Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

If we turn this thread into a Christianity versus science argument, we are playing into the troll's hands and forgetting the purpose of the thread, which concerns the stumbling blocks the religious are seeking to create to thwart the teaching of evolution.

But the stumbling blocks are not stumbling blocks if they are easily brushed aside. The stumbling blocks are stumbling blocks because the people who put them in the way, block up the hall with them, have real reasons for making them difficult to get past. They are not stumbling blocks for no reason.

So those reasons are in play. You need to shift the reasons. Do so and they'll take the stumbling blocks away themselves. As they are in play, the only things in play actually, they are not off topic and your sentence deflates like one of those balloons that you let go after pumping it up at a party. You should spit a mouthful of beer in first and shake it up when inflated. That makes girls giggle.

And you might think of knocking off the "troll" shite. It makes you look such a silly moo. A2K will never be "up there" if silly moos are mooing all over it.

As if you calling people trolls turns them, by word magic, into trolls. I'll tell you what they are Ed--they are people. Would you say somebody picking their nose in a restaurant is trolling. It is off topic in a posh restaurant.

Not a really, really posh one though.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

If we turn this thread into a Christianity versus science argument, we are playing into the troll's hands and forgetting the purpose of the thread, which concerns the stumbling blocks the religious are seeking to create to thwart the teaching of evolution.

But I think it's valid to try to understand the motivation that drives people to try to push their ideas into science class.

Wilso noted that indoctrination and control are the motivation. And while that may the true in some cases, it's probably true more for the organized infiltrators like the Discovery Institute and others, than it is for the common man.

I suspect that most people when you ask them why they do this, would say that they simply believe that they are right and that evolution is wrong. And
because of their belief they are not interested in debating the science. They just "know" they are right, so they plow ahead supporting whatever baloney they read which seems to support the end result of their belief.

These people are not motivated so much by the desire to control, as they are by the momentum of their existing belief. They are simply uninterested in seeing the world outside of their belief.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

I know the both of you are right. But, spendi and the ilk will never present any good arguments, just distractions. Perhaps the arguments are for the benefit of the open minded doubters who may stray in here?

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

They are indeed Ed. They are certainly not intended to persuade anybody with a closed mind. Both sides are a lost cause in that regard.

Quote:

Wilso noted that indoctrination and control are the motivation.

He may well have done but he has failed to notice that indoctrination and control are necessary features of all societies, as I pointed out in my response which ros has obviously avoided exposing himself to, and thus the aims and methods of the indoctrination and control are the only subject of interest and the very opposite of distractions. Science can only deal with objects which are not subjected to indoctrination and control if we leave out, for the moment, the science of indoctrination and control as applied to humans.

One might assert that that is not a "good argument" but such a bald assertion will be viewed as an empty of meaning by anyone with a modicum of intelligence to whom it is a mere subjective blurt and not an argument of any sort unless backed by power and force. It is a totalitarian directive if it is.

I don't know, Ed, how you can allow any credibilty to people who have had recourse to the Ignore function. I am at a loss to understand you doing that.

I will maybe explain that later so that those who stray into here, whether open-minded doubters or not, can at least consider the matter.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

I know the both of you are right. But, spendi and the ilk will never present any good arguments, just distractions.

Yes, I think we know that already. That's what the Ignore User button is for Smile

1 Reply

The testimony of Wendee Holtcamp at last week's Texas Education Board hearings on science education standards:

Quote:

I’m here to testify as a Christian who is educated as a biologist, and a mom of 2 middle school aged kids " one of whom goes to public school and one who goes to a private Episcopal school, which by the way teaches evolution alongside the Christian faith. I have taught college biology, and I am currently a freelance science writer. I’m writing a book on making peace between evolution and Christianity which will cover this hearing, as well as the 2003 hearings which I attended among other things.

Despite what the creationist members of the Board say - Ms Lowe, Ms Leo, Ms Cargill, Ms Dunbar, Mr Mercer, Dr McLeroy and others - everybody in the nation knows that this is absolutely a religious battle, that your dislike of evolution and naturalism and any changes to the TEKs that are supported by the Discovery Institute are religiously motivated. Kitzmiller vs Dover clearly showed that ID and these issues are religious in nature. For you to sit there and tell everyone it is not smacks of arrogance and deliberate willful deception. In other words, lying.

The Nov revision uses the phrase "strengths and limitations" which is no different from the flawed "strengths and weaknesses" phrase that has been roundly rejected by scientists. Although I understand the TEKS do not anywhere explicitly discuss Intelligent Design, this "strengths & limitations" language is pushed exclusively by religiously-motivated opposition to evolution, and is used as a wedge to allow teachers to cast aspersions on evolution in classrooms.

My 1st question to you - members of the State Board of Education " Are you willing to play dice with our taxpayer money on the possibility of costly court battle by introducing religiously motivated language in Texas science standards? The 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board case cost Dover over $1million.

My 2nd question to you " are you willing to play dice with our children’s education as our nation’s science lead deteriorates? In 2005 the National Academy of Sciences report "Rising Above the Gathering Storm" decried our nation’s deteriorating science education and critical thinking skills. It stated, "Having reviewed trends in the United States and abroad, the committee is deeply concerned that the scientific and technical building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength."

Evolution does not threaten religious belief " including Christianity - except if you read Genesis absolutely literally, which most denominations do not. The Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist and Catholic Churches formally accept an evolving Creation. Nearly 70% of our nation’s founding fathers were either Presbyterian, Episcopal or Congregationalist " a denomination which later became part of the Presbyterian Church (and was associated with founding Harvard Yale and Dartmouth). Our Founding Fathers very much appreciated both logical, scientific reason and religious faith as compatible but also demanded " as Thomas Jefferson said " a wall of separation between church and state. (The majority of our nation’s 43 Presidents also have hailed from Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodist denominations all of which believe that Genesis is not a divinely dictated textbook.)

So to summarize, I urge you as elected members of this Board who are accountable to the public- Do not harm the bedrock of science and reason upon which our nation was founded by weakening Texas science standards with the "limitations" language. Its inclusion will only weaken science education, our children’s future and the ability to create brilliant and critically thinking minds in our state and our nation.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Recourse to the Ignore function represents the ultimate resistance strategy of the patient who bolts from the psychiatrist's couch when the probing of his hidden motives gets too close for comfort. Only someone with a fear of such probings would bother with such a cheap trick.

And the fear must represent a doubt about the motives because a confident person would have no such fear and would welcome anything designed to undermine his position.

When the motives being probed are directly related to the education of 50 million kids, and many more coming up behind them, and a change in the direction of the culture of momentous proportions, the refusal to submit to such probings constitutes the most arrogant, self-centred narcissism it is possible to imagine in socially acceptable situations.

The simple and obvious fact of the heatedness and sheer volume of debate about Darwin's theories since 1859 and up to now, with no end in sight, is quite sufficient evidence of the momentous nature of this particular case to anyone who does not see himself at the centre of all things, as babies do.

In psychiatric work it is normal for other less dramatic strategies to be employed before bolting. Making fun of the analyst for example or insulting him or wittering about extraneous matters as a diversion. Even condescending aquiesence. These are mild forms of bolting. This thread and the ID thread are shot through with such things. Partial Ignore. They all reject the analysis with smug self-satisfaction.

So full-on Ignore is no surprise to me. Leaving the discussion, as many have done, has a modicum of dignity.

The resistance to the analysis can take many forms. Bolting is the extreme. It shows serious fear and thus serious doubt and suggests a felt inabilty to defend the trench.

In this case on here the probings are in the service of making sure that the motives are actually aimed at the well-being of the kids and the society and not for the purpose of personal self-promotion in terms of money, status or reassuring confirmation of long held and much witnessed positions from which it is impossible to withdraw without losing face. A narcissist's nightmare. Any such motives are questionable at best and we go to some lengths to expose them if they exist in people running for office. Mr Obama, it is said, put certain types of questions on Ignore. And was castigated for doing so.

Resistance strategies (see Freud and many others) have no other purpose than to prevent some matters being exposed and only insecurity about those matters can explain their use.

Any fears in this respect which result in such easily seen through evasive actions automatically disqualify the person harbouring them from having any say in matters of educational and cultural significance or of claiming to be any sort of scientifically-minded person never mind a serious one.

There is something fundamentally flawed in a society where such people do have a say in educational policy and where they can discredit science by their claims to be within its hallowed walls. They are far more dangerous to society than a nice story which everybody knows is a nice story with morality lessons as it goes, divine language use and providing source material for countless other works of art. I saw a stunning modern version of the Salome story yesterday on Sky Arts.

And to parade having bolted the discussion, to have run off, to have boasted about it as if it is a clinching argument representing a superior intellectual position, is stupidity of such a high order that it has taken to exhibitionism.

Ignore, far from being something to take pride in having recourse to, shouts aloud from the rooftops a secret fear of the hypothesis tester which is not only anti-science but anti-education as well. It is a matter for shame. It is a barricade for the ego.

It means nobody can debate with the Ignorer. Nobody can touch him except those who have his a priori approval. His claque. And they can only touch him up. Those to who he gives his approval and his diplomas and thus perpetuating his flaws unto the 10th generation or when the chickens come home to roost whichever comes first. Recent events suggest the latter might even be upon us.

He is unAbled 2 Know anything significant he doesn't already know and therefore the only explanation of his presence on Able 2 Know is the need to posture and preen his ego before the world. A situation, again, inimical to both science and education.

Fatuous. Inexplicable. Head up arse objectively. The contortionist ostrich.

If you fail to address these matters you may well be comforted by like-minded posters but the open-minded doubters Ed referred to who stray onto here will know what to think. Or we had better hope they do.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Quote:

Kitzmiller vs Dover clearly showed that ID and these issues are religious in nature.

Kitzmiller vs Dover clearly showed what Kitzmiller vs Dover clearly showed. No more and no less.

Wendee clearly does not understand the issues. I very much doubt that she could sit still for the "bedrock of science and reason" if the subject matter came anywhere close to first base. She would bolt.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Well said.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

What can anybody say except "Sheesh!!". The spiel meant nothing.

What did Wendee feel the need to mention that she was writing a book?

0 Replies

Quote:

EDITORIAL: State board of education poised to embarrass Texas again
(Lufkin Daily News, November 25, 2008)

Once again Texas is poised to court national disgrace because of the State Board of Education and the anti-evolution agenda of some of its members.

Whether there are enough votes on the 15-member board to end its efforts to force religious doctrine into public schools through the back door won't be known for a while. The board might take a preliminary vote on standards for the public school science curriculum, and by extension the textbooks students use, in January. A final decision on the science curriculum will come in the spring.

A debate is raging over a state board requirement that students be taught the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories as early as middle school. That "strengths and weaknesses" language is a way to attack evolution and clear the path for religious doctrines like creationism and intelligent design to be taught.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that prohibiting the teaching of evolution is a violation of the separation of church and state. So the education board uses criticism of evolution as a way to get around that prohibition and impose religious belief into the study of life on Earth.

Fully 95 percent of college science and biology teachers in Texas oppose weakening the teaching of evolution by offering alternative explanations. The "strength and weakness" clause only confuses students by inserting a religious doctrine into the study of science.

That, of course, doesn't help students. It only hurts them when it comes to learning accepted scientific theory. But that's fine with board members, who are unconcerned about the detrimental effects of their policies.

Too many members of this board are on a religious mission, not an educational one. That's clear to anyone who has followed its members and their efforts to inculcate conservative religious views into public education over the years.

"Once again, Texas is in the national spotlight, and scientists, science teachers and education news writers all over the United States are waiting to see what new foolishness is going to happen in Austin this time," Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science, told the board this week. "Once again our state is going to experience the embarrassment of having anti-scientific, anti-evolutionists on the state board try to game the process and force the new science standards to contain anti-scientific language."

Evolution is proven, accepted science, and requiring teachers to attack it in middle school and high school is a dreadful policy that perverts science education.

Texas lawmakers need to defang this board before it does permanent harm to public education.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

More of the same from the usual sources.

The Lufkin Daily News is owned by Cox Enterprises.

Quote:

The company, now headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, continues to publish the Dayton Daily News, along with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and fifteen other daily newspapers. It also publishes thirty non-daily papers, including The Western Star, Ohio's oldest weekly newspaper. The company owns fifteen television stations, 81 radio stations, and a large cable television enterprise including the Travel Channel.

Their obvious bias is easily seen from their use of words such as "national disgrace": "force religious doctrine into public schools through the back door" ( (how is that done when the debate is in public) : " "strengths and weaknesses" language is a way to attack evolution and clear the path for religious doctrines like creationism and intelligent design to be taught " ( an assertion) : "confuses":
etc etc--you can see for yourselves that there is no balance in the report.

Media, as I have often pointed out, has a vested interest in promoting evolution theory and denigrating religion.

Aside from any personal reasons involving rejection of religious discipline in regard to sexual and/or financial matters on behalf of these opinion formers who may be presumed to have or be engaged in some or all of the usual freedoms, it is quite obvious, as I have also pointed out, that a secular authority cannot expect the general public to accept its proscriptions in either of these fields of human endeavour because without a higher authority, even one invented for no other reason, something an atheist can accept, because the secular authority can have no rational reason, other than fear of the law, for desisting in any or all of the extremest forms of them. And, it is worth adding, fear of the law today, as it is determined by the secular authority.

Which means a free for all or society being rigidly divided into social classes, alpha, beta, gamma Huxley offered, in which the lower two are either conditioned or terrorised into "respectability" whilst the upper are free to indulge themselves in their guarded enclaves. One or other of those choices is really what the Media seek.

Such a free for all can only result in an increase in depravities of both types and the consequent increase in lurid and dramatic stories which send the general public into the market to buy them until such time that the stories cease to be lurid and dramatic due to the public having got used to them. One only need take the public's general acceptance of pornography nowadays compared to its outrage of a mere few years ago. To keep it going new dramas are needed of even more extreme forms.

A government minister here has today called upon the Women's Institute to organise to expose Media pimping for prostitutes which they do under labels such as Personal Services. She means that they are partially living on immoral earnings if it is assumed that prostitution is immoral. I have no idea whether Cox is involved in such activities but if it is then you are reading a pimp's rationalisations. It is clear that America thinks prostitution is immoral from the reaction to the Spitzer story.

Not only am I on Ignore. So is the Texas senator, a freely elected person, who mentioned "controversial issues."

Try reading the financial pages of Media from 6 months or more ago and see how wonderful their buy recommendations have turned out for those stupid enough to act upon them.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Their obvious bias is easily seen from their use of words such as "national disgrace": "force religious doctrine into public schools through the back door" ( (how is that done when the debate is in public) : " "strengths and weaknesses" language is a way to attack evolution and clear the path for religious doctrines like creationism and intelligent design to be taught " ( an assertion) : "confuses":
etc etc--you can see for yourselves that there is no balance in the report.

(Bolding mine.)

Do you suppose that is why the Lufkin Daily News clearly labels this "report" an editorial?

Or are you pro Intelligent Design defenders so used to wrapping religious opinion up as fact that you no longer cannot grasp the difference between what is clearly labelled as opinion and what is presented as fact?

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

no longer cannot grasp the difference

Apologies, too late to edit. Please make that " no longer can grasp the difference".

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

Or are you pro Intelligent Design defenders so used to wrapping religious opinion up as fact that you no longer cannot grasp the difference between what is clearly labelled as opinion and what is presented as fact?

Are you off your head? I don't give a **** what the labels say. A lot of the labels on fossil displays were just typed out by somebody or other. Big long Latin name, hyphenated for preference. Wows the visitors I'm told. Makes them think they are educated you see. Classic carrot conditioning. Catalogue $5. Car park $2 (unauthorised parkers will be clamped). Refreshments this way. Mind your head in the bat cave.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

It's okay Blicksie. I assumed you meant " no longer can grasp the difference". I

You might have simply said-" cannot" and skipped the "no longer" which is also a mistake because it assumes we once could grasp the difference which was never the case.

Our flagship current affairs programme, Newsnight, had a "report" tonight on the financial crisis but it was an editorial on behalf of the population of what are ironically known as the Home Counties. And nothing surprising in that. They are based in the Home Counties.

1 Reply

@spendius,

The fact that some news sources or pieces might in fact be opinionated does not mean that there is no difference between a piece labelled as a report and one labelled as an editorial.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Okay Blicks-- I used the wrong word. I was going to say--"the shite that wande posted."

Now--what about the rest of my post?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Well, in your post here you seem to say two things: that society needs God or some God substitute whether he exists or not, as a basis for all morality to exist. And that the media is engaged in some kind of cooperative effort to attack religion in an effort to remove morality from society.

Speaking as an American, I don't spend a lot of time wondering about a society whose citizens don't believe in God since the overwhelming majority of Americans do believe in him. Back in the election of 2000, Al Gore responded to the prayer in school issue-yes they are still arguing that one-by pointing out his complete support of all forms of prayer in school deemed constitutional. Prayer is allowed in the form of after school clubs and a few other instances, and Gore took pains to let people know how much he supported this. The Democratic Party is the party which opposes the religious right, and see how their candidate did backflips to let people know how much he actually supports prayer in schools. So the idea that the media is going to somehow remove religion from America is about as likely as a flyweight boxer knocking out the heavyweight champion.

As far as the media attacking religion, that is also not something that occurs over here. For example, the child molestation issue in the Catholic Church was revealed for a couple of decades before it really blew up in the media. In Texas they had a $20 million judgment against the Catholic Church which was passed over by the press. It was reported that one day, but there were no editorials or calls to investigate on any major scale, very little discussion. The reason is that 25% of the country is Catholic, and while Catholics don't support the offending priests, the media is afraid that pursuing the issue too hard will be interpreted by the Catholics as picking on the Catholic Church, and there goes 25% of their circulation/audience. So the molestation stories were merely reported, the court judgments just kept on piling up, before finally the scandal got so overwhelming that even the media had to pay attention to it.

And when they did pay attention to it, they frequently made the Catholic Church appear heroic in their battles to deal with situation. Our local TV station during it's local news broadcast gave the lead-in to yet another molestation case in the following way: "We'll be back with another chapter in the agony of the Catholic Church right after this message". The "agony of the Catholic Church"? Their priests are molesting the members' children for years while the higher-ups turned away and they make it sound like this is something that just happened that the church is valiantly struggling with.

In America, the press has no plans or conspiracy to eliminate religion-in fact, it is quite clearly afraid of the larger religious bodies, for that can hurt them in the pocketbook. So I really don't see how your post applies here.

1 Reply

Quote:

Professors debate creationism's place in public schools
(Lauren Rausch and Rylee Nye, Texas Christian University Student Newspaper, November 25, 2008)

Two geology professors signed a petition to promote teaching evolution in public school science classrooms and prevent creationism from slipping into the curriculum.

Arthur Busbey, an associate professor of geology, and Helge Alsleben, an assistant professor of geology, put their name on the petition.

The petition is aimed at a committee from the Texas State Board of Education, which is revising the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) curriculum standards for science classrooms in 2008-09. These standards are for public school classrooms from kindergarten through 12th grade, a task that arises every 10 years.

The 21st Century Science Coalition released the petition in September to remove the phrase, "strengths and weaknesses" from the public school guidelines for science classrooms in Texas in reference to the study of scientific theories, sparking a debate between professors.

As of Monday, 588 scientists at Texas universities and 777 other scientists across the state have signed the petition.

According to the petition, evolutionary theory is imperative to teaching biological sciences and evidence exists that support it beyond question.

The curriculum should "encourage valid critical thinking and scientific reasoning by leaving out all references to 'strengths and weaknesses,'" according to the petition.

Busbey said he signed the petition to prevent putting religion in the classroom.

"I want to make sure that students taking science in Texas are actually taking science," Busbey said. "The threat of having religious doctrine inserted into science curricula is something that, in my opinion, is intolerable in the modern world."

Alsleben said even though he is a strong believer in evolution, he signed the petition as a way to influence science classrooms for better teaching, not necessarily for evolution itself.

Alsleben said the current guidelines, which include examining the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theory, could alter the credibility of science in the United States on an international level.

As a native German, he said the inclusion of intelligent design in science classrooms has been brought up as an issue that shapes views of American science education for his colleagues in Germany.

However, other faculty members have conflicting views.

Steve Woodworth, professor of history and self-proclaimed creationist, said serious science students are not going to delve into what is taught in kindergarten through 12th grade classrooms when choosing a college.

Woodworth said he knows and appreciates both professors who signed the petition but respectfully disagrees.

"In order to promote critical thinking, they choose to promote one side?" Woodworth said. "I don't agree with that."

Woodworth said he supports academic freedom where teachers are able to decide what happens in their own classrooms.

Charles Hannon, professor of computer science, said he also opposes the petition. He said this issue is not one of different attitudes of how teaching should be done, but a clash of worldviews.

"The real issue is that students are not coming into our science programs at TCU with sufficient preparation," Hannon said. "So, I applaud their desire to try to fix that problem, but the way they are trying to fix the problem is really being driven more by an agenda than a real chance of being successful of doing that."

Hannon said he also opposes the statement made by the petition that faith should be left at home.

"Everything is based on some level of faith," Hannon said. "There are sets of prerequisites that determine whether you believe in creationism or evolution. Those sets of presuppositions are going to determine not only what you are willing to accept, but also how you take your data, what you choose to be valid and invalid data."

While this controversial issue has sparked debate, Alsleben and Busbey both said they do not believe they put their reputations on the line by signing the petition.

Busbey said he based this on his belief that evolution is scientific fact, while Alsleben said he had no problem attaching his name to something that made a strong case for evolution.

Hannon said in the spirit of scientific inquiry, both sides should be studied.

"The point is when Einstein came along, everybody believed in Newton, and Einstein had to have the guts to go against that," Hannon said. "Openness and willingness to accept different viewpoints is always useful in science."

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know