New Mexico Bill To Protect Anti-Science Education

What scientists... by Barrinmw · 2011-02-06 08:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

...don't believe in the theory of evolution at least in principle? I know there are actual scientists who are skeptical of climate change but evolution?

Re:What scientists... by SanityInAnarchy · 2011-02-06 09:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

As with climate change, the few real scientists who are skeptical seem to be from fields which have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
Even so, I would like to point out Project Steve to anyone who wants to claim there's a scientific controversy surrounding evolution.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:What scientists... by MightyMartian · 2011-02-06 09:06 · Score: 4, Informative

Behe's claims were utterly demolished during the Dover Trial. He seemed tragically unaware that IC was in fact predicted decades ago, and does in fact have a perfectly naturalistic explanation. Behe may be a biochemist, but the only reason he even has a job is in large part due to tenure, and in no small part because you won't find a single actual publication in a journal by him expounding on his ID theories.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:What scientists... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-02-06 09:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

While it is true that evolution at the k-12 level(and often at a decent slice of undergrad) is overly simplistic, I'm not sure that avoiding over-simplification in lower level science classes is even possible. The hairy details of the field are such that even PhD'ed full-time researchers in biology related fields tend to have specializations in subsets of the field. A full knowledge of the field, and its controversies, would require nearly superhuman effort, full time. Not Happening in 9th grade Bio.

This isn't evolution specific, of course. K-12 physics is usually Newtonian, which isn't just overly simplistic; but known to be false. However, when it comes down to teaching kids how to apply mathematical models to physical situations, albeit with imperfect accuracy, or wait until they finish tensor calculus to even broach the subject, Newtonian physics usually wins. Somehow, we don't have godbots battering down the doors and demanding that "Newtonism" be presented as a controversial theory... K-12 chemistry, while less overtly false than k-12 physics, is usually heavily simplified and pretty much applies (approximately) to idealized ionic compounds, some of the better behaved transition metals, and ideal gasses. Again, as bad or worse than k-12 bio; but uncontroversial.

Math, while more likely to be correct within its limited scope, also tends to be essentially dogmatic in its approach. You might get a few axioms and proofs in geometry; but you pretty much get to take all the properties of numbers on faith until you make it to number theory sometime in college.

It is definitely true that low-level science education is, from a factual/current state of the discipline perspective, reductive, false, or both(and this is why they should really spend more time instilling inquiry, experimentation, hypothesis, testing, conclusions, etc. rather than rote "facts" that are mostly known to be wrong); but that isn't why K-12 evolutionary biology is controversial. Virtually no part of a K-12 curriculum is immune to the charges of excessive simplicity; but only in the cases where the curriculum is also ideologically inconvenient does that become a major issue(mostly evolution, occasionally American history or the English class reading list)...
Re:What scientists... by ColdWetDog · 2011-02-06 09:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Clap. Clap. This all is just a smokescreen for religious indoctrination, nothing more.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:What scientists... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-06 10:00 · Score: 4, Funny

I think you'll find that 'Creationologists' are not scientists, unless your definition of 'scientist' has been expanded to include 'nut-jobs'
Re:What scientists... by burnin1965 · 2011-02-06 10:23 · Score: 5, Informative

K-12 physics is usually Newtonian, which isn't just overly simplistic; but known to be false.
False is not the correct term, it is not 100% accurate. Newtonian mechanics is an excellent model with valuable real world applications. In fact, in most cases nobody is going to bother with quantum mechanics or general relativity to solve engineering problems that can be solved with Newtonian mechanics with more than enough accuracy to produce the desired results.
Other than that I think you are making an important point, you can't teach PhD level courses for every subject to every student. You can teach enough to create an informed and educated society that can have a meaningful discourse which is not what we currently have on the subject of evolutionary science. Most of the discourse from those who question evolutionary science is from individuals who don't have even the most basic clue as to the principles of evolutionary science and simply regurgitate pseudo-science garbage some quack fed them.
Re:What scientists... by melikamp · 2011-02-06 10:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Even young Earthers agree to certain climate change events (global floods of Noah).
This is funny. A perfect example of a global and disastrous climate change, caused by humans persisting in their errors. It is funny that many of the same people who read Bible the most manage to learn from it the least.
Re:What scientists... by bertok · 2011-02-06 10:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

This comes up all the time, and has been disproved decades ago.
I don't know what the official term for it is, but I call the solution to these "irreducible complexity" arguments the "A B C evolution sequence":
Lets say a scientist looks at a modern organism and sees that the organism has a complex organ or chemical system, or whatever, made of two parts, B and C. Neither B, nor C will work individually. How did this evolve?
The explanation is that the organism originally had a much simpler organ, or chemical, or whatever. Call it 'A'. At some point, a variant evolved that had an enhancement added to A, call it B. Now, B doesn't work by itself, but A does. Together, A & B are better than A alone. At some later point, A gets a mutation, and becomes 'C', which doesn't work by itself, but works together with B. So now you have B & C, neither of which work together, yet it was possible for evolution to take "baby steps" to get to that point.
Practical examples have been investigated by scientists. I believe the canonical example of such a complex inter-dependent system are the proteins involved in blood clotting. A significant number are required, and the whole process fails without any one of them. Obviously, at some point, blood clotting was achieved with just one protein, which then become two, then three, and then the original protein was lost, etc... The evolutionary steps involved can be investigated by looking at the blood clotting proteins in related species, looking for the patterns and commonalities up the evolutionary tree.
No God required.
Re:What scientists... by 7-Vodka · 2011-02-06 13:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's exactly this type of BS that enables people to challenge well supported theories like evolution.
The hypothesis of global warming is in a similar stage to the Theory of Evolution as it existed 150 years ago. When you equate them, you discard 150 years of investigation, learning, prediction, verification, experimentation, understanding and opportunities for falsification.
Global warming should stand on it's own, without the need to bring unrelated science fact to justify itself.
Right now, there is a consensus that while there are a few outliers, the evidence as a whole points to the warming of the planet by a fraction of a degree in recent history. This is good. What I would like to see now is the very serious separation of global warming from 'man made' global warming in public discussions.
They are separable variables and should be very clearly treated as such. In every single discussion.
Oh, let's also drop the new fad of calling the hypothesis "climate change". The climate ALWAYS changes. Global warming is the only of the two descriptions that actually describes the hypothesis.

--
Liberty.
Re:What scientists... by MightyMartian · 2011-02-06 14:33 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
Behe has been debunked. Get over it. He has no standing in the evolutionary community, he is a laughing stock at Baylor and only tenure and the fact he doesn't use the university "letterhead" so to speak keeps him in a job. I'll repeat, he has never ever ever ever published this in any peer-reviewed journal. On top of being an anti-intellectual liar who only manages to fool hopeless morons, he's also a coward.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:What scientists... by tragedy · 2011-02-06 16:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

If there were no flying squirrels/bats, etc. you'd probably also be arguing that wings are irreducibly complex. After all, why would evolution cause an animal to lose a perfectly good set of limbs, just to spend thousands of years developing wings capable of actually flying. Fortunately, we can see dozens of examples in nature of rudimentary wings at different stages of development that make it very obvious how it happens. Despite all this, people, including respected scientists, still once upon a time tried to insist that the feathers on Archeopteryx were fake, even though it obviously has wings (if not wings, then it has a ridiculously long finger). The respected scientist in that case was curmudgeon Fred Hoyle, who coined the term 'big bang' (although he disagreed and originated the competing steady state theory), and did the important early work on stellar nucleosynthesis. Notably lacking among his credentials are paleontology and geology, and his debunking of Archeopteryx has since been thoroughly debunked (everything he claimed about the fossil was a misconception, not to mention that too many other Archeopteryx and other feathered dinosaur fossils have been found since then). For some reason, people with an agenda to push can always find these supposedly logical impossible puzzles in development.
To address the points you made in your discussion, I'd like to start by correcting your misconception that an important part of evolution is that "the strong survive while the weak die off". It's not survival of the strongest, it's survival of the _fittest_. Evolution isn't some path to godlike perfection. Evolution is just a way of describing a system of trial and error that reacts to the environment (an environment that, by the way, is made up of other organisms that are always evolving). Any genetic change that makes an individual stronger (such as 25% larger muscles), doesn't necessarily make the individual fitter because there could be a drought and a sudden lack of food and the individual with more mass to support isn't going to be able to get enough food to survive and is therefore less fit (or, in some conditions it will be able to get more food and will be more fit - a lot depends on random circumstance). Not to mention the other important fact that the individual with the bloated muscles or increased size due to a mutation may find itself without the skeletal structure to support its muscles or with a circulatory system the design of which doesn't scale up with the demands of its increased size. Heart problems are very common in human giants, even though bipedal creatures massively larger than them have existed. It's obvious then that most "beneficial" mutations are not actually beneficial to start with. Instead, most of them are survived rather than increasing survivability. Other mutations, or genetic combinations with existing mutations, can later combine to actually confer genetic advantage and then the bearers of the beneficial genetic legacy can go on to supplant the rest of the population, or use their newfound ability to spread out into a new environmental niche. Obviously evolution isn't just one process, simply illustrated in a textbook, it's a blanket term for an entire set of feedback processes.
On to four chambered hearts. You ask how evolution explains it, then go on to claim that "nowhere is there any type of record, fossil or otherwise that explains how a four chambered mammalian heard evolved from a three chambered reptilian heart". If you'd open your eyes, you'd see that there are plenty of examples of birth defects in which even human infants are born with extra heart chambers. They usually are not functional, and usually lead to early death. If there's a genetic predisposition to such defects, and conditions are right, entire populations can exist with the same defect. They don't have to be fittest, they just have to be viable. Then, eventually, other mutations may occur that improve the functionality of the mutation, up to the point where it actually provides an advantage over

Luckily for them... by Joce640k · 2011-02-06 08:54 · Score: 5, Funny

Luckily for them The Bible isn't scientific so they won't have to teach the weaknesses in that.

--
No sig today...

Re:Luckily for them... by Amorymeltzer · 2011-02-06 09:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Quite the contrary! Creation and Intelligent Design would, in New Mexico, arguably fall under the umbrella of "other scientific topics," which means no teacher could be reprimanded for teaching the serious scientific weaknesses in those "theories." Sounds like they'll open the door for the real teachers to talk freely about how absurd arguments against evolution are.

--
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.

Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-06 09:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

"It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."
— Carl Sagan

Re:How is it anti-science to teach... by MightyMartian · 2011-02-06 09:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

First of all, no one is saying that a theory's weaknesses can't be discussed, but these kinds of laws are not designed to do that, they are designed to give weight to Creationism and ID. It has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with giving a false sense of weakness in scientific theories. Evolutionary theory has issues, but then again so does gravity, or any other theory.

A second point is that there are not enough hours in the day to give kids more than a brief survey of, say, evolution. You're notion that teachers are equipped to take children through a theory like evolution in that detail, or that children who are even less well equipped can hope to comprehend. What you want is absurd, but seems fairly standard for Creationists who try to make the unreasonable sound reasonable.

Beyond all of that, of course, is that this law is on the face of it unconstitutional. This was all dealt with a few decades ago, and much of it was reiterated and expanded on by the Dover Trial.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:Why not? by v1 · 2011-02-06 09:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm going to be downmodded to death, but isn't science about keeping an open mind?

Well there's "open mind" and then there's "absurd". You wouldn't sanction another instructor walking into the room and trying to offer the students "alternate options" like a flat earth or the moon made of cheese.

"Open Mind" is for topics that have not been thoroughly figured out. It's good for things that we don't fully understand yet, to encourage different opinions and explore ways to get closer to the truth.

Once all reasonable doubt has been settled, it's time to accept reality and stop placing any credibility in what's written in some 2000 yr old book.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.

Re:Why not? by NeutronCowboy · 2011-02-06 09:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

Things like Creationism aren't science, and therefore do not belong in a science class. They should, however, be discussed in Philosophy class. Oh, wait, that's right. Most US schools do not teach Philosophy anymore.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

Re:How is it anti-science to teach... by Palmsie · 2011-02-06 09:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

It isn't anti-science to expose limitations of a theory. In fact, theories are bolstered only due to their ability to rule out alternative hypotheses (rejecting the null hypothesis).

However, it is anti-science to introduce an idea that is unfalsifiable and call it science. Unfalsifiability is one of the major tenants of science, the scientific process, and theory creation and development. In order for a proposition to become a theory it needs to be testable. Creationism is founded upon belief. I cannot tell a student to go find evidence for creationism. I can, however, tell someone to go find evidence either FOR or AGAINST evolution. However, evolution has so much evidence in favor of it, it is a generally accepted framework for the origin of species. It doesn't claim perfection, no scientific process does. Indeed, the rise of post-positivism as a major philosophical and scientific building block is a testament to this. Post-positivism claims that since humans are imperfect it is impossible to measure any phenomenon perfectly (measurement is asymptotic with Truth). Ultimately, the Bible provides merely circular reasoning for Creationism as a possible scientific explanation. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God or any mechanisms that he might provide (creationism). Therefore, it is unfalsifiable and cannot be taught as an alternative explanation to any scientific principle, theory, or proposition since creationism ultimately reduces to faith.

--
Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.

Re:Why not? by Kronotross · 2011-02-06 09:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Seeing both sides of an issue is a easier to do when there are two sides to an issue. We are as confident in the presence of evolution as we are in the presence of gravity, but we don't have our science teachers expressing weaknesses with that particular phenomenon despite the fact that birds are regularly seen flying. I'm confident that one could come up with any number of theories as to why we are pulled towards the ground (the Earth sucks, Jesus has his hand on all of our shoulders, et cetera) but there is one scientifically valid explanation for gravity, and that is the explanation we give in science class. Likewise, I'm sure there are other explanations for the variety of life on the planet other than evolution: scientifically invalid ones. By all means, teach them that Christianity disagrees with scientific thought... in a social studies or religion class, where it's appropriate.

Re:Why not? by binarstu · 2011-02-06 09:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

I agree with you that skepticism is important in science (and critical thinking in general). However, I think the big problem with this bill is that it explicitly calls evolution a "controversial scientific topic". Evolution is not controversial. Biologists may argue about the details of how evolution happens, but they don't dispute that evolution does happen. Just as bad, this bill lists "human cloning" along with evolution and climate change, which is very misleading. Human cloning is a technology, not a line of scientific inquiry like evolution and climate change are. And it is controversial for ethical and moral reasons, entirely unlike evolution and climate change. So yes, skepticism is good, but the language and assumptions used in this bill seem to me to be rather bad.

Re:Why not? by AdmiralXyz · 2011-02-06 09:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because teaching that evolution is wrong is lying and "making things up", no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. Teaching kids to see both sides of an issue is all fine and good, but teaching them that anti-intellectual dogma deserves to be placed on the same plane as established scientific fact is not, and the reason this is so important is because children don't have the innate ability to tell the difference- that's why we have education in the first place.

--
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Probably won't pass by mdphdscddlitt · 2011-02-06 09:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

From TFA:
Rosenau said House Bill 302 will probably never see the light of day...

However, the fact that it's even being considered is worrying. It's another signpost on a road that seems to be heading for a generation of credulous morons. I don't see any significant barricades.

Re:How is it anti-science to teach... by MightyMartian · 2011-02-06 09:08 · Score: 4, Informative

Okay, first of all. Things in science are not "proven" in the sense that there is some point when you say "Well, that's 100% positive". As much as any theory can be proven evolution has been proven.

Secondly, "it's still a theory" indicates a woeful ignorance of what a scientific theory is. Theory, in science, isn't some wild-assed guess. It is well supported by multiple streams of evidence. What you're committing is the etymological fallacy, conflating two different definitions of a word.

As to the evidence for evolution, it is rather vast. If you have any doubts on that point, visit http://talkorigins.org/.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:Why not? by mbone · 2011-02-06 09:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because this has nothing to do with keeping an open mind, and is in fact intended to do the exact opposite - to keep minds closed. Now, the chances of this bill becoming law are pretty small, but it is pernicious and will have a chilling effect. Representative Anderson should be ashamed of himself, but I suspect that he is nothing more than a conman without that ability.

This is the world of greater democracy. by steve+buttgereit · 2011-02-06 09:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is just the outcome of public provided services and a government increasingly directed by the whims of the majority. I thought that was what everybody here was clamoring for? Freeing the people... ...if the people just happen to be dumb-shits or irrational? Well that's the bed you've made for yourself, why are you disappointed or put out?

Re:Why not? by Elbereth · 2011-02-06 09:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Both sides of the issue? What issue? There are no issues to teach! The only possible "controversy" comes from people who are not scientists and have something to lose by believing the prevailing theory. Nobody wants to teach the "controversy" that surrounds gravity; it's only when you contradict what people already believe that you end up with this kind of irrational resistance. What are these "open-minded" teachers supposed to do? Read from a Bible, so that kids are exposed to the fundamentalist Christian doctrine of creationism? That's for religion or philosophy class, not science class. Have the CEO of a multinational corporation come in and deny man-made climate change? That's for a politics class, not a science class. Have some crank who doesn't believe in the moon landings preach his conspiracy theory, as an equal opportunity to teaching physics?

This is bullshit, and the supporters know it. They just want to indoctrinate the kids with their message, rather than allowing only what they see as their opponents being able to indoctrinate the kids. If this were politics, philosophy, or religion class, I'd say, "Yes, that's a very good idea. All viewpoints should be heard." But it's not. It's science class, and science class doesn't lend itself to this kind of "all viewpoints are equally valid" philosophy. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean that you should be able to teach it along side an actual theory.

Re:Why not? by MightyMartian · 2011-02-06 09:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

That rather depends on what you mean by open minded. Being prepared to have your explanations demonstrated to be wrong is certainly a prerequesite. Wasting mental power on long debunked claims constantly being dressed up in new clothes is not open mindedness, it's just stupidity.

Creationism is garbage, ID is Creationism in pseudo-scientific clothes, but in fact even more vapid and meaningless than Creationism. I would not count a young biologist as being closed minded for ignoring the mutterings of the likes of Behe and Dembske.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Who put the moon there? by creativeHavoc · 2011-02-06 09:27 · Score: 4, Funny

Bill O'Reilly of course has his own views on science: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2011/02/bill-oreillys-latest-faux-science-lesson-the-other-planets-dont-really-have-any-moons.html

--
insight through the mind

The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth by sconeu · 2011-02-06 09:43 · Score: 4, Funny

It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

Re:How is it anti-science to teach... by burnin1965 · 2011-02-06 10:45 · Score: 5, Informative

It isn't anti-science to expose limitations of a theory.

When you are educating students on basic science and teaching scientifically accepted theories it absolutely is anti-science to turn around and tell the students that it all may not be true and they will have to rule out alternative hypotheses before they should accept evolutionary science even though most of the students will never have the necessary education to effectively analyse evolutionary evidence themselves.

And lets be honest, it is anti-science because the objective of these efforts to teach wishy washy science to students in public schools is not intended to produce a generation of scientifically astute students, the purpose is to undermine confidence in science and perpetuate ignorance.

These people are insane. by multiplexo · 2011-02-06 15:42 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm sick and tired of these people and their fucking stupid and insane religious beliefs, can anyone think of a way we can get them to be like those idiot comet cultists in Los Angeles back in the 90s? You know the ones I'm talking about, the group where the men cut their own balls off and then everyone ate a bunch of Jello pudding that had been laced with tranquilizers and they all died. Can we get the Evangelical Christoids to start doing this? Tell them that their penises and testicles are evil and that they need to cut them off so that they won't sin, and then get them to believe that Jesus wants them to overdose on tranquilizers and that they'll go to Heaven and bring about the Rapture if they do?

--
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.

Slashdot Mirror

New Mexico Bill To Protect Anti-Science Education

32 of 726 comments (clear)