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.

[Southack]

"Why?"

Because you made this claim in regards to this thread:
"It seems that scientists aren't careful to predict the misuse of our terminology by others."

So please define what terminology was "misused" in this thread.

[Southack]

"Lack of information is not bizarre unless you can show that it is common knowledge among people in the class represented."

I agree, that's why I correctly used the term "bizarre scientific falsehood" to characterize those who weren't educated (one presumes) on National Academy of Science articles going back to 1970 in this particular field.

[Southack]

"As I have pointed out elsewhere there is a confusion among lay people between recessive gene and recessive allele."

Yes, but how would pointing out a recessive genetic trait (something common to both genes and alleles) - be confusing in relation to the debate on this thread, in your opinion?

[unlearner]

Actually, the math is not quite as simple as one might intuitively think. Your assumption is perfectly reasonable, but one that does not coincide with reality.

First, to represent this event mathematically (solving for the variable of time) we have to make several assumptions. Those assumptions cannot be proved by the math equation itself, they must be accepted axiomatically. This is true of any proof.

But we might be able to agree on what those assumptions should be. For example, we agree that the speed of light is constant. There is sufficient empirical data to ASSUME this to be true. It is POSSIBLE that it is not constant, but it is PROBABLE that it is constant. Notwithstanding, Einstein demonstrated that the constancy of light speed disproves that Euclidean geometry accurately represents our universe with precision. This has a bearing on how we can represent the problem mathematically.

There are three parts to the math problem we are discussing. One, we must calculate the distance of this supernova. This requires the second calculation, namely finding the distance between the two events. The idea to use ninth-grade math to triangulate the distance will not fully account for the curvature of space over such a great distance. But since we do not have a map of this curvature or even know definitively the topology of the universe, we are left at a standstill unless we agree to ASSUME (axiomatically, for the sake of a proof) that using triangulation will provide results that are approximately correct. I think it makes sense to pursue this route. So, for the sake of argument, I would be willing to assume that your approach to determining the distance is reasonable. The third part of the equation is on the surface very simple. How long does it take light to travel 187,000 light-years? Does that mean 187,000 years must have transpired?

But here is the problem. Time elapses at different rates in different parts of the universe. Of this we can be fairly certain. Further, we need to know whether our vantage point (Earth) has moved relative to the events with uniform rectilinear motion. It is my opinion, which someone more educated in this subject might be able to support or deny, that the measured expansion of the universe makes the previous condition improbable. That is, if the universe is not only expanding, but is expanding at an ever increasing rate, the earth in relation to the event, has probably not followed a path of uniform rectilinear motion. It is my opinion that we do not have sufficient information to answer the problem in its entirety.

We think that if a twin were to travel in a rocket at speeds "approaching" the velocity of light, and that twin returned to earth, he would find his twin sibling has aged more. It is possible that the traveler in this scenario has aged only days, while his brother has aged 100 years.

I guess to simplify my point I would ask, could the Earth be like this rocket ship in relation to the supernova?

Let me add one further point, it appears that those measuring these events are measuring the velocity of matter that has exploded from this supernova. (I am referring to the source of the light we see.) While it is reasonable to assume that this velocity would be enormous, I find it difficult to believe they are observing something traveling at the actual speed of light. Unless the thing being observed is pure energy, it cannot, by definition, reach light speed.

On your other point: "Have you ever examined and tried to understand the assumptions that go into radiometric dating, and the results it gives? Have you ever pondered on the results that led (creationist) geologists in the 19th century to conclude that the earth is very ancient long before radiometric techniques existed?"

No, I would be interested in learning more about these.

My experience though is that the enormity of the science involved in these discussions could essentially take many lifetimes to explore. I suppose that is one reason these debates on evolution and creationism tend to go on for hundreds of posts.

So I keep going back to a more philosophical question: How does someone KNOW anything?

I have much more confidence in scientific observations that have resulted in tangible technology. For example, I can believe the principles of electronics quite readily while I type this on my computer. I have personally experienced the left-hand rule (formerly known as the right-hand rule less than a century ago) of electromagnetism. That is entirely different from a science as esoteric as evolution.

Of course there are many other relevant philosophical questions, such as why we seem to have an innate need to know where we came from.

I believe in rational thought and personal experience. I also believe we cannot know everything we need to know directly, so learning from others is important. But at what point do you think relying on the experience of others enter into the realm of faith?

[unlearner]

Could you accept that God has preserved the ESSENTIAL message He wants us to know, so that we have sufficient resources to know it?

Fortunately, the Bible does not require us to obtain ALL KNOWLEDGE in order to be saved. The message of the gospel is simple enough that even a child can understand it:

Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose the third day. There are many eyewitnesses to His death and resurrection.

These same witnesses were too timid to take a stand when Christ died, but after He was raised, they became bold enough to put their lives on the line.

What would you consider sufficient proof that this message is true?

[js1138]

The answer is no, bacteria do not have recessive traits. The author of your article is trying to establish an entirely new usage for the word. I am unaware of anyone else using the word this way, and I have done a rather extensive google search. A single instance does not make for correct word usage.

I acknowledge you have a source for your usage, but you are both wrong. You can't take a hundred year old word and alter its meaning with one published article.

But this is irrelevant to your argument. You are wrong to imply that bacterial antibiotic resistance is always hidden in recessive genes, and wrong to imply that mutation isn't necessary. You are wrong to say that selection isn't the cause of the genome shift in the population.

[e p1uribus unum]

The big "misuse" going on is "theory," on this and all related threads.

Here's part of the problem with "recessive"

Pleiotropy: either a gene or an allele may have an impact on more than one trait and may have varying degrees of recessiveness or dominance in relation to the different traits.

Penetrance and Expressivity also refer to factors that can have an impact on what we see (phenotype)

[Southack]

"The answer is no, bacteria do not have recessive traits. The author of your article is trying to establish an entirely new usage for the word. I am unaware of anyone else using the word this way, and I have done a rather extensive google search. A single instance does not make for correct word usage. I acknowledge you have a source for your usage, but you are both wrong."

Well, at least you acknowledge that I have a source (gee, only the most reputable scientific source on the planet)!

Now the burden is upon *you* to show a more authoritative source to show that somehow bacteria doesn't have recessive genetic traits (you can't).

Good luck, though.

[Junior]

I never said his message wasn't true. I simply said I don't believe the Bible is infallible.

Now, as for your witnesses, I can find several folks who've claimed to have met and chatted with aliens. "Eyewitness" testimony is never all it's cracked up to be.

[Southack]

"You are wrong to imply that bacterial antibiotic resistance is always hidden in recessive genes, and wrong to imply that mutation isn't necessary."

On what scientific basis do you make those specific claims?

[Southack]

"You are wrong to say that selection isn't the cause of the genome shift in the population."

You are in error by claiming that I've attacked Natural Selection.

[Southack]

"Here's part of the problem with "recessive" Pleiotropy: either a gene or an allele may have an impact on more than one trait and may have varying degrees of recessiveness or dominance in relation to the different traits. Penetrance and Expressivity also refer to factors that can have an impact on what we see (phenotype)"

Why is that a problem with "recessive?"

[e p1uribus unum]

Those not educated in the area would not be bizarre in their lack of knowledge.

Googling the term recessive with any others related to genetics gives just about exclusively definitions referring to diploid organisms.

That means any person who is not a geneticist would not be expected to know the more esoteric usage.

I'm out to work after this post.

[js1138]

post, in message #680 on this very thread, an incontrovertible, comprehensive, authoritative proof of your error. In short, you were wrong.

No, we are not wrong. Just because something is published in an "authoritative" journal doesn't make the writing good. The science may be fine, but the author has made an eccentric use of a common word.

The concept of gene duplication and subsequent modification is one of the most carefully established processes in evolution. Sequences are frequently duplicated, then one of the duplicates mutates and a new function results. The function might be helpful or neutral or detrimental. Selection determines that.

If you want to score some points on this issue, I offer a challenge in good faith. Tell me how a designer can predict in advance the outcone of a mutation such as the one in the article you cited. This is really the key to whether things are designed.

Consider this. If you, or ID researchers, can find a formula that predicts the outcome of mutations -- the specific changes in structure -- and can predict the effects on survivability and reproductive success of changes to the genome, then you are home free. But that's the nut of it. To call it design, you have to know the consequenses of design changes in advance. This sounds like an ID research goal to me.

[js1138]

I've got published, peer-reviewed articles from 1970 onward that all definitively show that bacteria do indeed have recessive genetic traits.

So let's see them.

[Southack]

post, in message #680 on this very thread, an incontrovertible, comprehensive, authoritative proof of your error. In short, you were wrong.

"No, we are not wrong. Just because something is published in an "authoritative" journal doesn't make the writing good. The science may be fine, but the author has made an eccentric use of a common word."

Actually, you are completely wrong. Contrary to your claims, as supported by the National Academy of Sciences, bacteria really do have recessive genetic traits.

Thus, the burden is upon *you* to show, with reputable sources, that the NAS and Southack are both formally wrong on that point.

You can't. All that you can do is dance to avoid admitting that you have no source that would contradict the NAS and Southack.

[Southack]

"So let's see them."

I provided the first such source in Post #680.

In response, you've shown no source to the contrary. Until *you* show a contrarian source that supports your bizarre scientific "claim" (being generous), the burden remains upon *you*, not me, to provide additional sources.

[js1138]

On what scientific basis do you make those specific claims?

The article you cited is my reference. Try reading it.

[Southack]

"The answer is no, bacteria do not have recessive traits." - JS1138

Just for the record, who among this thread's Darwinists will be Intellectually Honest enough to correct js1138 (or gasp, agree with him and cite a reputable scientific journal for support)?

Lets not have all of you dancing around this point, as you are each want to do on your various threads.

Either correct one of your own, or else support his "claim" with a reputable source.

That goes for each of you. No exceptions. Silence on this point is now to be considered as Intellectually Dishonest.

[Southack]

"The article you cited is my reference. Try reading it."

I'll give you "hubris," just not "correctness."

You have a deficit of scientific sources substantiating your claims on this thread. That looks bad. In fact, it *is* bad.

Sources, js1138. You need sources...and mere words and distractions or straw men or derision or anything shy of scientific, reputable sources won't help you (though no doubt you'll be tempted to try any or all of the above rather than admit you are unbacked by the scientific community).