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.
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
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.