Nevada proposal raises evolution questions [constitutional amendment!]

Fort Worth Star-Telegram ^ | 28 February 2006 | BRENDAN RILEY

[PatrickHenry]

A proposed constitutional amendment would require Nevada teachers to instruct students that there are many questions about evolution - a method viewed by critics as an opening to teach intelligent design.

Las Vegas masonry contractor Steve Brown filed his initiative petition with the secretary of state's office, and must collect 83,184 signatures by June 20 to get the plan on the November ballot. To amend the Nevada Constitution, he'd have to win voter approval this year and again in the 2008 elections.

Brown said Tuesday that he hopes that volunteers will help him collect the signatures, but at this point has no name-gathering organization set up. A Democrat and member of a nondenominational church, he said he hoped for broad support from people who share his views.

"I just want them to start telling the truth about evolution," Brown said. "Evolution has occurred, but parts of it are flat-out unproven theories. They're not telling students that in school."

Brown, who has three school-age children, said he's been interested in evolution for years. He added that if people take time to read his proposal "how can this not pass?"

The petition says students must be informed before the end of the 10th grade that "although most scientists agree that Darwin's theory of evolution is well supported, a small minority of scientists do not agree."

The plan says several "areas of disagreement" would have to be covered by teachers, including the view by some scientists that "it is mathematically impossible for the first cell to have evolved by itself."

Students also would have to be told some scientists argue "that nowhere in the fossil record is there an indisputable skeleton of a transitional species, or a 'missing link,'" the proposal says.

Also, the proposal says students "must be informed that the origin of sex, or sex drive, is one of biology's mysteries" and that some scientists contend that sexual reproduction "would require an unbelievable series of chance events that would have had to occur in the evolutionary theory."

Brown commented on his plan following a decision Monday by the Utah House to scuttle a bill that would have required public school students to be told that evolution isn't empirically proven.

Last month, the Ohio Board of Education deleted a science standard and lesson plan encouraging students to seek evidence for and against evolution - another setback for intelligent design advocates who maintain that life is so complex it must have been created by a higher authority.

In December, a federal judge barred the school system in Dover, Pa., from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. The judge said that intelligent design is religion masquerading as science.

Also last year, a federal judge ordered the school system in suburban Atlanta's Cobb County to remove from biology textbooks stickers that called evolution a theory, not a fact.

But critics of evolution got a boost in Kansas in November when the state Board of Education adopted new science teaching standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory.

[Quark2005]

The South Korean "scientist" has been shown to have fabricated the research which directly led to CA allocating Three BBBBillion Dollars to promote and "capitalize".

It was the process of peer review that eventually exposed the fraud.

The stem-cell research that has since been debunked directly gained its prominence from Science Magazine, which was peer reviewed.

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is a step in peer review. It is not the end of peer review. It is an ongoing process. Cutting-edge theories and research (like stem-cell work) are more susceptible to actual doubt and controversy. Evolution, on the other hand, has been slowly established over more than 100 years of careful research. It is not a cutting-edge theory (though cutting-edge data continues to support it and elucidate it in greater detail); it is one with well-established evidence along many lines of inquiry. Surely you aren't suggesting that all the evidence supporting evolution is fraudulent? This would literally require a worldwide conspiracy lasting over a century between thousands if not hundreds of thousands of researchers.

Maybe all the teachers in Nevada ought to say is "Science has a long history of overcoming its own errors, hopefully to our ultimate advantage." "Scientists are human beings, and profoundly fallible like all human beings." "Science Magazine's Peer Review System is Unreliable."

All these but the last statement are accurate (though the first two are virtues of peer review, not faults). Science has generally been a very reliable journal; it just isn't perfect. When mistakes are found (as in any human endeavor), they are retracted and/or corrected in errata. Deliberate frauds that make it to this level are very rare, but can be difficult to expose; that is why the penalty for falsifying data in the science community is severe. The scientists involved will probably never be allowed to publish again. Their careers and credibility are (rightfully) ruined.

However, stating that this "doubt" lends equal credence to evolution and creation in a science classroom is equivalent to introducing two concepts, one which is 99+% accurate, the other 0% accurate, and saying they are both just as valid because neither is 100% accurate.

[VadeRetro]

Students also would have to be told some scientists argue "that nowhere in the fossil record is there an indisputable skeleton of a transitional species, or a 'missing link,'" the proposal says.

I won't post the whole analysis again but I hate the silly shell-game that results when that objection is pursued.

[Coyoteman]

If the list is an offering for discussion, wonderful. Is it? This list is not an authority, in other words. And attempts to insist upon its authority will be regularly challenged.

If you read the list of definitions, right at the top it states:

Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread)

My initial list was modified by suggestions made by many posters on that thread. You can still go to that thread and make suggestions for how you think the definitions should read.

[forsnax5]

I am now thoroughly convinced that life on earth began in 1973, on the exact day I was born.

Hmmmm. That implies that life on earth will end in the instant that you die. But 1973 is only 33 years ago, so you're still young.

Since I'm 64, I'll be gone before you are, but just in case:

Take your vitamins! Eat your vegetables! Fasten your seat belt! Watch your blood pressure! Don't smoke! Don't snack between meals! Get a good night's sleep! Eat breakfast! Drink little or no alcohol! Shun loose women (or men, depending on your preference)!

And try to have fun...

;)

[Mamzelle]

re: It was the process of peer review that eventually exposed the fraud.)))

Nope. He was snitched out by underlings, and his competitors through an anonymous internet mechanism. He was not caught out by official peer review until the peers could no longer avoid acknowledging their malpractice.

Interestingly, Korea is the best-wired country in the world, and is now suffering some pathologies from that which we might do well on Fr to pay attn to. In Korea, you use an official ID # (similar to our SS) for many commercial transactions. Chinese hackers recently got ahold of a quarter million of these #'s and joined online games in order to "farm" virtual merchandise (virtual swords and sorceries to be sold on places like ebay.) Big lawsuit time, for SK is highly litigious.

There was an article recently in the SK press about the interrelatedness of the two scandals.

[b_sharp]

" "it is mathematically impossible for the first cell to have evolved by itself."

And exactly how is this determined?

If we can use "probability" to determine the "possibility" of abiogenesis occurring, despite our lack of knowledge on so many factors affecting abiogenesis, how about we calculate the 'possibility' that a God exists, or that some group of alien beings not only came into existence without abiogenesis but were able to 'seed' Earth and stay completely hidden while poking away at many of Earth's organism's genomes.

[Quark2005]

Nope. He was snitched out by underlings, and his competitors through an anonymous internet mechanism. He was not caught out by official peer review until the peers could no longer avoid acknowledging their malpractice.

Interesting. Definitely a major scandal. I hope those involved get what's coming to them. In any case, science does eventually work, it sometimes takes a while, though, unfortunately. (Someone definitely would smell a rat if the results couldn't eventually be duplicated, though not until millions of dollars were wasted.)

[PatrickHenry]

A well-reasoned editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal on the proposed anti-evolution constitutional amendment:
Evolution initiative: Measure would not merit voter approval .

[Dimensio]

Maybe you want to, but terminology will have to be negotiated unless you have some means of enforcing your will.

Are you suggesting that the validity of the theory of evolution can be altered by deciding that scientists who use specific words, such as "theory", really used a different definition of the word than the one they intended?

[Mamzelle]

Nope. I'm saying you don't set the terms around here.

One can post a list as many times as one can peck a keyboard, but important terms in a discussion should be decided (negotiated) between participants, not handed down by a dictator. These terms are abstractions, full of meaning. I'm encouraging those reading to not sign on your dotted line before they have a chance to think about it.

[Dimensio]

One can post a list as many times as one can peck a keyboard, but important terms in a discussion should be decided (negotiated) between participants, not handed down by a dictator. These terms are abstractions, full of meaning. I'm encouraging those reading to not sign on your dotted line before they have a chance to think about it.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that much of the discussion in question already involves the use of terms as defined by scientists. Attempting to "negotiate" on the definitions of terms that are already defined by those using them can confuse the debate, as it allows for semantic arguments regarding the certainty of a "theory" based upon a definition of the word "theory" even though those who have defined the "theory of evolution" have already agreed upon the meaning of the word.

[bobdsmith]

I am now thoroughly convinced that life on earth began in 1973, on the exact day I was born.

That would be about 3 years after time itself began, which was at midnight on january 1st 1970

[Mamzelle]

re:even though those who have defined)))

LOL! Do they bear any resemblence to Those Who Must Not Be Spoken To? They'd sure like to think so.

If you are seeking discussion, you can try to set the terms. But the success of that may depend on how wary your victims are.

[gomaaa]

For the sake of argument, say we were to accept the commonly used definition of 'theory', namely: "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

Then we would need to come up with a new word to describe evolution, such as: widelyacceptedthoroughlytestedfalsifiablesetofexplanations

As in, "we are debating whether or not the widelyacceptedthoroughlytestedfalsifiablesetofexplanations
of evolution should be taught in biology class."

It doesn't quite roll off the tongue as nicely.

[BMCDA]

And we'd also have to replace the word 'theory' in every older scientific paper or book before 'theory' became the vernacular "assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture".
Or at least we should write a disclaimer which states that the text in question is from a time when not every Tom, Dick and Harry "just had a theory".

[TitansAFC]

---"I am now thoroughly convinced that life on earth began in 1973, on the exact day I was born.

That would be about 3 years after time itself began, which was at midnight on january 1st 1970"---

Man, Bob, between your observation and mine, this Evolution/Creation thing happened MUCH faster than anyone realized!

;-) LOL

[Dimensio]

If you are seeking discussion, you can try to set the terms.

The terms are already well defined within the field of science. It is you who disputes not only the definition of the terms, but the intent of those who use the terms, despite the fact that they have already agreed upon the definitions.

But the success of that may depend on how wary your victims are.

I do not see any attempt at victimization.

[Mamzelle]

re: It is you who disputes not only the definition of the terms)))

I'm disputing your right to set them without negotiation.

re: The terms are already well defined within the field of science.)))

Passive voice--usually indicates that the writer expects the hearer to sign on to an unnegotiated assumption.

re: I do not see any attempt at victimization.)))

Good.

[Dimensio]

I'm disputing your right to set them without negotiation.

I am not setting any terms. I am merely explaining how scientists have already defined what they mean when using the terms.

Passive voice--usually indicates that the writer expects the hearer to sign on to an unnegotiated assumption.

If you disagree with my statement that the terms are already well-defined within the field of science, then please provide evidence to the contrary. Making a statement regarding nothing more than the delivery of my claims does not demonstrate a point in your favor.

[Mamzelle]

You're going to have to sell your definitions every time you use them.