Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Anyone ready to believe that this fabulously complex world was created all at once would have no difficulty in believing that carbon isotope decay, and for older stuff Uranium 238 and 235, Thorium 232, Rubidium 87, Potassium 40 and Samarmium 147, was put in place at the same time so that God could have a good laugh watching the resulting battle. Cosmic man fighting. Good angels versus bad angels.

effemm is taking advantage of a delusion he has and which he believes with some devotion everyone else shares. It is that his concept of "everything" is actually everything and I have serious doubts that it actually encompasses any more than 0.00000000000000000000000000001? (at a rough guess) of the real everything. At most. Being kind to the silly sod.

And any being with the power to create everything might well have done the dastardly act five minutes ago with everything including everything. Your thoughts, memories, kinks, hopes and such like all ready given in the finished design. effemm is like the smooth talking seducer who promises "everything" and then chickens it when the lady starts getting her roll-ons off determindly or signing a few checking accounts.

And he has not one shred of objective evidence, despite him shouting that dread phrase from the rooftops, to prove that everything wasn't created five minutes ago. Or even five seconds ago. And an infinite number of such creations. One, say, in which the only variation is that Manchester United won last week at Fulham rather than losing like they did in this manifestation just to see the different paths the shockwaves took and what they did on the way to their eventual diffusion in increasingly virtual nothingness.

Writing of the 20th century atheist philosophy, Logical Positivism, a fine title for anti-creats, Prof Gellner wrote, ( with additions in brackets by my goodself--)



The insistence on objective evidence and peer-reviewed verifiability is a straw man of effemm's own making. He merely directs such a silly proposition at an easy target of his ire like all bullies do. The origin of the ire is unknown. At all possible targets he would turn to jelly. Or even a few carefully selected ones. He has singled out God Hisself who would never feel the need to mount a defence.

He wouldn't want it directed at "everything", I feel sure, and so picking on people he knows haven't the tools to defend themselves has, besides creating a sense of superiority which is proving difficult to eradicate, been a mere exercise in the "will to power". As befits a captain of a powerboat fitted with bowthrusters.

Can one imagine that someone who is unwilling to test the verifiability of his belief that atheism has no social or ethical implications is keen to use the principle of verifiabilty to prove we are all monkeys and everything is meaningless.

Evolution might loom large in some places but in national life and destiny it is a trifling thing and hardly enters the heads of all but a small bunch of clunkers and freeloaders, when reporters are present, from one year end to the next. But they do enjoy a good oceanic sing-song once a week and a hypocrite giving them a bollocking for their sins.

A really high class bollocking lasts till about Tuesday afternoon on average. With Wall Street wizards it lasts until they get their laptops out on the car park where numerous market stalls are placed. Assuming no tense situations of course.

The only straw man around here is you, spendi. You speak with "forked" tongue, and with all your added gibberish, usually end up saying nothing at all.

Kiddies don't even have to know the atomic table to know about dinosaurs. They're already way ahead of you on science and history of this planet.

from Scientific American:

Mar 27, 2009 06:42 PM in Society & Policy
Texas vote moves evolution to the top of the class
By Katherine Harmon in 60-Second Science Blog

The Texas Board of Education voted today by a 13-to-2 margin to change controversial language in the state's curriculum, making it harder for creationism to creep into public classrooms. For the past 20 years, the state's curriculum has instructed teachers to present the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories, opening the door to non-scientific, faith-based alternatives.

Today's vote strikes the old language and replaces it with instruction to "analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing," according to Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a pro-evolution non-profit based on Oakland, Calif. Other curriculum amendments proposed by social conservatives failed today, according to the Dallas Morning News, including two that called for biology classes to dissect the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of evidence for aspects of evolutionary theory.

Texas' curriculum can have a major impact on what's taught nationwide because it's such a big buyer of textbooks. "It's kind of like the Wal-Mart effect," says NCSE spokesperson Steven Newton. "If they won't carry your product, you modify your product so they will buy it." The Texas changes are set to take effect next year and remain in place until 2020.

End of article

I think some bloggers even if they are attending an event are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

That's clutching at straws ci. and if there are any readers of it who think otherwise it is woe betide the US educational system. It's incoherent as well. And really badly expressed. It is somebody who doesn't know what to say but feels a necessity to say something.

You have no objective, verifiable proof that it all didn't start five minutes ago with my previous post embedded as a part of the inscrutable plan. None.

The reason you think the post I wrote is daft is that it is counter-intuitive. And to the vast bulk of the human race the idea that the world was not designed is also counter-intuitive. It looks designed to the naked eye. The earth looks a bit flat too.

Thats why eye witnesses can be the best thing for a defense. They can be talked into an alternative reality.
Blogs have been called the "First draft world of reporting".

These anti-creats have no answers unless they are playing at slow-pitched softball. They even think that ignoring my post will go un-noticed.

They are hanging on the every word of some two-bit bloggers and lady reporters.

The best journalist makes mistakes but it's hard to find the mishaps. The blog reporters are the opposite -- trying to find some truth amidst all the bias filtered BS.

WORD !.

There seems to be no grownups watching over most blogs.

That may be so but blogs seem to take precedence over the professors around here. Once you start filtering for self-validation purposes I suppose that becomes inevitable.

Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt
And for all the little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in.

Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.

The Daily Texan
Professors debate how to teach evolution

Published: Thursday, March 26, 2009

Semanta Deavan



Biology professor Arturo De Lozanne, above, discusses evolution with associate biology professor Martin Poenie after the debate between De Lozanne and philosophy professor Robert Koons on Wednesday.

In the first formal debate on evolution at UT in several years, biology professor Arturo De Lozanne and philosophy professor Robert Koons squared off Wednesday over whether there are weaknesses in the scientific theory.

The debate came as the State Board of Education held the last of several public hearings on whether evolution should be taught in schools as settled science or an open question.

In response to the question, “Are there weaknesses in the theory of evolution?,” Koons argued weaknesses exist because evolution is not a theory but a working hypothesis.

“Scientific theory is a set of laws that are quantifiable and testable,” Koons said. “We do not have a detailed, quantifiable model on which to testevolution. We don’t really know what evolution looks like.”

De Lozanne rebutted that scientific theories have to be overturned by better explanations, a burden which creationist philosophy cannot fulfill.

“There is no other evolution theory. The existing theory holds beautiful explanatory power based on readily available observations,” De Lozanne said. “To say we don’t understand the process of DNA mutation is a fallacy.”

The debate became heated when the argument turned to the issue of teaching evolution in schools.

Koons advocated teaching students to question the sufficiency of evolution in the classroom, arguing the dangers of foreclosing on continued debate.

“There is still a future biological Newton out there,” Koons said. “We need to inspire students to investigate the questions of evolution that still go unanswered in order to achieve a more appropriate theory.”

De Lozanne disagreed, arguing that the Texas Board of Education was using religion for their own ideological agenda.

“Religious objections to science are dangerous,” he said.

The evolution-versus-creationism debate has been a crucial dividing issue in society, with some believing that acceptance of evolution defies one’s belief in God. Sociology and pre-law senior Yi Li, who chaired the debate, spoke of the chasm between biologists and other Americans.

“The consensus among biologists differs to the belief in the population of approximately half of Americans,” she said.

Government junior Garrett Mize is director of the Texas Freedom Network student chapter, which advocates the teaching of evolution. He said discussion over evolution is important, but that he is worried it might give students the illusion that there is debate over the issue in the scientific world.

Henry R. Bose, director of the School of Biological Sciences at UT, agreed.

“There are no obvious strong weaknesses in the theory of evolution,” he said. “We live in a country where science has made a lot of progress, but education has not matched the scientific growth.”

A philosophy doctoral candidate and instructor at UT disagreed, He wished to remain anonymous out of fear that his opinion may jeopardize his position at the University.

“To object to discussion against science is intellectual bigotry,” he said.

The State Board of Education will make its decision regarding the teaching of evolution this Friday.

From New Scientist:

Texas vote leaves loopholes for teaching creationism

* 03:58 28 March 2009 by Amanda Gefter


It was a mixed bag of victory and defeat for science on Friday when the Texas Board of Education voted on their state science standards. In a move that pleased the scientific community, the board voted to not include proposed changes that would call for the teaching of the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories " code words for allowing creationist views into the classroom.

However, additional amendments that were voted through provide loopholes for creationist teaching. "It's as if they slammed the door shut with strengths and weaknesses, then ran around the house opening windows to let it in a bunch of other ways," says Dan Quinn, who was on site at the hearings. Quinn is communications director of the Texas Freedom Network, a community watchdog organisation.

Link to remainder of article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16859-texas-vote-leaves-loopholes-for-teaching-creationism.html

Thanks for the link, LW. Amanda Gefter of New Scientist has written interesting essays on science education.

Yes, she's a very good science journalist who gets the facts right.

Here comes the Discovery Institute's bloggers painting a rosy picture for Creationism/ID from news articles, especially the Wall Street Journal, the bastion of liberal bias:

Wall Street Journal: Texas Opens Classroom Door for Evolution Doubts
John West

Although incorrect at points, the Wall Street Journal's article on the new Texas science standards is more accurate than some of the local reporting. The key thing the Journal gets right is that the Board definitely opened the door to critically analyzing evolution in the classroom. Unfortunately, the article omits or mangles a lot of the details. For one thing, the article doesn't mention the new critical inquiry standard requiring students to "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations…including examining all sides of scientific evidence… so as to encourage critical thinking by the student." The story also garbles things when it states that "the board voted down curriculum standards questioning the evolutionary principle that all life on Earth is descended from common ancestry." No, the Board rejected one such standard offered by Board chair Don McElroy, but it left untouched another standard that already required students to "analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies, including anatomical, molecular, and developmental." This standard that was left intact clearly mandates that students "evaluate" the evidence for common ancestry. Moreover, McElroy's original amendment on common ancestry and the fossil record was rewritten and then reinserted. (The rewritten version requires students to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.") The Journal article also misrepresents the language in the science standards about the Big Bang, implying that it was designed to allow the teaching of Biblical young-earth creationism. That's absolutely false, as the Board member who proposed the wording made crystal clear during the Board's deliberations.

Balance of DI propaganda:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

Where does it mandate the teachers to actually include any intelligent design or creation "science" for the students to analyze and evalute? Nowhere. Bold italics are mine.

They don't, but by implication the student must

That would also apply to any "creationist" claims. Looks like they just shot themselves in the foot.

That has the crux of what actually ends up in the school science textbook (likely something like that statement or maybe even nothing) and what is in the school library. I don't think teachers are required to tell students to Google ID and Creationism and start going through all the blogs and other IDiot/Creationut's sites to fully explore "the other side." Man, would that cause a complete confusion in a high school student or not? It would be like a high school American history teacher telling his students to read Gore Vidal's "Lincoln" and other non-textbook sources to analyze and evaluate. History is also written from different viewpoints and American history has produced tomes that have a liberal and a conservative bias. It's a case of which bias is actually fact.

So I'm more interested about what gets into the high school biology textbooks and what books the library buys (or gets donated like "Of Pandas and People," which I'm guessing would be accidentally placed in the round file).

It's a pity they didn't take time off from giving statements out to see the Paris Opera's splendid production of Gounoud's Faust on Sky Arts 2.

We are Faustians after all. We ought to try to understand what this debate is all about rather than leaving it to Ed's little "piggy wives" to thrash out.

It's on today and tomorrow but I don't think anyone on the committee is up to flying to Europe, finding a hotel which has Sky and watching it. It will be available on the Sky video player sometime in the future. I'll wait for the Blu-Ray BD which will likely be a long time coming considering operas are not a priority on Blu-Ray -- Opus Arte is trying.

http://www.opusarte.com/pages/product.asp?ProductID=228

As a side issue, Goethe's work on which the opera is based, highlights a problem which Wittgenstein has been catigated for. Or one of them.

It is the tiresomeness of the man, and it happens in the pub, and on A2k, who joins a discussion when it has already been underway for some considerable time and despite not understanding it for that reason not only proceeds to take it over and start laying out his own rules but is quite unaware that he is doing so because his fat ego isn't programmed to have noticed it and he is thus uninhibited by the usual constraints of such a situation. He very often finds himself opining that the others don't know what they are talking about because the concepts they are using in the discussion are themselves mistaken.

He thus turns the discussion over to his own expertise which is concerned with the minute examination of the complexities of language use. Or some other narrow expertise which he feels it is incumbent to display. He is a serious causation of RES. (Rolling eyes syndrome.)

I often find myself having to swallow my expertise in the dynamics of sport and take part in discussions at the level of the rabid fan. That's why I bet on sporting events. It prevents me getting intellectual about them.

Obviously this is an enterprise outside time and perforce ignores the drastic changes of industrialisation over the last 400 years and the choices society faces to determine the future to the extent it has the power to. It is also neutral morally but hypocritically in that he knows what time the train is arriving and he doesn't care for his squeeze to be being squeezed by other men, as often happens in evolution.

Basically the deamons of general principles and social consequences can be exorcised by such a method which outcrops as a form of non-participation or resignation.

The militant evolution idealogues can easily end up in the same position and communicate it to anybody daft enough to allow it to influence them on the basis of it being wonderfully incomprehensible and suffused with inelegant expressions which allow them to sound as if they are educated whilst saying nothing of any value to man nor beast.

So where did Texas end up on this? There were so many conflicting blog reports that I lost track of what the final result was. Sorry.