Posted on 03/05/2006 10:14:04 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Evolution bill stirs debate on origin of life, religion
TIM TALLEY
Associated Press
OKLAHOMA CITY - While other states are backing away from teaching alternatives to evolution, the Oklahoma House passed a bill Thursday encouraging schools to expose students to alternative views about the origin of life.
The measure, passed on a 77-10 vote, gives teachers the right to teach "the full range of scientific views on the biological or chemical origins of life." The measure stops short of requiring the teaching of "intelligent design" alongside the theory of evolution in science classes.
Its author, Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, said evolution is taught in some classrooms as if it were scientific fact although the theory, developed in the 19th century by Charles Darwin, is neither observable, repeatable or testable and is not solid science.
"They are getting a one-sided view of evolution," said Kern, a former teacher. "Let's teach good, honest science."
Critics said the lessons would be more appropriate in religion or philosophy classes than in science class. They said the measure would take control from local school boards on developing lesson plans and violates the constitutional prohibition on government endorsement of specific religious views.
"I think we're about to open a slippery slope here," said Rep. Danny Morgan, D-Prague. In December, a federal judge blocked attempts to teach intelligent design in high school biology classes in Dover, Pa.
"We're going to be right back in the courthouse," Morgan said.
Kern said her bill does not promote a particular religious point of view but promotes critical thinking by students by exposing them to all sides of a scientific debate.
"This bill is not about a belief in God. It is not about religion. It is about science," Kern said. "I'm not asking for Sunday school to be in a science class."
Evolution teaches that all organisms are connected by genealogy and have changed through time through several processes, including natural selection.
Intelligent design teaches that life is so well-ordered that it must have been created by a higher power. Critics argue that the theory is merely repackaged creationism, which teaches that the Earth and all life were created by God.
Supporters said exposing students to different viewpoints will create lively classroom debate.
"Do you think you come from a monkeyman?" said Rep. Tad Jones, R-Claremore. "Did we come from slimy algae 4.5 billion years ago or are we a unique creation of God? I think it's going to be exciting for students to discuss these issues."
Opponents said alternative theories on the origin of life are a matter of faith, not science. "God truly is the creator of heaven and Earth, but I can't prove that," said Rep. Al Lindley, D-Oklahoma City.
The bill now goes to the state Senate, where similar legislation has been defeated in the past.
On Tuesday, lawmakers in Utah defeated a bill requiring public school students be told that evolution is not empirically proven. In Ohio, school curriculum is undergoing change following the Pennsylvania ruling that intelligent design should not be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
Kansas has adopted language to encourage students to explore arguments against evolution, but the standards have not been tied to any lesson plans or statewide testing.
There is no controversy other than in theminds of people who are trying to pass off religion as science.
There would be controversy however, if scientists demanded that evolution be included in sermons.
This has been clearly disproved in the literature. There are several problems with it:
(a) the fossil record shows disparity _preceding_ diversity. If macroevolution was just an accumulation of changes, it would be the other way around.
(b) the genes that encode body plans are not subject to the same types of mutation that the rest of the genome is, and are considered invariant by those who study it, with changes to any part of the developmental kernel giving the organism developmental catastrophe. See Gene regulatory networks and the evolution of animal body plans.
Davidson's studies showed that there is a huge difference between the "kernel" genes, the "plug-in" genes and "differential gene batteries".
[concerning the effects of the different classes of genes] Current microevolutionary thinking assumes that observed types of genetic change (from single base substitutions to gene duplications) are sufficient to explain all evolutionary events, past and present....But attempting to explain an aspect of animal evolution that depends on one kind of network alteration by adducing evidence from an aspect that depends on another can be fundamentally misleading.You should also check out the paper "The Concept of Monophyly" (which I review here). He differentiates between macro-, meso-, and micro-evolution, as being fundamentally different in kind.
The idea that macro-evolution is just an accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes is just Darwinian myth and has no support from developmental biology.
"Let's ask how many of those 500 do not accept common descent. Quibbling about details is not denying evolution."
Two things:
(1) Common Descent is the product of assumptions about origin-of-life, not a result of an inference from the data.
(2) There is nothing in the bill that mandates or expects differing views of common descent. It simply supports the full range of scientific views. Why do you have a problem with the full range of scientific views? It did not say "the full range of scientific and religious views". It said only "scientific views".
The attempt to associate this bill with authority statements from the Bible is simply ignoring the bill's contents. Why would someone do that? Because by presenting the full range of scientific views, it will detract from their own religious views. And if the neo-Darwinistic view is not taught as fact, who will believe the religious views?
There are a number of scientific views of evolution. Neo-Darwinism is fundamentally important to the atheistic crowd, because it requires that information be able to produce itself. If information cannot create itself, then that puts atheists in a difficult position of trying to explain the origin of informational systems within organisms. The inclusion of Neo-Darwinism to the exclusion of all else is nothing short of people using the legal/social system to push an idea because it supports a particular religious worldview.
The interesting thing is that Christians fully accept material causes as existing. Therefore, Christians can accept both material and intelligent causation as a cause for organic change, and are not bound philosophically to any idea (depending on your beliefs about genesis, you may or may not be bound to believing certain things about common descent or the age of the earth). However, the atheists are committed to only allowing material causes, as acknowledging anything else would violate their religious beliefs. Christians have the ability to follow the evidence wherever it leads, while atheists are restricted to the assumption that information had to have created itself from non-informatic systems.
Luis --
Out of those you mention, none of them are expressible scientifically. Creationism has a full research program going. Do Apaches have a research program investigating their creation story?
However, even if you exclude Biblical creationism, you still have Intelligent Design, which is increasingly being published in secular peer-reviewed scientific literature.
"It seems rather risky to say that molecular biology will never understand biogenesis."
If scientists are able to create life ex nihilo, it will show two things that many ID'ers have been trying to communicate:
1) Life requires intelligent agency to come about
2) Without assumptions of the current abiogenesis crowd, there is no reason to assume common ancestry. In fact, what we will have is a known specific instance of non-common-ancestry.
What will make ID'ers reconsider their views is if abiogenesis can be reproduced _without_ the intervention of the scientists.
"The OK legislators are assuming a one way criticism"
I think you are making false assumptions.
"if religion presents itself as science, then the histories presented by religion will be subject to empirical analysis"
No creationist I know of minds being subjected to empirical analysis. The only objection is taking assumptions as conclusions when doing so. It is the pretending that assumptions are empirically deduced conclusions that creationists object to.
"when you apply the methods and reasoning of science to their claims, you're suddenly a God hater"
I think you are confusing "methods and reasoning of science" with "the unquestioned assumption of materialism". They are different things.
"Assuming, for the sake of arguement, that that is correct then where is intelligent design observable, repeatable or testable?"
Note that she is not proposing that Intelligent Design be taught as fact. Thus, this is completely consistent.
"Interesting that all these societies have had "creation" myths and not "evolution" myths. "
Actually, that's not true. A number of societies did have evolution myths. I believe the Babylonian myth was one, for instance.
The democrat controlled senate will likely vote down the bill. However, in the next election the Republicans are definitely going to oust some term limited senators and then both houses will be in Republican hands. Good things ahead for Oklahoma!
No controversy? Really? So what do you make of the paper "Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life" appearing in Cell Biology International? Does that not indicate that there might be some controversy in the scientific community that chance and necessity (i.e. material causation) might not be a sufficient explanation for the origin of life?
Neo-Darwinism is regularly trashed in the scientific literature. Check out papers by Shapiro, Sternberg, Davidson, or any of a number of biologists who see Neo-Darwinism as an outdated myth.
I have other examples here.
Out of those you mention, none of them are expressible scientifically. Creationism has a full research program going. Do Apaches have a research program investigating their creation story?
Wait, Creationism has a research program? What actual evidence has this "program" been able to find?
However, even if you exclude Biblical creationism, you still have Intelligent Design, which is increasingly being published in secular peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Really?
Somebody should tell Dr. Behe, the foremost proponent of ID. He likes to say that there has been peer review, but when placed under oath and forced to tell the truth, he admitted that there has only ever been one that could possibly qualify.
Mr. Rothschild: "And nobody has written any peer reviewed articles on the, in the scientific journals on the intelligent design of the origin of life, correct?"
Professor Behe: "Well, actually that's not quite right. There's that article "Directed Panspermia" that was discussed earlier by Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel. They in fact explicitly argue that one hypothesis one might advance is that the origin of life on earth is the result of intelligent activity, in their case they envisioned space aliens sending a rocket ship to earth. So I don't think your statement is quite true."
That's the best he could come up with.
One article, written thirty years ago.
Doesn't exactly qualify as "increasingly being published". So if you're correct, Dr. Behe, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, was wrong on the stand.
So tell me, do you know more about ID than the Discovery Institute?
Dr Behe on peer reviewed ID articles:
Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
A. [Behe] That is correct, yes.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Behe on the stand
I eagerly await seeing you accept your Nobel Prize.
I will try to give this some actual attention tomorrow.
1. I can't download the article you linked to, so I can't comment except to say that if it had implications for common descent it would have been news.
2. It makes no difference what sparked the idea of common descent or what people's motives are. Questioning motives is what liberals and feminists like mamzelle do when they have nothing to say. All that matters is whether a hypothesis makes predictions, suggests research, and holds up to research.
3. If common descent is a bust, someone ought to tel the ID guys. They seem to have missed that one.
I await a description of the mechanism that prevents accumulation of changes.
So, you admit that ID=Creationism=Christian Biblical beliefs=religion.
Why would that "research program" being carried out by Creationists wanting to explore the "the full range of scientific views on the biological or chemical origins of life" exclude the Apache creation story?
Could it be because IDers are lying about wanting to explore the "full range" of anything, and are instead interested in getting public schools to teach Christian Biblical creation in science class?
"I fail to see how a scientist creating life ex nihilo would demonstrate that life requires intelligent agency to originate."
Do you not think that scientists are intelligent agents?
"Wait, Creationism has a research program?"
Yes. You should check out http://www.creationresearch.org/ and http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/
If you want an introductory text in creationary biosystematics, see Todd Wood's Understanding the Pattern of Life:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805427147/
"What actual evidence has this "program" been able to find?"
First of all, creationary research is not just about finding evidence for creation, just as evolutionary research is not just about finding evidence of evolution. It is using these assumptions in ongoing research. Todd Wood, for instance, has used creationary assumptions to put forth a creationary hypothesis about transposon function:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/54005.pdf
Emprirical methods for discovering the demarcation between created kinds are being considered:
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/002.pdf
As for evidences, the RATE group presented their findings on accelerated nuclear decay at the American Geophysical Union:
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessionsfm03?meeting=fm03&part=V32C
"That's the best he could come up with."
The problem is that he was only looking at the explicit invocation of intelligent design, rather than the implicit. As we saw from the Sternberg affair, any editor who lets a paper get by with explicit support for ID using the words "Intelligent Design" will be ostracized.
In addition, he was specifically talking about the origin of life. Intelligent agency is not restricted to the origin of life.
Check out my list, and if you have any problems with any of them listed, let me know why you don't think it should be included. Also, the Discovery Institute has a similar list.
"So tell me, do you know more about ID than the Discovery Institute?"
Perhaps you should actually look at what they're website says:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
I keep a blog of research that is by ID and Creationists (and also research by others which impact ID and Creationism) at http://baraminology.blogspot.com/ Another one is at http://fdocc.blogspot.com/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.