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.

[js1138]

His self-esteem must surely suffer when He contemplates what unutterable nonsense is offered up in His name. That's quite a sacrifice.

[WildTurkey]

His self-esteem must surely suffer when He contemplates what unutterable nonsense is offered up in His name. That's quite a sacrifice.

I had to retrace to find out which one you were referring to!

[JohnnyM]

"In what way? Many find it entirely consistent"

For Example, the plants are created on day 3, but not until day 4 is the Sun brought into play. How can plants, or any life for that matter, exist without the Sun.

JM

[js1138]

I migt add that the reason your defence of the word "recessive" is so blindly stupid is that it implies a scenerio in which perfect replication results in traits being expressed in a statistical distribution.

Get that? "Recessive" traits, as used by 99.99% of everyone, do their thing in perfect replication scenerios. They behave just the way you (and ID) want them to. They hide "information" in the genome, so it is reasonable to argue that a trait like sickle cell is already in the genome, even though expression is rare.

You, in your haste to google salvation for your ignorance of biology, latched onto a scenerio in which this is impossible. Bacteria do not reproduce sexually. If replication proceeds wthout mutation, "recessive" traits can NEVER be expressed. Only mutation can cause the pairs of alleles to be the same.

This is why it is incredibly stupid to call these alleles recessive. They have nothing in common with the usual sense of the word recessive. Which is why no one except your eccentric author uses the word this way, and no dictionary or encyclopedia defines it this way.

[Southack]

"Your source states in its opening paragraph that not one, but two mutations are required to confer antibiotic resistance. The information required to have antibiotic resistance is not present in the original organism, even if some author labels the two copies recessive genes."

You can not, with a straight face, use *my* source to disprove what my source was saying.

My source says that the resistance to the antibiotic is a recessive trait to the E. Coli bacteria.

You have now attempted to say that my source is in error...by using my source. That dog won't hunt.

You have made a claim. Your claim is that bacteria have no recessive genetic traits. Your claim is unsupported.

Specifically, *my* source that you attempted to twist above says that resistance to an antibiotic is a recessive trait in E. Coli bacteria.

Ergo, my source specifically refutes your claim to the contrary.

So it is up to *you* to find and post a precise, concise, scientifically reputable source that somehow agrees with your bizarre claim that bacteria have no recessive genetic traits.

Your source *must* use that precise phrase. It must make the precise claim in a peer reviewed scientific journal that "bacteria have no recessive genetic traits."

...And hilarious links like your earlier one to Encarta (Encarta!) won't suffice.

[VadeRetro]

You, in your haste to google salvation for your ignorance of biology, latched onto a scenerio in which this is impossible. Bacteria do not reproduce sexually. If replication proceeds wthout mutation, "recessive" traits can NEVER be expressed. Only mutation can cause the pairs of alleles to be the same.

It doesn't matter. The National Academy of Sciences has betrayed Darwin Central by supporting Southack on the existence of recessive genes in bacteria. All is lost until we can erase the record of our failure. We put out a hit on the author of that article. We get the article pulled from PNAS. Then we put out a hit on all the bacteria of the world ...

Nah! Too creationist.

[Alacarte]

So that leaves us with self-educating and discerning the truth for ourself. We are accountable for our own ideas, and being always spoon fed by experts, shuts off the critical thinker.

There is a big difference between common sense, as in knowing not to stand in the rain if you don't want to get wet, and understanding science. I submit, that it is possible to regurgitate scientific data, but it impossible, for even the smartest person, to understand what technical sciecne data really means without years of training. There are LOTS of things in science that are illogical, but true. Without having studied the subject, you essentially have no idea what you are talking about. Do you ever go directly to technical journals and draw your own conclusions from the data? Of course not! It's gibberish to all but those in that field. We need 'experts' to interpret the data for us, we just need to be selective about who we trust. You can't say the data is good, but the authors are liars, it's both or neither. In which case, the scientific community is either right, or wrong. If you think they are liars, then you should be looking elsewhere for your data. You can't make them do all the work, then draw your own crazy conclusions and call them liars.

Evidenced by the refusal to put disclaimers regarding the Theory of Evolution -- which facts shift with the wind -- the Education Establishment wishes to strong arm any critical discussion about their clearly anti-religious nature.

Until at LEAST one actual science institution on the planet backs up this argument that evolution is not science, it's nothing but zealous rhetoric.

A little piece of trivia for you. Only 23 of the top 71 richest people in the world have a college degree. Many of the 23 degrees are from socalled less than reputable colleges. (I heard this information on the Dennis Prager radio show).

Who your daddy is has about 1000 times more to do with being rich than being educated. Besides, educated people tend to pursue knowledge mroe than money.

[Southack]

"Your case against the very existence of genetic novelty (mutation) is undermined by the easily demonstrable nature of adaptive bacterial mutation."

That hubris (on the part of you or one of your fellow Darwinists) was what started your group's collective dive into the intellectual cesspool of having to claim the bizarre scientific falsehood that bacteria have no recessive genetic traits.

You've already been entirely, completely, comprehensively, and authoritatively debunked by the National Academy of Sciences in post #680 on that long-since discredited claim.

Ergo, your case against me fails. Miserably.

...Yawn...without even much effort on my part.

Do try harder.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Funny that it's called "creo amnesia."

Which, of course, has as much credibility as "evol amnesia."

[VadeRetro]

I hear the music. Deedle-eedle dum dum dee dee dee ... (Slow load but definitely not worth it.)

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

If making a dogmatic statement is not arguing, then indeed you have a point. If you don't believe that you are making a dogmatic statement about ID, then you are making an argument.

In this case, I'd certainly have to agree with you. You are not making any kind of argument...

[unlearner]

We probably agree on more than we disagree.

That is fairly unusual when debating such a hot issue as evolution vs. creationism.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Perhaps the Taliban example is a bit strong, because Christianity was never that violent in the Americas. But in England, it certianly was.

I've always equated atheism and paganism with Hitler, Mao, Il Jung, Pol Pot, Stalin. We need to keep an eye on these athiest evolutionists. They always come for the children, next thing thin they'll be ripping those children out of homes that don't teach evolution, then they'll start rounding us Christians up in work camps. Their dogma is euthanasia and survival of the fittest. Quite antithetical to Christianity. Doesn't belong in a science class.

[VadeRetro]

Which, of course, has as much credibility as "evol amnesia."

Not a familiar phenomenon of these threads. The situation is as far from symmetrical as one can imagine.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Everyone be nice.

Why should anyone be nice to that hateful liberal garbage comparing Conservative Christians to to the Taliban? Why don't you post this crap over on DU? They'd love it.

[VadeRetro]

Do try harder.

Try a little harder yourself. Get back to me on this, sometime.

There CAN'T BE enough gene pairs of the tuf[n] type with enough hidden alleles to account for the seemingly infinite mutability of said bacteria. To say that amounts to claiming they have a hidden pocket containing every allele for every adaptation we have ever seen or will ever see. Silly on the face of it.

Then you realize that we sequence entire genomes now and the pocket isn't hidden anymore; we can see everything and it certainly isn't infinite. In many cases it isn't all that big. And it so happens that your "chosen" example of E. coli, is one of the organisms already sequenced.

[unlearner]

"What did God sacrifice?"

God gave His Son Jesus.


Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying about your Bible quotations. I know that the verses you referenced do not include the phrase "he shook it by grabbing its edges". I am unaware of any Bible verses that have that phrase or some similar phrase.

Did I misunderstand what you were quoting? Or did you find this in the Bible?

[Southack]

"You, in your haste to google salvation for your ignorance of biology, latched onto a scenerio in which this is impossible. Bacteria do not reproduce sexually." - js1138

Earlier, I asked that your fellow Darwinists correct you on your ignorance of bacteria's recessive genetic traits in order to show that they valued scientific honesty. They failed.

Now, I'll offer a 2nd chance for your peer group to correct your above misguided post. Failing that, I'll do so authoritatively (we'll see if they remain silent to your errors again).

http://www.monarchwatch.org/class/vocab1.htm
e.g. "Bacteria reproduce by binary fission, which means that a single cell grows and divides in two without exchanging genetic material with another individual. This process does not follow a precise sequence of events, as it does for eukaryotic cells, but rather happens as quickly or slowly as the environment allows. Bacteria can also exchange genetic material as part of sexual reproduction. Bacteria can live in a vast range of habitats, including superheated undersea vents and arctic ice."

[VadeRetro]

Bacterial conjugation isn't eukaryotic meiosis. Sorry, we all knew about that already. Really.

Dance on, Larry!

[Southack]

"There CAN'T BE enough gene pairs of the tuf[n] type with enough hidden alleles to account for the seemingly infinite mutability of said bacteria. To say that amounts to claiming they have a hidden pocket containing every allele for every adaptation we have ever seen or will ever see. Silly on the face of it."

"Seemingly infinite" is a phrase that makes honest debate difficult, which is no doubt why you chose it.

On the other hand, the calculations for genetic permutations of existing alleles and/or genes result in very, very large numbers...which is one of many reasons why I took issue with your repeated use of the word "easy" in regard to being able to show that mutations were original rather than pre-existing.