence and best arguments from both sides, and he blasted the anti-evolution side. He concluded that all of the arguments on the anti-evolution side had been scientifically refuted. He also blasted them for lying under oath and misrepresenting their intent and their materials. The activists pushing this stuff are literalist Biblical fundamentalists, and their STATED goal was explicitly to use the schools to push their particular interpretation of religion. Their proposed class materials were not science, and had no scientific intent or function. They had no legitimate educational intent or function. The purpose of their materials was solely to press their religious views and to (improperly) undermine science that they disliked on solely theological grounds.
I would love for science education rise to a level where teachers addressed genuine controversies in science and fostered healthy skepticism and proper critique in science. But that's not what this is. This is singling out one arbitrary field of science education to be undermined. This is the Church suppressing and imprisoning Galileo for saying the earth moves.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I have to agree with you there. He was wrong to say "evolution already has stood up under all possible scientific scrutiny.
However if you remove the word "possible" then it is correct: "evolution already has stood up under all scientific scrutiny". Thus far every challenge to evolution has fallen down in scientific peer review. Just as chemistry has.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I agree with that post, with one clarification.
Whether is is chemistry or evolution, yes I absolutely agree with students asking questions and that a good teacher should strive to answer any and all questions that arise, within time and subject matter constraints, and that a really good will turn it into a valuable learning experience when they don't know the answer - leading the class on how to discover that answer.
I am also all in support of sincere questions about science among the general public. In the vast majority of cases the non-scientist asking the question can learn how and why scientists say X, and learn who X is right. And if by some extraordinary chance a non-scientist asks something about (for example) chemistry and identifies a genuine problem, that is a Good Thing. Discovering some flaw in science is a rare and powerful opportunity for major new advancement.
If you have some sincere question/doubt/challenge about evolution, and you actually care about the answer, there is a very high probability I can answer it or find the answer.
However I need to clarify that "sincerely asking questions" is not what this article is about. If someone compiles a list of "questions" and spewing those questions at students with no intent to answer them and no desire to obtain answers to those "questions".... that is not asking a question. A teacher monopolizing a class and spewing fraudulent questions and not answering them.... and deliberately avoiding answers that do exist... designed to leaving students with the (false) impression that no answers exist..... that is not questioning. That is propaganda. If a holocaust denialist runs an entire class with phony "questions" like "If the holocaust happened then where are the millions and millions of dead bodies"... questions designed to "stump" the poor victim children in his class and leave them with the (false) impression that no one has any answer for it... that is propaganda.
The purpose of the anti-evolution curriculum is not to educate and enlighten students. It s designed to undermine understanding, designed to leave students lost and confused and deliberately leave them with no answers. It is designed to leave out the answers that science does have to offer. It is designed to avoid the answers that science does have to offer. The typical strategy is to fire a shotgun blast of lots of little plausible-sounding "problems" at the wall, with the implication that at least one of them must be fatal. And if there is actually someone there to supply the answers... when they take the time to successfully answer one.... and two... and three... and four.... and five of the attacks... that still leaves more "shotgun pellet" attacks hanging in the air that he just plain didn't have time to answer. And the anti-evolutionist just *doesn't care* that five phony questions were just successfully answered.... they just rest on the implication that "heay, one of the other attacks must have been right". And no matter how many "questions" the evolution sides does successfully answer, the anti-evolutionists never run plausible-sounding-but-wrong attacks to keep flinging at the wall because they keep pulling up old arguments that have been shown wrong a thousand times before.
As the judge concluded in the Dover case, after weeks of testimony from both sides, every single "question" being promoted by the anti-evolution side has already been scientifically refuted. Each "question" against evolution on their intended school curriculum is already known to be flawed and/or there is already a known answer available. They want to teach known flawed questions, and they want to deliberately teach valid questions without supplying students with the valid answers we already know exist for those questions.
And again I'll make the bold offer - if you have a sincere doubt or question about evolution.... if you want to understand how or why scientists believe it is true and works.... if you want to know what evidence exists that so strongl
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.