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.

[johnnyb_61820]

The answer is simple, and creationists pointed it out long ago:

The assumption behind using ERVs to determine phylogeny is flawed. It assumes: (1) that ERVs are non-adaptive (at least by default), and (2) that they don't have site-specific integration. The issue can be easily solved if ERVs have a functional role in the ecosystem, binding to certain positions in the genome for specific adaptive purposes. The similarity between humand and chimp retroviruses is because, having similar genomes exposed to similar retroviruses, we had similar integrations.

One of the biggest problems of neo-Darwinism in biology is that it has a default assumption of "nonadaptivity". Thus, transposons, retroviruses, pseudogenes, introns, and any number of other dynamic elements of the genome were viewed by Darwinists as "junk", just because Darwinism requires there to be a lot of leftover junk hanging around. The idea that these could be holistic, functional systems never seems to occur to them. The idea that cells could have system architectures is antithetical to Darwinism, despite the fact that this is precisely what microbiology shows.

If the cell is instead viewed as an adaptive system, then most of the arguments for common ancestry fall away, simply because much of what is assumed to be due to common ancestry might also be due to common environment, common change mechanisms, common design, and the like.

As Simon Conway Morris put it:

"For what it is worth my own belief is that metazoans are indeed monophyletic, but to my mind the argument is not yet won. More importantly, the question of biological constraint, the prevalence of convergence and the inevitability of polyphyly are not only interconnected topics, but also unjustly neglected. In part I suggest this is because of the atomistic emphasis now given to biology, as well as an obsession with cladistic methodology, which although freely acknowledges homoplasy regards it as an irritating diversion rather than a profoundly interesting problem in its own right."

You should read the recent papers by coauthors Shapiro and Sternberg about genome organization. They present the basic case for holistic organization of genomes, rather than the atomistic view of Darwinists.

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

So you admit it wasn't something that would falsify the theory of evolution. And, likewise, finding a rabbit in the Cambrian would mean either, (a) we put forward some hypothetical geological event that put it there, or (b) we just move the origin of mammals back in time. It wouldn't falsify the theory of evolution, because contrary to what evolutionists want you to think, evolution is an assumption, not a conclusion.

[js1138]

Just remember: unsolved problems are proof of ID.

[Right Wing Professor]

So this is some wacko creationist text, trying to discount 50 years of research in radioactive decay. AGU accepted this? I don't think so. Why don't you post what AGU accepted?

[Virginia-American]

Actually, it appears to falsify one aspect of common descent: that there was a speciation event that split off gorillas, and then, in the other branch, human and the two chimp species split in an undeteremined order.

Instead, it shows that there was gene flow between the (proto-) chimp and gorilla populations after the proto-humans had branched off. IE, the speciation wasn't yet complete, IE, like I said, the splits were closer together in time.

Very interseting result.


Especially in light of all the ERVs that nest

[From many - one.]

Apparently the Moslems are trying something like this across the pond.

See post 164 by Tory Heartland.

And, don't forget Akyol testifying in Kansas.

[Right Wing Professor]

This is a discussion of what can be deduced from abstract acceptance at an AGU meeting.

[Virginia-American]

If the cell is instead viewed as an adaptive system, then most of the arguments for common ancestry fall away, simply because much of what is assumed to be due to common ancestry might also be due to common environment, common change mechanisms, common design, and the like.

So the Asian apes should have things in common with each other that aren't shared with African ones?

[js1138]

Kind of refutes the notion that the fringe can't get its message out. All they need is something with actual substance.

I took geology when plate tectonics was called continental drift. It was a few years before formal acceptance, but it was taken seriously. Were were given the arguments that supported it.

[Virginia-American]

[musing out loud...]

There are a few thousand ERVs in our genome. We split from the other apes maybe 5-6 million years ago. So that's one ERV getting fixed every few millenia.

If I get a retrovirus in my germ cells (tesitcles), this confers some kind of advantage?!

Are there any known examples of advantageous (retro)viral infections?

RWP, Ichy: You all know anything about this? Thanks

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm not sure why this HERV couldn't have simply gotten deleted from the orthologous position, somewhere between the human/chimp common ancestor and modern humans. What exactly is the problem?

[Virginia-American]

Can that happen without leaving any traces?

[Non-Sequitur]

Given that most people here seem unaware that Creationists and ID'ers even have research programs, I don't think they are in a position to judge how well those research programs have done.

Oh then by all means please give the evidence that shows that Geologist beliefs that the world is millions of years old is off by...millions of years. What proof can you offer to support the Biblical belief that the sun revolved around the earth?

[johnnyb_61820]

The abstracts are the last three listed here:

http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessionsfm03?meeting=fm03&part=V32C

The posters presented are at the bottom of the following link:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_aguconference

[johnnyb_61820]

Potentially. I don't spend much time looking into primate phylogeny, anatomy, or even molecular biology so I don't know the details. I'm more interested in general adaptive elements of the genome, such as the ways that the cell controls mutation, including which genes get mutated.

[js1138]

The results of creation research are secret.

[johnnyb_61820]

A good paper on the subject: Beneficial role of human endogenous retroviruses: facts and hypotheses. For a creationist perspective, see my blog on the subject.

[js1138]

I don't think this stuff means what you think it means. You seem to be pinning you argument on the fact that we can't access the original articles.

[johnnyb_61820]

"I'm not sure why this HERV couldn't have simply gotten deleted from the orthologous position, somewhere between the human/chimp common ancestor and modern humans. What exactly is the problem?"

The integration site is intact.

However, let's say that it wasn't. As you point out, all musings in this area are hopelessly (but unfortunately necessarily) tainted with secondary hypotheses to explain details. The problem is that there is no way to test and verify a hypothesis, as there are any number of alternate, secondary hypothesis that could be invoked to save any other hypothesis.

And so, as I pointed out, this, just like anything else pointed to by evolutionists, is a potential falsification.

[Non-Sequitur]

The results of creation research are secret.

If they tell me then they'll have to kill me?

[johnnyb_61820]

"Actually, it appears to falsify one aspect of common descent"

Right. In the same way, there are any number of experiments which might falsify one aspect of ID or Creationism, without destroying the whole thing. This has happened several times in Creationism, for anyone who remembers the "Canopy Theory". Creationism is just as falsifiable or unfalsifiable as evolution, as is the obvious result of our conversation.