Ayatollahs in the classroom [Evolution and Creationism]

Berkshire Eagle (Mass.) ^ | 22 January 2005 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

A movement to drag the teaching of science in the United States back into the Dark Ages continues to gain momentum. So far, it's a handful of judges -- "activist judges" in the view of their critics -- who are preventing the spread of Saudi-style religious dogma into more and more of America's public-school classrooms.

The ruling this month in Georgia by Federal District Judge Clarence Cooper ordering the Cobb County School Board to remove stickers it had inserted in biology textbooks questioning Darwin's theory of evolution is being appealed by the suburban Atlanta district. Similar legal battles pitting evolution against biblical creationism are erupting across the country. Judges are conscientiously observing the constitutionally required separation of church and state, and specifically a 1987 Supreme Court ruling forbidding the teaching of creationism, a religious belief, in public schools. But seekers of scientific truth have to be unnerved by a November 2004 CBS News poll in which nearly two-thirds of Americans favored teaching creationism, the notion that God created heaven and earth in six days, alongside evolution in schools.

If this style of "science" ever took hold in U.S. schools, it is safe to say that as a nation we could well be headed for Third World status, along with everything that dire label implies. Much of the Arab world is stuck in a miasma of imam-enforced repression and non-thought. Could it happen here? Our Constitution protects creativity and dissent, but no civilization has lasted forever, and our current national leaders seem happy with the present trends.

It is the creationists, of course, who forecast doom if U.S. schools follow a secularist path. Science, however, by its nature, relies on evidence, and all the fossil and other evidence points toward an evolved human species over millions of years on a planet tens of millions of years old [ooops!] in a universe over two billion years in existence [ooops again!].

Some creationists are promoting an idea they call "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwinism, eliminating the randomness and survival-of-the-fittest of Darwinian thought. But, again, no evidence exists to support any theory of evolution except Charles Darwin's. Science classes can only teach the scientific method or they become meaningless.

Many creationists say that teaching Darwin is tantamount to teaching atheism, but most science teachers, believers as well as non-believers, scoff at that. The Rev. Warren Eschbach, a professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pa., believes that "science is figuring out what God has already done" and the book of Genesis was never "meant to be a science textbook for the 21st century." Rev. Eschbach is the father of Robert Eschbach, one of the science teachers in Dover, Pa., who refused to teach a school-board-mandated statement to biology students criticizing the theory of evolution and promoting intelligent design. Last week, the school district gathered students together and the statement was read to them by an assistant superintendent.

Similar pro-creationist initiatives are underway in Texas, Wisconsin and South Carolina. And a newly elected creationist majority on the state board of education in Kansas plans to rewrite the entire state's science curriculum this spring. This means the state's public-school science teachers will have to choose between being scientists or ayatollahs -- or perhaps abandoning their students and fleeing Kansas, like academic truth-seekers in China in the 1980s or Tehran today.

[spunkets]

"IT'S ONLY A THEORY"

Folks will have a similar reaction to the one the IRS would have if I put a sticker on my 1040 saying, "Tax law is just a theory. The money's all mine."

[pepsionice]

The best fix for this entire problem...is to take out science altogether in the classroom. Lets double up on math and make this whole problem go away.

[narby]

Look there. Sadsack doesn't even know how many base pairs to plug into his own precious math.

[anguish]

the equations that I gave to you require *you* to plug in values

And here I thought you had already done it and found that abiogenesis was impossible. Surely that must mean that you know how many basepairs are required for a self-replicating entity, and how many such configurations there are.

[Southack]

"And here I thought you had already done it and found that abiogenesis was impossible."

It's axiomatic that abiogenesis occured; we're here.

But did it occur due to unaided "natural" processes, or was there some form of "aid" involved?

For that, we look at the math.

[spunkets]

"We know that viable DNA sequences are long series of base-pairs in precise sequences."

Wonderful!

"Calculating such probabilities for unaided processes correctly forming any of the known or probable (viable) sequences is therefore well within the realm of modern math."

The terms "random" and "nonrandom" are appropriate, not "aided" and "unaided". Failure to model the process with simple random linear functions means the process is nonrandom and you have a lot more to learn. It does not mean, or imply that the process is driven by an intelligent being.

[narby]

I haven't even looked at his "math", If it's what I think it is, radomly trying to find a specific sequence, that's not even the correct way to approach the problem of abiogenesis. It's a wildly parallel process, and doesn't not have a specific sequence goal to ignite abiogenesis. All it has to be is anything that can self reproduce and mutate, and that launches Evolution.

Which Sadsack doesn't even understand.

[anguish]

Semantics, I'm of course talking about your "unaided" process. Maybe you can provide us with the values you used to find the "unaided" process impossible, and hopefully also how you got those values?

[Southack]

"It does not mean, or imply that the process is driven by an intelligent being."

No, actually the math says that it *could* involve an intelligent intervention of some form. More precisely, it says that some form of bias *must* exist to correctly sequence long sets of base-pairs.

That "bias" may or may not be a natural process, but it must exist.

[Southack]

"Maybe you can provide us with the values you used to find the "unaided" process impossible, and hopefully also how you got those values?"

Given non-infinite time (e.g. the 17 billion years of our existing universe), the math in the original link that I provided (with specific values) shows that there *must* be some form of bias (be it natural or intelligent).

[narby]

actually the math says that it *could* involve

I didn't know that math could speak....

[anguish]

It's a wildly parallel processs, and doesn't not have a specific sequence goal to ignite abiogenesis

Of course, but it would nevertheless be interesting to see how he got to his conclusion. Especially as it involves data that would hand him the Nobel prize instantly if he had them.

[anguish]

Given non-infinite time (e.g. the 17 billion years of our existing universe), the math in the original link that I provided (with specific values) shows that there *must* be some form of bias (be it natural or intelligent)

So you say. Now what values are to be used in the math?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Primarily the article is irrelevant because it ignores selection. Random proposes; selection disposes. A random drift "moves" proportional to Sqrt(time) but selection can cause movement proportional Exp(time). (I used to think selection was linear (proportional to time) but I've since figured out that it's much faster.

[narby]

actually the math says that it *could* involve

I haven't ever really looked into the problem. Since it doesn't matter where the first life came from for Evolution to exist, it's irrelevant. (course Sadsack doesn't understand that point)

But the "goal" molecule that can self-reproduce and mutate could be a huge number of different sequences. I have no idea how many possible sequences might do that, but it's got to be considerable.

And since we're talking about just a molecule reproducing and mutating, it could be realy simple.

Then, the process is in parallel. How many sub-living molecules are in play at once, worldwide. 24/7/365 by how many billion years it took to launch.

Just my guess, but I can't see how life couldn't form under those odds on a planet with anything like our conditions.

[Texasforever]

I have one simple question. Why is a sticker saying that evolution is a theory a threat to the scientific community? Did I miss the announcement that evolution has now been declared a scientific fact?

[Doctor Stochastic]

As long as you weren't told to cut the arms off your kids or to drown them.

[narby]

Why is a sticker saying that evolution is a theory a threat to the scientific community?

In case VR is away, I'll take a stab right quick.

In a strictly legal sense, because all similar processes in science are called "theories", the sticker would be OK if it said that. That ALL the stuff in the book were theories.

But to single out Evolution, when it's obvious to any conscious human that it is a religious element that's fighting it, is a First Amendment establishment of religion. (I have some problems with the way the First is interpreted, but that is the common interpretation)

[Texasforever]

But to single out Evolution, when it's obvious to any conscious human that it is a religious element that's fighting it, is a First Amendment establishment of religion

What was the wording on the sticker?

[anguish]

Since it doesn't matter where the first life came from for Evolution to exist, it's irrelevant.

Yeah, had it been a thread about abiogenesis it would have real relevance, even if the problematics are simplified to uselessness in this "math". It's simply impossible to know the entry points to the problem, at least with our current collective knowledge, and even how many there are. Garbage in - garbage out.