Capitol bill aims to control ‘leftist’ profs [suing profs who teach evolution!]

Florida Alligator ^ | March 23, 2005 | JAMES VANLANDINGHAM

[Quick1]

TALLAHASSEE — Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill that aims to stamp out “leftist totalitarianism” by “dictator professors” in the classrooms of Florida’s universities.

The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, passed 8-to-2 despite strenuous objections from the only two Democrats on the committee.

The bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House.

While promoting the bill Tuesday, Baxley said a university education should be more than “one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom,” as part of “a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.”

The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.

According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.

Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.

“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.

[wyattearp]

If you fear a "fundamentalist" Christian, you have issues.

If you fear a "radical" or "false" Christian, you're sane and have a good grip on reality.

I merely emphasized "TRUE" to drive the point home that it's obvious to those who read the Word who is following the Word and who is simply perverting it.

What I was trying to say is that there are a multitude of Christian beliefs. Many of them believe that others are not following the "TRUE" path. Apostolics believe that members of the congregation must handle poisonous snakes because the bible says so. Baptists believe that you must have a vision. Pentecostals believe that you must speak in tongues. It goes on and on.

In an attempt to get back on topic :-) , this bill in Florida will make it almost impossible to properly teach in school. I once took an anthropology class in college, and the instructor was clearly biased towards Buddhism. It made me a bit uncomfortable at times, but the class was called "Peoples of East Asia", and it was necessary to learn it. It was quite fascinating, actually. I never really understood the religion. I wonder how many offended students would have sued the school over that class, if this law had been in effect?

[MacDorcha]

My chemistry professor was Taoist. It was cool to talk to him about philosophy and quantum mechanics after classes. It was obvious he had a very secular view point, but recognized order when he saw it.

This bill would essentially limit detailed (and therefor Quiz worthy) discussion of evolution to biology classes.

[RadioAstronomer]

and later, space people.

When I was working at the Cape in the late 80's, I was surprised at just how depressed the local area was.

[Ichneumon]

One theory is that red hair is due to Neanderthal genes.

The researcher who is usually cited for that claim (Rosalind Harding) claims she was misunderstood and/or misquoted. Her findings were that the red hair mutation was old enough that both types of humans were present at the time (Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal), and thus it could not be *determined* which population it originally arose in. The "popular press" of course grabbed onto the more sensational possibility and ran with it. But Harding herself doubts that it has a Neanderthal origin or that (as the media plays it) Neanderthals were necessarily all -- or even in part) -- red-haired.

[Ichneumon]

Still though, where are the fossil records of groups of humans migrating to China from Africa? Yes, we know about the caucasians. But the Yellow River gave rise to settlements well before The Caucasians started visiting them.

I don't follow anthropology real closely, so I can't tell you off the top of my head whether there are or are not fossil records of "groups of humans migrating to China from Africa". There may well be, for all I know.

But even if there aren't, we can confidently conclude that the ancient east Asians migrated to their current location from Africa, due to the following observations:

1. There are no human or even proto-human/pre-human fossils in China (or anywhere else aside from Africa) prior to about a million years ago.

2. Human, proto-human, and pre-human fossils are found in Africa, and Africa alone, prior to that time, and stretching back millions of years earlier.

So obviously, humans first arose in Africa, and then migrated outwards from there into China (and most of the rest of the planet).

Also, for what it's worth, despite their early arrival, East Asians didn't begin to acquire agriculture or tools beyond the stone-age level until around 7500BC:

I'm leaving out a *ton* of detail and corroborating evidence, of course. But that's the Cliff Notes version.

Here's a map of the major human migrations:

The previous two figures are from the book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies", by Jared Diamond. It's a really fascinating compilation of what's currently known about human pre-history, including migrations, changes in languages, and the origination(s) and rise of tool-using, agriculture, animal domestication, modern civilization, writing, and so on. And all this is background for the main focus book, which is the question, "why did some peoples advance more quickly than others"? For example, why were Europeans the ones to cross the ocean and conquer the native Americans, rather than vice versa?

You might want to read chapter 16, "How China Became Chinese". It reconstructs how China became the monolithic cultural entity it is today, despite starting out as countless small scattered groups of culturally, linguistically, and genetically diverse peoples.

When/how did the Chinese get there? Why are they SO different (physically) from the other races? (I use "race" to simplify the arguement) We can see that Africans look like Semites look like Indians.

Again, read the book. The author also points out that although most Asians tend to just "look Asian" to Caucasians, there is actually a huge diversity among Asians:

"We take this seeming unity of China so much for granted that we forget how astonishing it is. One reason we should not have expected such unity is genetic. While a coarse racial classification of world peoples lumps all Chinese people as so-called Mongoloids, that category conceals much more variation than the differences between Swedes, Italians, and Irish within Europe. In particular, North and South Chinese are genetically and physically rather different: North Chinese are most similar to Tibetans and Nepalese, while South Chinese are similar to Vietnamese and Filipinos. My North and South Chinese friends can often distinguish each other at a glance by physical appearance: The North Chinese tend to be taller, heavier, paler, with more pointed noses, and with smaller eyes that appear more "slanted" (because of what is termed their epicanthic fold)."

-- Ibid, p. 323

Where did this change in skin tone and bridged noses come in?

Obviously, the ancestors of the modern Asians genetically diversified from the groups of humans who migrated elsewhere.

Why does it effect them universally?

See above -- there actually is a lot of diversity even among "Chinese". But whatever "universal" traits they may have can be explained by either (or both) of the following: 1) those "universal" traits arose in the "founder population" before subsequent radiation across the rest of Asia, and/or 2) they arose in a subpopulation after such radiation, but spread back through the whole population via subsequent interbreeding.

Why are caucasians the only ones capable of getting red hair genetically?

Actually, it's not clear that they are the "only ones". When Pizarro entered the Incan empire in 1532, he noted that although most of the Incans were dark-skinned and short, a substantial number had skin lighter than that of the Spaniards -- and red beards. And when Captain Roggeveen landed on Easter Island in 1722, many of the inhabitants had white skin, with blue eyes, and red hair.

Red hair results from a mutation in the MC1R gene, and DNA analysis indicates that the European variant dates back at around 75,000-500,000 years. So to answer your question, the reason that most red-haired peoples are European is because the most common mutation of the MC1R gene occurred within Europe after the initial "out of Africa" migration.

See:

The Melanocortin 1 Receptor (MC1R): More Than Just Red Hair

Melanocortin 1 receptor: What’s red got to do with it? [You've got to love a paper that has a section heading like, "The genetics of red hair and pale skin: First, the dull biochemistry" -- Ich.]

The human melanocortin-1 receptor locus: analysis of transcription unit, locus polymorphism and haplotype evolution

If we all came from africa, wouldn't red hair be possible in all the races? Surely there are mild climates in Africa and India that would allow for lighter colorign of people.

See the above papers. And just because a particular mutation would be "possible" in all races, doesn't mean it has to happen everywhere.

[wyattearp]

This bill would essentially limit detailed (and therefor Quiz worthy) discussion of evolution to biology classes.

When in doubt, read the bill. So, I did. Hmm. I don't see anything in there about creationism vs evolution in science class. The wording is such that if anybody has a beef, it must be a "reasoned" objection. I honestly don't see anything particularly bad in it. It seems to be an attempt to keep the 'Ward Churchills' from spewing their bile. Hmm. Maybe I missed something?

[Ichneumon]

Hmm. Maybe I missed something?

You "may have missed" where the sponsor of the bill himself gave the teaching of evolution as one example of the sort of "leftist totalitarianism" that would be grounds for a student to sue under the new bill...

[Right Wing Professor]

You "may have missed" where the sponsor of the bill himself gave the teaching of evolution as one example of the sort of "leftist totalitarianism" that would be grounds for a student to sue under the new bill...

Yep. And when the courts interpret the law, one of the things they look at is what the drafters of the law intended.

I was behind the 'Academic Bill of Rights' when Horowitz first proposed it. It took me a while to realise what a can of worms it opens.

[wyattearp]

You "may have missed" where the sponsor of the bill himself gave the teaching of evolution as one example of the sort of "leftist totalitarianism" that would be grounds for a student to sue under the new bill...

Where was that? I didn't see the word 'evolution' anywhere in the bill, and also didn't see where it could be inferred. It states that objections must be "reasoned". There is no scientific reasoning for ID or creationism.

[atlaw]

Heck, the evolution theory was adopted from the Chinese egg legend ...

And in the name of academic freedom, all college students should be taught this, correct?

[wyattearp]

Yep. And when the courts interpret the law, one of the things they look at is what the drafters of the law intended.

The stuff in italics is from the bill. I read this again, and can see some problems. I think that I misunderstood what they meant by some of this. It all boils down to how the courts interpret it. I agree. This could get messy. (bolding is mine).

(2) Students have a right to expect that they will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects they study and that they will not be discriminated against on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

It depends on what they mean by "reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge". Why even put the words 'reasoned' and 'appropriate' in there?

(6) Faculty and instructors have a right to academic freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects, but they should make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own and should encourage intellectual honesty, civil debate, and critical analysis of ideas in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

Depends on what they meant by "serious scholarly viewpoints". If they mean that a point of view can be used in lieu of scientific theory, then there is a problem.

[Right Wing Professor]

Depends on what they meant by "serious scholarly viewpoints".

Exactly. I don't consider ID a serious scholarly viewpoint. Is some court going to tell me I should?

[PatrickHenry]

Most posters who oppose evolution have no knowledge of the history of science.

But we're here to help: History of Science. (Ignore the tacky background. The susbstance is fine.)

Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

[js1138]

Show us more about science not blindly accepting evolution...

Science does not blindly accept evolution. If you studied the history of biology you would know that many alternatives have been explored for more than 140 years. As a critic, it is your responsibility to know the history of this criticism and not continually bring up discarded arguments.

You should also know that most ID proponents accept the fact of evolution and the established scientific age of the earth. What is being argued about is the mechanism of evolution.

[js1138]

Ernst Mayr has a great book, "This is Biology," that has a rather detailed history of the science.

[Gumlegs]

Your mom has a remarkable gift for understatement.

[Gumlegs]

Thank you for that post. It clears up an area of confusion for me.

Now for a good googling of Dr. Harding ... and if that's not inviting a law suit ...

[Oztrich Boy]

Islam's is the same as Christianity's.

Not the Nation of Islam's

[MacDorcha]

"Science does not blindly accept evolution. If you studied the history of biology you would know that many alternatives have been explored for more than 140 years. As a critic, it is your responsibility to know the history of this criticism and not continually bring up discarded arguments."

My point eludes you. Heres a light for the way:

Point out to the nay-sayers more about the history. Don't assume they know or even should know.

If you have reason to believe something, SHARE IT. Don't just assume that those making arguements know this already.

If the problem IS on our end, tell us WHY. Don't just say "no, they talked about it before, that's wrong"

Tell us what leads to that conclusion.

"You should also know that most ID proponents accept the fact of evolution and the established scientific age of the earth. What is being argued about is the mechanism of evolution."

No sh!t? Really? You mean the facts that I've been saying are EXACTLY didn't elude you? It just got ignored?

I've been advocating ID this entire time. You just inserted "creationism" each time.