Evolution Bill Stirs Debate (Oklahoma House votes 77-10 to permit alternative views)

Associated Press ^ | March 2, 2006 | Tim Talley

[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.

[RunningWolf]

BTTT

[johnnyb_61820]

"A crank from Canada in the 1980s had a whole series of abstracts at American Physical Society meetings on his numerological proof that he is the second coming of Jesus Christ."

Really? Does the American Physical Society have the abstract posted on their website?

I don't have the review requirements for the AGU meeting that these were presented at, but the ones that I can find say "Abstracts must focus on scientific results or their application. The Program Committee may decline to consider abstracts with other focus." I don't think that they would allow abstracts for a numerological proof of Jesus Christ's second coming.

[ToryHeartland]

if religion presents itself as science, then the histories presented by religion will be subject to empirical analysis.

I think that is an excellent point.

I can't comment on the situation in the US; here in the UK, RE (relgious education) is part of the national schools curriculum, and covers the scriptures and tenants of the major religions of the world with particular emphasis on Christianity. This is of value, IMHO, and does not conflict with the science curriculum, which is distinct. Here, the only lobby that objects to this is in fact a part of the Muslim population, who wish to develop a science curriculum which does not conflict with their Qu'ran (which strikes me as a dreadful bit of intellectual pretzeling, but I'm no authority).

Certainly, as a rational conservative, I do not wish to see religionists of any persuasion tinkering with the science curriculum. And as a committed (but not a literalist) Christian, I can scarecly think of a more wrong-headed notion than applying empirical analysis to issues of faith. My own faith has no conflict whatsoever with science, but it is clear there are some whose religious beliefs could not stand that crucible; if they choose therefore to ignore science, that is certainly their right, but they do not have the right to change the proven methodology of science in order to make it compatible with some particular religious faith. The madness of such an endeavour is particularly apparent when one considers how utterly incomptabile with one another are the various religious persuasions which cannot accommodate the findings of science.

[ToryHeartland]

Christianity and evolution are incompatible. There are honest folks in both camps who recognize that.

This is news to the Anglican Communion, and I believe to the Roman Catholic Church as well; I would not like to think your posting excludes the spokesmen of these congregations from the body of "honest folks." I think you need to be more specific about which particular Christians find an incompatibility here, it is by no means all--nor am I persuaded that it is a majority of Christians.

[pop-gun]

Teaching the full range of scientific views on evolution will delay high school graduation by half a dozen years.

Yes, and meanwhile children most cope with teachers unskilled in their art, a self absorbed NEA, a totally failed public school curriculum (which should be oriented to this world and not the next), and lack of school-room discipline.

So lets continue to sweep math, chemistry, and physics under the table and focus on Darwinism vs creationism while the children sink.

Most public schools in this country are beyond hope and the public's willingness to accept it is sad.

[Right Wing Professor]

Really? Does the American Physical Society have the abstract posted on their website?

I have no idea. My wife is a member, and I used to leaf through the abstract book. Their policy was not to reject abstracts unless they were libelous. They simply put all of the crank stuff into a session called 'General Physics'.

I don't have the review requirements for the AGU meeting that these were presented at, but the ones that I can find say "Abstracts must focus on scientific results or their application. The Program Committee may decline to consider abstracts with other focus." I don't think that they would allow abstracts for a numerological proof of Jesus Christ's second coming.

Possibly not, but that doesn't mean they don't have a great deal of latitude in accepting abstracts. Many societies, if space/time are not limiting, will tend to err on the side of accepting pretty much anything, letting the members of the society figure out for themselves what the trash is.

[js1138]

You can ridicule people's belief in God all you want. But that does not convince anyone of the truth of Darwinism, nor does it aid in the search for truth

"Darwinism" is really indifferent to the claims of religion. I know there are people writing books that are hostile to religion, but these are books, not journal articles. And they are hostile to only one more religion than the average FReeper. I haven't seen anyone defending the right of Islam to teach its version of things in science classrooms. Muslims certainly will insist on it if "alternatives" become mandated. They already do in other countries.

[js1138]

Most public schools in this country are beyond hope and the public's willingness to accept it is sad.

Not everyone accepts it and not all public schools are bad. I was able to choose my kids' schools simply by providing my own transportation for them. The rules didn't officially permit this, but no one ever questioned it.

[Right Wing Professor]

Those yearnings were controlled in the fifties and early sixties, but they burst out of bounds afterwards.

African-American illegitimacy rates in 1960 were 23.6%. This was in a largely religious community, with very low rates of completing high-school; hard to blame it on public schools.

[Right Wing Professor]

I have no problem with privatizing public education. However, I am not in favor of deregulating public education, and I expect you'd hate a stringently state regulated private system a lot more than the fairly lax oversight we have now. At present, the default option for everyone is public school. They may be superior to private schools in some communities (they certainly are here in Lincoln, NE), or considerably inferior elsewhere, but they can be held to a minimum standard, and parents who don't care to spend additional money on their kids education can't neglect their kids to below this minimum standard.

If we fully privatized, we would have to ensure that parents didn't choose a zero-dollar option, sending kids to some pseudo-school to get around a compulsory education requirement. Private schools would have to be far more carefully regulated.

[xzins]

If it's regulated, then it's not private.

The regulation on private schools will be the results.

Despite all the angst over standardized tests, they do say something significant about what has been learned. A 99 percentile on the SAT or ACT speaks volumes about the ability of that test taker.

Likewise, private college graduates competing on graduate tests for graduate programs says something significant.

[Right Wing Professor]

Despite all the angst over standardized tests, they do say something significant about what has been learned. A 99 percentile on the SAT or ACT speaks volumes about the ability of that test taker.

I love standardized tests.

The 99th percentile kids aren't what worries me. It's the kids of the bottom 25th percentile. They got dealt a bad hand to start with; compulsory schooling is one thing that prevents them from being totally neglected.

[RunningWolf]

They say that evidence supports evolution. But when you look at the evidence, what is seen is not evidence, but someones interpretation of a given phenomena, and that may be or may not be the reality.

Take all these skull groupings etc. Some these skulls are actually built up of a few hundred pieces, there is no way to reasonably know those pieces came from the same animal, or even with within a few years of each other.

Looking at skulls is one thing, looking at skulls on ape ancestor skeletons matched up with Man skeleton really highlights the vast difference of the creature verses the Man.

Then look at some of these images they insist are feathers on a dino-raptor. Feathers do not flow 90 degrees off the the bone, like some of that imagery indicates.

To insist that an advanced degree on a given subject infers that an opinion on that subject is reality is also a false notion.

Wolf

[bvw]

So, your answer is yes. Yes, Behe's books and Phillip Johnson's books on evolution are peer-reviewed -- according to the your own peer-review standard. Welcome aboard!

[js1138]

Cute.

There are a number of ID believers publishing legitimate stuff in peer reviewed journals. They aren't being censored. They just don't have anything that causes problems for evolution.

[johnnyb_61820]

It turns out someone I know is a member of the AGU, so I asked him about it. He basically said that the requirements are:

* You must be a member of the AGU
* You submit an abstract to the chairman of the session
* The chairman submits the abstracts to a committee of other geoscientists in that specialty
* The committee then gives a thumbs-up or thumbs-down

He said that while this isn't as rigorous as peer-review, it has kept the flakes out of the meetings for the most part.

If you want to read the research that was presented, you should check out their book, which is a compendium of their research:

http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&cPath=20_30&products_id=2655

A lay version of that book is here:

http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&cPath=20_30&products_id=2643

[johnnyb_61820]

"If it were, then there would be some potential observation that would falsify it, like a Precambrian rabbit or an ERV found in the same position in the genome of chimps and gorillas, but not in people would falsfy ToE."

Then the theory of evolution has been falsified!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11378389&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum

Don't worry, I know you didn't really mean it anyway. Darwinists like to pretend that evolution is falsifiable, but they don't actually follow through with it. I don't necessarily blame them per se, except for being self-deluded enough to think that such things would actually falsify the theory of evolution.

[js1138]

If you consider scathing reviews as reviews, I guess so, but most people correct the errors their reviewers find before publishing.

[Virginia-American]

That's interesting. Thanks.

If I understand correctly, this would mean that the human-chimp split is closer than anyone thought to the split from gorillas.

But all the other ERVs track the phylogenetic tree...

I'll have to study the paper and see if they can find the approximate time it happened.

Sigh. More problems to be solved.