Slashdot Mirror
For Texas Textbooks, a Victory For Evolution
An anonymous reader writes "The Texas Board of Education has unanimously come down on the side of evolution. In an 8-0 vote, the board today approved scientifically accurate high school biology textbook supplements from established mainstream publishers — and did not approve the creationist-backed supplements from International Databases, LLC."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBmhM0R2A0
Maybe there is a God.
Apparently they had an outbreak of common sense in Texas
They might be a minority, but there's still enough of them so as to pose a threat to education in the US. Or have you not noticed all the "Intelligent" Design proponents that have been having success watering down the science curriculum.
The scary part is that this subject was even up for debate.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
A bit on the wrong side, aren't you? Evolutionary theories aren't dogma - like most scientific theories they are constantly being revised as new discoveries are made, and they form a central part of the the basis of modern biology. "Free thinkers" who profess the "religious creationism in a fancy dress" like Intelligent Design are pushing forward conclusions that predate genetics and other discoveries. Are there other conclusions (made thousands of years ago by nomadic tribesmen sitting around a campfire) you also will consider more valid than modern science? Should we perhaps abandon these fancy cars for trusty old camels?
Evolution deniers are skeptics in much the same way Holocaust deniers are skeptics. Should history classes teach historical revisionism? Or what about introducing contra-factual history ("what if" scenarios) at an early age to sow confusion? Should physics classes also teach the element-based world view? How about re-introducing the liquid balance principles in medicine?
One question I'd like to ask Darwin, if he were still alive, is this: If man evolved from apes, then why do we still have apes? Why didn't all species evolve like man supposedly did?
Seriously, pick-up a decent book on evolutionary biology. Even AIG advise against this argument.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Not even remotely true. In the area I come from, the creationist strategy is simply changing.
When I was just a child there was a community not far from my home that had maybe ten houses and an ultra-fundamentalist church with 50 or so members. I went to school with some of the members' kids, and it led to some very interesting conversations (and I was raised in a liberal-ish Lutheran congregation, so its not as though I'm at all hostile to Christianity).. Anyway, that congregation has something like quadrupled in size, and is currently adding on a youth center and a gym to "keep the kids out of sin." Presumably there will eventually be an ultraconservative private school there, since the people that attend that church are fed up with not getting their way in our local school districts (although I vividly remember having to watch creationist propaganda in eighth grade science class, though at that time no one said anything.). A friend of mine growing up, from a different church (hes baptist), told me in college he learns the biology textbook to pass the tests, but refuses believe any of it. I imagine that will be the line the private religious school will take too.
I guess the point I'm making is that creationist teaching is just going underground. These people are segregating themselves and becoming more radical, which is providing the illusion that the creationist line of thought is in decline and the attack on science is relenting. It isn't. Segregated communities are indoctrinating kids from day one, then sending them to conservative colleges and law schools where they are trained to enter government and undermine it from within. Representative Bachmann is a prime example, she doesn't even deny that was the mission of the law school she attended.
I'll end with this tidbit: ever wonder why ultraconservatives were pushing so hard for a school voucher system? Could it be that such a system would make it frighteningly easy for this type of behavior to flourish, by essentially subsidizing extremist institutions? Just my take on things of course, but it disturbs me as someone inside the scientific community.
They did evolve. They just didn't evolve into humans, but into chimpanzees and bonobos.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Most of it was depressing, I agree. A few (and I really do mean, a *few*) responses were encouraging--Miss California's for example.
It's amusing how so many responses follow the same, superficial notion of "teach both sides! Knowledge is good! Let people make up their own minds!" That misses the whole point entirely. The question itself is poorly phrased. Evolution isn't something that requires belief, at least not in the sense of personal faith. It isn't something that you "should" or "should not" be taught. Evolution by natural selection MUST be taught, if you are to teach biology. To not do so would be like attempting to teach mathematics without discussing multiplication, or chemistry without talking about the periodic table, or American history without mentioning the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence. Thus, to ask the question "should evolution be taught in schools" is no different than asking "should biology be taught in schools," or more broadly, "should SCIENCE be taught in schools." You can't separate the two.
You can't really blame these contestants for being so hopelessly ignorant. They didn't get on that stage with their brainpower.
I had to shut it off after the fifth one though.... incredibly depressing to watch.
Others made a great antidote for that.
Donate free food here
Try living here.
What? In a Miss USA pagent?
I'd try it at least for a little while. Until my wife found out, anyway....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Oh, and let's also explain exactly what a virgin is and what that's all about. Since they may ask what that is, and we mustn't lie.
Excuse me: I have a pretty good explanation of what all that's about. It seems to be nothing more (or less) that a recurring mythos in human culture.
Of course, when these myths were popularized, there wasn't the Gutenberg press, or the internet, or any sort of mass communication to raise people's awareness that "Hey! Isn't that the same as THIS story over here? What're you trying to sell us?!?" But now, people have to simply be Willfully Blind to not see the parallels in these myths.
And before the Thumpers start rationalizing "Those aren't myths. Those are simply different accounts of the same events.", keep in mind that the spread of these myths completely parallels the trade-routes of the day.
Nope. The FSM mythos is, and always has been, spread by those who have seen it as a way to bring power and wealth to themselves.
In short. A "con".
You deserve to be flamed, if only for your blatant ignorance of biology. There is no difference between micro and macro evolution.
The concept that there is a difference is a "talking point" (read: "logical fallacy") promoted by cretins... sorry, creationists. Since their first stance - "Nobody has ever seen evolution happen" - has been conclusively disproved by the existence of antibiotic resistant bacteria, they've moved the goalpost, created an imaginary distinction between micro and macro evolution and pretended that macro evolution hasn't been observed.
So it's at least two fallacies for the price of one. And it's biologically incorrect. You will never, ever see a credible biologist talk of macro and micro evolution, and seeing a person claim a distinction should be a red flag as to their dishonesty or ignorance, depending on how kindly you wish to view them.
In genuine biology, what creationists call macro evolution is instead called speciation. And it's universally understood that speciation occurs as a result of the accumulation of small changes, i.e. what a creationist calls micro evolution. Now, not only has speciation been observed, making the "Nobody has seen macro evolution" argument outdated, but pretending that there must exist a single speciation event, rather than an accumulation of change, makes the creationist's argument more convincing. They're playing on the general public's ignorance of biology.
A friend of mine growing up, from a different church (hes baptist), told me in college he learns the biology textbook to pass the tests, but refuses believe any of it. I imagine that will be the line the private religious school will take too.
You're right about their desire to set up their own schools, with the government picking up as much of the expense as they get get, but the curriculum in those schools simply don't include evolution, except perhaps for a cartoon form designed for easy refutation. That's the way they work today, according to people who've attended them.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with refusing to believe what's in the books. A doctoral student of Stephen J Gould was a plant by the Moonies - they paid for his Harvard education so they could have a PhD biologist arguing against evolution. (It didn't work; his research has been in a non-evolutionary field, and he's been noticeably silent on the subject of evolution.) But when Gould was asked about this student, who had publically said that he doesn't believe in evolution, Gould responded that, in order to earn a doctorate, the student had to show mastery of the material. Science doesn't compel belief.
Maybe it's different in the USA, but that's what happened in my school. The textbooks didn't just present evolution as some magical theory with no context, they explained the context around the development of the theory, the evidence for it, and contrasted it with the divine creation idea that was popular at the time of Darwin. The physics textbooks did the same, for example discussing the luminiferous aether and the experiments that were done to disprove it. They started right in the first science lessons before we even split lessons into biology, physics, and chemistry, by explaining requirements for a scientific theory (such as falsifiability) and using some religious beliefs as counterexamples.
It sounds like the bigger problem in the USA is science being taught as religion, not religion being taught as science.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
but pretending that there must exist a single speciation event, rather than an accumulation of change
Kind of on that note: One day a few years back I was walking along a trail in the jungles of Hawaii with my extremely-religious aunt. As she was admiring all the beautiful flora and fauna she said "This is proof that God must exist. How else could all this beauty just instantly appear out of nowhere?" I wanted to say something but didn't feel like debating with a religious psychopath who also happens to be a family member that I love and don't really want mad at me. But that right there showed me that they really don't understand what evolution means. Perhaps it's because they don't care to investigate and learn about it, or maybe the information is simply overwritten and blocked by their belief in an almighty creator. Who knows? The fact is it's hopeless to try and teach them actual science.
We do not need better terminology. We need people to understand terminology. It is not terminology's fault if people like you do not understand common descent. I do suggest that you read about it. There is more to understand than just the two words in the name. But we can start with those, I suppose.
Common descent is the hypothesis that life arose once, and all life on Earth at this time is therefore a result of this. We call this "descended" meaning that we arose later in time as a result of the first. Those cats are descended from other cats. Period. Common descent is unbroken. They didn't appear out of the aether, they are the offspring of cats. They just had some viruses ram some extra genes in there. But viruses have been doing that forever. It's not new. What's new is humans picking which genes get shuffled about. I'm not sure what your problem is, and I certainly don't see how it relates in any way at all to intelligent design.
Design is the concept that life has been designed by something. But where is YOUR definition of your unqualified terminology? Obviously ever since sexual reproduction, life forms have been "designing" their species by selecting their mates. So is all life designed? Or does that count as part of the process? If it does, does genetic engineering count? Humans are alive, don't forget. But at any rate, design and common descent are not mutually exclusive. You can have common descent, but where space aliens came down and poked at some DNA to guide evolution. And you can have a completely evolution driven system, with no external design, but have multiple origins of life, and thus no common descent.
And so, to your absolute proof that common descent is impossible, and design is true, I raise you the real definition of common descent. There can be no absolute proof of common descent, but since every single life form on earth now has at least a handful of common genes, many of which don't do anything anymore, the case for common descent is a powerful one. You can try to falsify it with "A WIZZARD DID IT" (With an egg and watercress sandwich) but that's just silly. Now it's possible that life arose multiple times, but only one survived, but that's still common descent. And it's possible that it arose twice, and because form follows function, we just got the same genes twice...seems a big stretch, but possible. And it's also possible that it arose twice, and we got common genes because of those aforementioned viruses doing their best to muck up the works. Yeah, we can't know for sure. But all things being equal, common descent is the simplest explanation.
For whether or not we were designed, that's something that cannot be answered, and as such is pointless to discuss in terms of the science of it. Well, it could perhaps be answered. We could find preserved DNA and maybe observe inserted genes with such prevalence that it presents a very powerful case for some outside designer inserting those genes. But we haven't. And I doubt we will. You can go right on believing that Jesus or Aliens designed our DNA. But there's no evidence of that. An open minded scientist (which sadly is not all of them) would not care that you believe that, as long as you do not let it poison your mind against actual observations. And as I said, those observations very strongly indicate common descent. But certainly it can end up being wrong. All we have to do is find life that doesn't have any common genes with everything else we've seen on Earth, and there you have it. But at any rate, it's mostly philosophy. It would be absolutely fascinating if life arose twice on Earth. But it certainly wouldn't say a THING about evolution one way or the other.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
If man evolved from apes, then why do we still have apes?
You had grandparents, and for the moment lets assume you have a cousin. Let's label your grandparents all "doctors" and we'll also label your cousin a "doctor", and we'll label you a "cardiologist".
Now, the question you asked is.... if you evolved from doctors, why does your cousin exist?
And just to make the picture even more clear, just because you generally refer to yourself as a "cardiologist" does not change the fact that you are still in fact a "doctor". Just because you generally refer to yourself as "human" does not change the fact that you are still an "ape" and that you are still a "mammal".
Humans and dogs and lions and horses and whales are all mammals. We all evolved from the same mammal ancestor.
Why didn't all species evolve like man supposedly did?
That's like asking why all species didn't evolve like horses. All species did evolve. They live in different places or eating different things or surviving in different ways, and they all evolve to get better at their specialty.
Humans, horses, hippos, lions, whales, and chimpanzees are all mammals. At one time there was just a single mammal species. Those mammals had lots of children, and over generations they spread out to live in many different places in many different ways and eating many different things. Over time some mammals lived on grasslands eating grass, and evolved the ability to run really fast and really far to escape predators. Those mammals evolved into the horses we see today. Some of those mammals specialized in living in and near water, and they evolved into the hippos we see today. Some mammals survived by hunting, and they specialized into the lions and other carnivores we see today. Some mammals started out living in and near water like hippos, but further adapted to an entirely aquatic lifestyle.... those are the mammal whales we see today.
And some mammals adapted to a certain style of forest life, evolving into chimpanzees (and other "apes") we see today.
And along the way, some of those forest-dwelling primates moved out onto the grasslands and standing upright. And this freed up our hands to be able to make and use tools. To specialize in making and using tools.
When whales moved into the water, when they evolved to specialize in living in water, the land mammals kept evolving too. Land mammals continued to evolve to be better at living in the place (and way) they lived. Carnivores evolved into better carnivores while whales adapted to aquatic life.
Some primates were living in the forest and some primates moved out onto the grasslands... the ones that kept living in the forest evolved to be even better at living in the forest while the ones on the grasslands evolved to stand upright and specialize in using our hands to make and use tools... to specialize in bigger brains.
Everything is always evolving. It's just that a single species spreads out to live in different places or different ways, and then splits into separate groups that evolve in different directions getting better at different specialties.
Asking why gorillas didn't evolve the same size brain as us is like asking why hippos can't run as fast as horses. Hippos are protected against lions by swimming into (and under) the water, and horses are protected against lions by their speed and endurance at running.
Chimpanzees got better at climbing through the trees. We got better at standing up and swinging a treebranch as a club or throwing a rock.... and eventually at sharpening that branch into a spear and chipping that rock to a point. Other primates kept on evolving while we evolved.
And don't underestimate how difficult and expensive it was for us to evolve our modern brains. Your brain accounts for only about 2% of your body mass, but you burn over over 30% of your food just to fuel it. Humans require a continuous and ridiculously high energy diet to fu
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.