Slashdot Mirror
Texas School Board Searching For Alternatives To Evolutionary Theory
An anonymous reader writes "[Ars Technica] recently reviewed the documentary The Revisionaries, which chronicles the actions of the Texas state school board as it attempted to rewrite the science and history standards that had been prepared by experts in education and the relevant subjects. For biology, the board's revisions meant that textbook publishers were instructed to help teachers and students 'analyze all sides of scientific information' about evolution. Given that ideas only reach the status of theory if they have overwhelming evidence supporting them, it isn't at all clear what 'all sides' would involve."
May we each be touched by his noodley appendage!
Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
Sigh. There's just no cure for stupid. Full disclosure. I live in Texas and yes, this embarrasses me.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
...or maybe a theorem. Or a rumor.
Maybe a wacky folk story.
"Darwin's Wise Tale of Evolution"
Examining all sides of a scientific theory that are contrary to an established scientific theory means examining decidedly unscientific theories as if they were scientific... or, you could just say, "Teaching our students Not-Science"
No there is a cure, this measure just actively fights it.
When I visited Texas I noticed that half the people were really cool guys and the other half were assholes. Of course most other places were like that but Texas took it to extremes.
OK, as long as history and science classes have to give arguments on both sides about the existence of God.
Textbook publishers take note, you'll sell Texas a ton of books if you pander to our religious beliefs in your science books.
It is incorrect that ideas only reach the status of "theory" when there's overwhelming evidence. A theory is a theory because it makes a testable, falsifiable, hypothesis. We have theories that aren't well tested. We don't go teaching them in science class, but that doesn't mean they aren't theories. This idea that "theory" means "proven beyond any reasonable doubt" is silly. It doesn't.
For that matter, some things get called theories that aren't. Like String Theory. Not only is there no proof, there's no testable predictions. As such right now it is a hypothesis. It is a neat bit of math, internally consistent, but so far there are no testable predictions, no way to falsify, so it isn't really a theory. We don't want to go teaching it in high school science class yet, but we do want to keep looking at it.
The reason why all the god backed proposals aren't theories is they aren't testable, aren't falsifiable. They rely on an entity that by definition is outside of the observable universe. As such they can't be tested and thus are not scientific theories. They could be right, but they still aren't science. Science is concerned with the testable. A testable, falsifiable, hypothesis is a theory. Heck even after it is falsified it is still a theory, it is just wrong :).
Gravity is a very active area of theoretical study. We don't understand what it is very well, and there are strong indications that General Relativity is not complete, that we need a better theory to fully explain interactions, particularly on the quantum level.
You may be confusing the theory with the fact. The fact of gravity is that objects attract, or on a more human scale, that things fall down. That is something you can just observe, sometimes without meaning to. The theory of gravity is to explain how and why the interaction works. That one we don't have nailed.
Not trying to support Texas here in their unscientific bullshit, but gravity is not an open and shut case. What its method of action is, how it works on very small and large levels, and how it unifies with the other forces are still not well understood.
Lots of homosexuals procreate, lots of people who have abortions have kids. Abortion and infanticide may actually preserve a generational line in times scarcity, in that resources can be concentrated on existing children. Homosexual people procreate in heterosexual relationships all the time, and use IVF or surrogacy to procreate in homosexual relationships. The world is a little more complicated than you think.
If it was a good theory then it would be *testable*. One could use it to make reliable predictions about generational change in short lived animals based on whatever the factors are that induce change.
Can't we though? Let's employ some of that science-y method-y stuff.
Question: Does selection pressure as described by the theory of evolution result in observable changes in the makeups of colonies of microorganisms?
Hypothesis: It do.
Method: We will use antibiotics on bacterial colonies, introducing a selection pressure against those strains most susceptible to the antibiotics. If that "natural selection via random mutation" thing works, individual bacterium that are resistant to antibiotics may exist. These individuals will be more likely to pass on their genetic information as the non-resistant bacteria will have been "selected against." We will look for emerging strains of antibiotic-reistant bacteria.
Result: Yup, that happens.
Conclusion: That whole "natural selection" thing exists.
Ipso facto, QED, science, BA-DAMN where's my Nobel?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Although the assertion "only evolution occurs" is dodgy science, there still is not a single fact about the shape and nature of life as we observe it which is not explanable by evolution.
So you might say that the default position is to assume that only evolution occurs, because no other mechanism has been found to be necessary.
There was a comment a couple days ago quoting someone who said "all that's left in physics is the fifth decimal place" or something similar, the same is true for evolutionary science. What's cool is that you can teach it that way.
First decimal: Evolution is how diversity on earth came to be, it's organisms changing from one generation to the next until they are different species. (A lot of people knew that much before Darwin even came along).
Second decimal: Evolution is powered by natural selection; organisms that are successful are more likely to have offspring. (Basically what Darwin came up with, along with a few other naturalists of his day)
Third decimal: Sexual selection, gender wars, kin selection (a bunch of stuff Darwin came up with to some extent but wasn't to sure about)
Fourth decimal: Genetics (if Darwin knew about genetics he would rage at the heavens questioning how people could still not accept his theory)
Fifth decimal: Horizontal gene transfer, latent retrovirus DNA, gene regulation (stuff we are just beginning to understand the importance of)
The problem occurs when all you learn about is the first decimal, then say to yourself "but God did it" and ignore the rest or "but what about his aspect!?" and assume that your objection isn't resolved at a deeper level than you currently understand.
I don't know if you ever heard this, but everything is bigger in Texas. I'm surprised that you are surprised.
Hey, quick question. Do you know how to tell if someone is from Texas? You don't have to, just let him talk long enough and he will tell you.
Evolution can't tell me what conditions to subject rats to so that I end up with something that isn't a rat.
Of course it can. You just have to understand that long term evolution is a macroscopic process resulting from changes in DNA. Increase the mutations, breed many generations, and expose those generations to selective pressure. It's really not that hard to understand. And "isn't a rat" is a fairly silly, non-scientific, though also easy to determine. The definition of a species is somewhat subjective, but generally is that members can interbreed and have fertile offspring. Change the rat's DNA so much that it can breed with other organisms with that change but not original rats and there you go.
And it can't tell me how many generations it'll take
That's an even sillier argument. Theories of statistics can't tell you how many tries it will take to get heads when flipping a quarter, but that doesn't mean statistics is not testable. If I told you I'd give you 1:10 odds (ie. you get $1 for a $10 bet) that the next coin flip is heads, would you take it? How about if I gave you those odds that over 1M coin clips the results are between 0.49 and 0.51? (Hint: you should take the bet. And that's a prediction).
And anyway it basically can tell you how many generations it will take - it will take as many as necessary to cause exactly the mutations needed to achieve the change you are looking for. You might be able to speed that up via mutagens and increased selective pressure, or once (it's only a matter of time) humans can trivially map the entire gene sequence and function for an organism and have the technology to modify them, it could be one generation (as it is these thing are already being done, just not as efficiently as they could). But it's all the same to the DNA.
Evolution can't tell me where to dig to find a creature whose bones are part way between a form believed to be a descendent of another.
Yes, it can. That's how so many of the existing bones have been found in a relatively small region of the world. Archaeologists didn't just dig billions of random holes around the planet and cross their fingers.
And it can't reliably tell me what those bones will look like when I do find them.
Seriously, just give it up. You don't even need to be a biologist to prove this statement wrong, 5 minutes on Google would do it. Sigh. Will there be the occasional surprise? Absolutely, because due to its underlying mechanisms some aspects of evolution are RANDOM. But if you think that disproves anything or discredits the theory, back to that coin flipping experiment for you...
In all fairness, within the standards of the /. community, "god-tard" is a term of art, rather than a sign of bigotry and narrow-mindedness. The frustration level when dealing with people who do not seem to be arguing in good faith on teaching evolution is high, and gets higher the longer it continues and morphs.
I believe the core issue the Texas Board and their fellow travelers struggle with isn't with scientific evidence of a particular theory, but rather the conclusions that some choose to draw from that evidence. A child's perception of God and Nature is necessarily challenged as he matures. Some resolve that struggle by denying God, some by denying what is discovered during study of God's creation.
The majority of the Texas board seem to be the latter.
Luke, help me take this mask off
do something about it
it's only like this because not enough texans like you are agitating about this
i would bet a majority of texans agree with you. the problem is a highly motivated, highly vocal minorty highjack the process and the majority is quiet and complacent about the whole nightmare
you need to get involved. you get the texas you deserve. so put some effort into it, kick these militantly ignorant morons off your school board, and restore texas to the modern world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Er did someone evolve an intelligent life-form in a lab from a lesser organism while I wasn't looking? I am all red in the face. I must have missed that monumental announcement.
That's very cute. And, you're not addressing what the parent said. In fact, you can go into a biology lab and watch evolution happen over the course of tens of thousands of generations of bacteria. Evolution at the level of virii and bacteria occurs quickly. The more complex the life form, the longer it takes for visually obvious symptoms of evolution. But, thanks to the fine focus provided by current genomic lab techniques, you can see signs of human evolution within historical times. No third arms or eleventh toes, sorry, but real change nevertheless.
Again, what we're dealing with isn't God-centric creation or not, but dogma and magic wand waving v. what is observed to be occurring. It may be that a Christian God caused the HIV to arise and target gays, or it may have been outhouse (bad) luck, but the observed mechanism was still evolution.
Luke, help me take this mask off
As TFA is about schools, let me offer this explanation:
It's not about critical thinking to test a false theory.
Within the school environment you have a certain amount of time to teach a subject. If you teach two 'versions' of it (one true, one false) to gain critical thinking, you halve the amount of time to teach the Quite Obviously True (TM) version.
If the answer comes around to God Did It, it should be taught in Church, not school
(*double take*) You think evolution is a philosophy?
That's pretty smurfed up.
Overall inflation has been shockingly, distressingly, low for the past decade.
Sure, but for the first 10^-19 seconds of the expansion of the universe inflation was merciless.
No. It doesn't. It works on a story of a creator. There's no evidence for one; there's no way to test to see if there is one; there's no way to test to see if there isn't one (it's not falsifiable); there are no predictions re effects upon reality that arise from the idea; etc. Theism is in no way qualified as a theory. Theism is speculation, no more than that, in terms of its value in quantifying reality.
A reasonable atheist will simply inform you of the complete lack of evidence to back up the speculation, and, if you fail to do so, as all other theists from day one have failed, will assign no value whatsoever to your speculation.
Of course, not all atheists are reasonable. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Just as theists vary from really nice people who you'd like to play cards with, to people who fly into buildings and set their wives on fire.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
That is a fabulous and well thought out answer, and I mean no offence by anything I say beyond this.
You proved evolution in your own answer (beaks changing etc.). Now we're just discussing the degree of change evolution offers, which is not quite the point.
If things can evolve a little, then it follows that with time (and assuming the changes don't lead to a dead-end, or that changes in its environment do not change faster than the creature/plant can evolve to adapt), it MUST follow, that with enough time object X will eventually become very different from starting object Y.
I hope I clarified my position
What I find interesting is that most atheists are just like religious extremists. Their belief is right and no amount of facts will change their mind.
What facts do you have that should change their minds?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Never ask a man if he's from Texas. If he is, he'll tell you soon enough. If he's not, there's no need to embarrass him.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br