Alabama Will Require Students To Learn About Evolution, Climate Change

An anonymous reader writes: For the first time, public school students in Alabama will be required to understand evolution, thanks to new curriculum rules behind implemented next year. Teachers in the state will also be required to discuss climate change. Not only did the 40-person, Republican-controlled Board of Education pass the standards unanimously, but nobody even spoke out against them at a board meeting. The new rules say, "The theory of evolution has a role in explaining unity and diversity of life on earth. This theory is substantiated with much direct and indirect evidence. Therefore, this course of study requires our students to understand the principles of the theory of evolution from the perspective of established scientific knowledge. The committee recognizes and appreciates the diverse views associated with the theory of evolution."

Comments

Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as they're aware that it is only a theory.

Re:Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what TFS says.

And you came to this conclusion due to the fact the word "theory" was used no less than four times in reference to evolution in TFS.

I have a theory about that conclusion...

Re:Theory

[Dutchmaan]

I hope they also push the *theory* of God in their churches....

Re:Theory

[ClickOnThis]

Maybe the church should get on board

Many churches have done so, or at least have asserted that religion and evolution are not in conflict.

Re:Theory

[ArmoredDragon]

Like evolution, science itself is subject to survival of the fittest. The best theories ultimately pass peer review and gain mainstream acceptance. Presently, when it comes to the origin of species, evolution is the fittest. And do remember, that even though we have a general understanding of mutations and natural selection, the precise explanation of how we got from mere amino acids to multi-celled organisms still remains a mystery for the most part, and our understanding of it continues to change as we make more discoveries.

So until we've gotten it 100% figured out, I'm fine with somebody saying that it's "just a theory", even if they say so multiple times. Besides, this action here is leagues better than saying some invisible man did it.

Disclaimer: I'm an atheist libertarian.

Re:Theory

[xevioso]

I'm not. Evolution is a fact. In so far that science can say anything is a fact, evolution is a fact.

When science uses that word to describe a process, it's not saying that description is a "best guess". It's not a guess. It's a complex description of how things work, which, to the best of our understanding, is a fact.

Can certain parts of that understanding change? Of course. But the general statement "Species evolved from previous species over time" is not a guess. It's a fact.

Re:Theory

[number6x]

Even better, in English, would be to describe it as the the survival of the species that fit best in their environment.

In English the word 'fit' can also be used to describe a level of strength, as in 'I work out to stay fit.'. Darwinian 'fitness' has to do with fitting into the environment better than others you compete with. Sometimes you can be fittest by being weaker, slower and less aggressive than others.

Re:Theory

[Ol Olsoc]

That's not what TFS says.

And you came to this conclusion due to the fact the word "theory" was used no less than four times in reference to evolution in TFS.

I have a theory about that conclusion...

No, you have a hypothesis about that conclusion.

If you don't understand what a scientific theory is, you need to learn before you criticize it too deeply.

Let's tak an example that even fundies are likely to accept.

Gravity

Gravity is real. Hard to deny that if you jump off the Golden gate bridge, you'll fall.

But we don't understand every single thing about gravity, so we have a theory for it. The theory is a framework to work within, not some wild-ass guess, not some thought of "Maybe the world just sucks". The theory is the body of work - and if testing proves the theory wrong, changes need to be made.

Re:Theory

[number6x]

It is both a theory and a fact.

We see species change over time in the real world. That observed phenomenon is called evolution, and it is a fact.

There is a theory in biology to explain the phenomenon that is observed in nature. That is called the theory of evolution. Over time, the theory has changed as it is modified to be in compliance with all observed facts (this is not the theory 'evolving'). As more factual evidence is uncovered the theory is checked against the evidence. The theory is either found to be in compliance with the evidence, or changed to be in compliance with the observed facts. Often, the observed facts must also be tested to be found factual as well.

As an example, think of the moon. The moon exists. It is observed in nature. Theory A) states that the moon formed from cheese after a cow jumped into space. Theory B) states that the moon is a rocky body formed in the same way as other rocky bodies in the solar system. The theory that is kept is the one that is in best compliance with the observed facts.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is the name of a phenomenon observed in nature, and the name of the theory of how that phenomenon functions. Does this help?

Re:Theory

[Ol Olsoc]

Maybe the church should get on board

Many churches have done so, or at least have asserted that religion and evolution are not in conflict.

It depends on the enemy they need. Many fundamentalist versions of religion need enemies that they can rail against. Hatred is a integral part of humanity, and in some it is more needed than in others. They become fundamentalists, and have successfully created their god in their own image. So there ya go.

But the problem is people who need to reject and apply hatred, cannot stop. If for some reason, we were to reject the science behind Evolution - bearing in mind that means a rejection of all biology and most of physics - a new target will have to be found. Basically, a return to the dark ages after their success.

So Good on Alabama! I'm hoping so much that the Republican party can extricate itself from the iron grip of the social conservatives and their batshit insane ideas. Then we can get back to a proper conservative/liberal mix of governance.And yes, we do need both. Although I do have to confess, I was a 80 percent Republican voting until GWB and his Trotskyist crew came around. Sweet Jeebuz, where is Barry Goldwater when you need him?

When an otherwise intelligent Republican is forced to answer questions about evolution and global warming with "Well, I'm not a scientist", or "there are controversies", because he or she is worried about offending the kookwing segment of the party, but doesn't want to outright lie, its just indicative of where the kooks are going to take you.

Because the normal Republicans can see that in a state where the religious can reject physics and force their views on others, makes for a workforce that simply isn't worth shit for anything other than menial jobs.

And in many respects, already has.

Re:Theory

[Maxo-Texas]

Evolution is a conclusion based on facts.

It is not a fact in and of itself.

We can use evolutionary theory to make testable predictions. Animal breeders, regardless of their religious feelings use evolutionary theory to breed their animals (because money is at stake and any breeder that was too religious would go bankrupt and be selected out of the animal breeder population).

The development of new species has been observed in the real world among insects including specifically some mosquitoes in britain.

The theory of Evolution does not cover bio-genesis (the first living thing). Partially by definition.

The word theory is used today where the word "Law" used to be used. So the Theory of Gravity and the Law of Gravity are synonymous.

If we still used the word "Law", the "Law" of Evolution would be how we referred to it. The Theory of Evolution is a very strong construct.

Personally, I find the long term bacteria experiment the most interesting. It shows that multiple random mutations separated by thousands of generations which had no effect for thousands of generations were required to develop the ability to consume "Citrate" as a food. Very cool stuff.

Every generation has mutations. The average rate of 60 mutations among surviving humans compared to their parents has been observed. Most of those mutations have no immediate bad or good effect. But thousands of years later, they might result in higher or lower reproduction rates when a selective pressure is applied to the population.

Re:Theory

[ArmoredDragon]

You make great points about some of the missing pieces in our understanding of evolution. You should consider applying your own approach to the alleged merits of Libertarianism which has far less empirical evidence backing it up than evolution.

The missing pieces are the exact reason why I'm a libertarian. I personally am not even 100% sure what is best for myself, let alone everybody else. Hence I believe that not myself, nor anybody else, should be allowed to dictate how everybody else lives. That ranges in all subjects, from gay marriage to owning firearms.

I do believe in the rule of law, but mainly for the purposes of making sure that people don't interfere with other people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit.

Do tell me however, why you're so sure that being authoritarian on certain matters is the best approach? Because if you don't identify as libertarian, then surely you have a lot of beliefs in that how you live your life surely should work best for everybody, and therefore they must obey your rules.

Re:Theory

[ArmoredDragon]

Good, because if you were a Christian libertarian you'd be a complete fucking moron.

Well a true Christian libertarian differs from me only in terms of their viewpoint of the world around them. If somebody is a Christian libertarian, then they believe in their god, the bible, and Jesus, but doesn't believe that their beliefs should be law.

Re:Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a Christian Socialist and I am perfectly comfortable with evolution being taught in school as the one theory which best fits all of the evidence. My copy of scripture does not say G-d did not use evolution to create Life. My copy of scripture is completely silent on the "How?" portion of the origin of Life, as well it should be since religion is often an attempt instead to answer "Why?".

Re: Theory

[onkelonkel]

What does abiogenesis have to do with evolution? Those are 2 different questions. One is how life came from non-life, the other is how living things formed different species.

Re:Theory

[Immerman]

No, you're thinking of Abiogenesis - a hypothesis built upon evolutionary theory, and widely accepted as "probable, but as yet sorely lacking in detail" among the scientific community, but it is in no way integral to evolution.

Evolutionary Theory is specifically concerned with the manner and mechanism by which living organisms adapt and change over time. It's not directly applicable to non-living systems, and thus can't address the initial formation of life, only what happened from that moment onward. Perhaps God waved her magic wand and created the first organism(s) - evolutionary theory has nothing to say about that. It only explains how those simple organisms adapted to become the vast array of life that now populates the Earth.

Abiogenesis is the result of extrapolating Evolutionary theory backward from the earliest living organisms, and assuming that similar processes were at work among the non-living complex chemistry that eventually "evolved" into something we'd recognize as "life" through purely natural phenomena without resorting to any supernatural agency. It is a complementary theory, explaining how life began in a manner consistent with how it has adapted since then, and it does depend on Evolutionary Theory to give it plausibility, but that dependency is unilateral. Evolutionary theory is perfectly capable of standing on it's own, it simply completely ignores the subject of how life originally began as outside it's scope. Just as, say, Database Theory completely ignores the subjects of vacuum tubes and mechanical computation engines - they're simply not relevant to the subject at hand, despite the fact that modern computer science would not exist without them.

Re: Theory

[by (1706743)]

A professor of mine said something along the lines of, "Evolution is a fact -- but it's a lousy theory."

Re: Theory

[swillden]

Your an idiot. Evolution has been proved if you would only read a little

Be more precise, please.

Evolution has been observed to occur, in nature, within our observational timescales. There's absolutely no question that evolution happens.

In addition, evolution provides the best available explanation for vast numbers of detailed observations of what we see in the fossil record, the relationships between current living species and many, many other aspects of the living world around us. Further, the explanatory power of evolution has been used countless times to make predictions about ancient and modern life forms, and has never been contradicted. The scientific support for evolution as an explanation for the development of life is extraordinarily broad and deep.

That said, no scientific theory is every "proved" in the sense that, say, a mathematical theorem is proved. Evolution is one of the most powerful and compelling theories in modern science; it's right up there with Newtonian mechanics in terms of the level of evidence... but there are still corners we don't understand and there may well be ways in which it's wrong. I strongly suspect that if it is wrong, it's wrong in the same way that Newtonian mechanics is wrong: it doesn't account for the extreme cases where we need to add in relativity or quantum mechanics, or both. But it's not totally inconceivable that some dramatically better explanation could arise that replaces evolution entirely (though said explanation would have to predict outcomes that look pretty much exactly like evolution).

Re:Theory

[Barsteward]

" The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Theory

[bledri]

Neurosurgeon is as close as any candidates come to scientist this round.

Certainly closer than any shyster.

No, he's not. Here is what Ben Carson believes:

“Carbon dating, all these things,” he said “really doesn’t mean anything to a God who has the ability to create anything at any point in time. “Dealing with the complexity of the human brain,” Carson continued, “and somebody says that came from a slime pit full of promiscuous biochemicals? I don’t think so.” Curiously, Carson did not reject natural selection – the engine that drives evolution – saying he “totally believe[s]” that useful genetic traits are more often passed on than less useful traits. But he could not draw the connection between that process acting over millennia and the human eye: “Give me a break. According to their scheme – boom, it had to occur overnight.”

So he doesn't believe evolution nor does he even know enough about it to understand that the evolution of the eye happened over time and does not have to happen overnight. The fact that he can be a doctor and hold these views just shows how extreme cognitive dissonance can be.

Re:Theory

[rahvin112]

Darwin's biggest contribution to evolution was the scientific evidence he produced. Though he was ridiculed (and continues to be) by clergy it wasn't his theory that made the biggest history, it was the meticulous documentation he did that eventually won. In other words it was the facts he discovered, not his supposition of the cause that has had the biggest effect. One item of note, Alfred Russel Wallace had collected an equal amount of data using completely different methods and species (based more on fossils than living creatures) and Darwin beat him to publication. The collected data between the two works was so compelling that it laid the foundation for entire branches of science. The evidence they both collected was voluminous and irrefutable. This data laid the foundation and other scientists quickly built on that foundation, we have a dozen branches of biological science that wouldn't exist without the discovery of the fact of evolution. One of those is molecular biology.

At this point in time the amount of data backing the fact of evolution is essentially irrefutable at this point, it would be like trying to prove thermodynamics wrong. The theory of how it works is still being fought over but not the fact that it exists.

Re: Theory

[onkelonkel]

You seem to think abiogenesis is somehow part of evolution. They are two separate things. This is my point.

Re:Theory

[Immerman]

No, it doesn't. Again, with a minimum of words:
Evolutionary Theory has nothing to say about the origins of life
Abiogenesis purports to explain the origin of life

Abiogenesis uses the principles of evolution as a starting point, but pushes them well beyond the limit of the claims stated within Evolutionary Theory. You can be 100% confident in Evolutionary Theory, and still believe that Abiogenesis is complete hogwash.

Re:Theory

[Ol Olsoc]

Curiously, Carson did not reject natural selection – the engine that drives evolution – saying he “totally believe[s]” that useful genetic traits are more often passed on than less useful traits. But he could not draw the connection between that process acting over millennia and the human eye: “Give me a break. According to their scheme – boom, it had to occur overnight.”

So he doesn't believe evolution nor does he even know enough about it to understand that the evolution of the eye happened over time and does not have to happen overnight. The fact that he can be a doctor and hold these views just shows how extreme cognitive dissonance can be.

Aint that da truth!

Ugh - the human eye isn't even close to perfection. You want the raptors for that.

But the weird thing about fundies bringing up they eye, again, and again, and again, is that the irreducible complexity argument has been debunked, again and again, and again. But just like Chucky, it refuses to die.

For the uninitiated, an eye like ours would definitely not spring up overnight. But it didn't have to.

Light is electromagnetic energy. And since energy always has some sort of effect on the thing the energy strikes, wherther warming for IR, sensing the energy is a pretty normal thing to happen.

A lot of chemicals, fully natural, will undergo changes when hit by light. If an organism happens to have these chemicals within it, it might end up reacting in some way to light.

Sound far fetched? Well, it has happened, and still does.

There are bacteria and tiny little critters in the ocean that have day/night feeding cycles based on sensing light. No "eyes" as such, but a chemical reaction

There are relatively primitive critters like bivalves that have primitive eyes. Not focusing, but many have multiple eyes that sense light, and can determine the direction of the light, or more important, the direction where the light goes away, as in a predator.

Then from there, we run an entire gamut of eyes, all leading up to where we are today. In the end, although an amazing organ, it is anything but magic, and needs no divine intervention to exist.

Hey creationists - any other examples of irreduceable complexity you need skewered - again?

It's nice to see Alabama enter modernity after all

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my GOD, hell has finally frozen over.
Intelligent and far seeing Republicans. Wow they're going to torn to shreds by the Bible Belt Brigade.

Re:Theory...

[sensei moreh]

Lived in Alabama for four years. This represents major progress. However, there's still a long way to go.

So...

[Lauriy]

there's a god after all?

To be clear...

[engineerErrant]

This is about the town of Alabama, Massachusetts.

So much patting on the back

[wickerprints]

...for something that not only should have been in place already, but is tepid in comparison to how science is taught almost everywhere else around the world.

That's how much the religious zealots have been able to twist the narrative in their favor, to the point where every civilized person breathes a sigh a relief when they AREN'T shoving their creationist mythologies in students' faces and indoctrinating them with dogma. Are we supposed to congratulate Alabama for not being backwards fundamentalists? That's the intellectual equivalent of giving them a medal for promising not to lynch any more black people.

Re:So much patting on the back

[Moof123]

Regardless, we should encourage good behavior even if it was preceded by a temper tantrum. Same with your dog, treat him nicely when he finally comes back rather than punishing him for being bad and running away in the first place.

Yes, we should treat the right as spoiled children and bad dogs, since that is how they act.

Re:So much patting on the back

[BenBoy]

Rather than a car analogy, let's go with a bible analogy, 'k? Consider the prodigal son ... let's celebrate that we're coming together, instead of nursing old grudges ...

Re:Some comments

[OrangeTide]

The topic of whether it's human-caused or not is so controversial that even mentioning this will probably get my post modded down.

It's controversial to those with an agenda. The rest of us can still maintain a rational discussion about it.

Alternate universe!

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew stepping though that portal was risky but I kind of like this Alabama filled with science education and NASA engineers.

Back in my dimension, we are mainly focused on where to put our 10 commandment monument and the evils of an education lottery.

Re:Alternate universe!

[PopeRatzo]

It's not all Bibles and Chitlins. Marshall Space Flight Center [wikipedia.org] is in Huntsville.

Yes, but to be fair, the Marshall Space Flight Center is working on developing a rocket to get them the fuck out of Alabama.

Re:Theory...

[NotDrWho]

I grew up in the South, and I don't think I ever heard "evolution" or "natural selection" ever even mentioned in school by a teacher. The closest thing I remember to it was another student asking my middle school biology teacher about evolution once. She basically told us she wouldn't talk about it because she didn't want to lose her job. And that was that. I had no idea how these process even worked until I read about them later and started to understand their importance and implications.

Re: Some comments

[Holi]

According to who? Blanket statements that go against a consensus of scientific opinion should really be supported by some citations if you want to be taken remotely seriously.

Re:Theory...

[bondsbw]

FWIW, I went to public school in Alabama and learned about evolution. It wasn't taught as in "but remember kids, this is only a theory" nor did they say "and evolution is fact and I'm failing you if you don't admit that God doesn't exist".

It was just taught. Like things of this nature should be.

Re:Only in America

[MaWeiTao]

I went to public school in the northeast and not once was the bible used in school. Nor did any religious topics come up in any of my classes, beyond your standard Greek and Roman mythology. I wish they had dug deeper into other mythologies from around the world. I don't recall prayers in school, but at events it definitely came up which is inevitable given that the Hispanics comprised the majority of the student body.

If you don't think these topics aren't debated overseas then you clearly haven't traveled enough. I've seen both Europeans and Asians question evolution and not necessarily on religious grounds. While living in Asia one guy went on a tirade about it and how dissenting views should be taught in schools; similar to the crap we see here in the US. I disagree completely, but it's just not worth arguing with some people. I take it you've never met a born again Buddhist, because they're not all that different than your average fundamentalist Christian.

Re:It's nice to see Alabama enter modernity after

[wbr1]

No.. the chapter will be titled "Evolution and Global warming, the Democratic plot to have homosexuals take over America."

Sure, I'll take you up on that

[rsilvergun]

The reason I think being authoritarian is the best approach in certain times is because it objectively is. Let me explain:

I have a close family member who's a cancer survivor. She is a child. She received treatment and she is fine now (more or less).

There are sizable numbers of people who would have not treated her and instead prayed to God. She would have died. That is a fact. What ever else you believe or don't believe that is a fact.

This is not hypothetical. There have been cases where folks with strong religion had their children taken away from them because they choose to "Trust in the Lord".

I know you've got a dozen things to say to my story above about how/why it was OK to be authoritarian in the cases above. But the fact is you're being authoritarian. There is such a thing as an authority. It's possible to be right and it's possible to be wrong.

Then again you might just wash your hands. Sorting out right and wrong is _hard_. It requires real work and real compromises. It's much, much easier to just wash your hands and say "Oh fuck it, I don't want to impose my beliefs". It's especially seductive because it lets you ignore all the real world suffering by telling yourself you'd only make things worse. But that's a half assed cop out that doesn't save any lives.