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.
If they can read, for the most part they can teach themselves anything else they need to know. Some subjects are made much easier by having a guide....math & some of the sciences.
History does not require a teacher. It requires a book.
Often, it also requires someone to make the kid sit still and read the book.
I went to a rather small school in a mixed neighborhood. We had some well-behaved middle class kids, and we had some juvenile thugs, and everything in between. A lot of what the teachers did was pure crowd control. But, the fact is, it worked. Some of the kids from terrible backgrounds went on to make something of themselves.
Minister Louis Farrakhan, The Divine Destruction of America: Can She Avert It?
Let their mommas make them mind.
Teachers shouldn't be doing that. And if they have to, then they're wasting everyone else's time while they should be teaching.
The parents will be much more concerned with the results if they're paying their own good money for little Johnny to learn to read.
I think we come from different backgrounds.
The parents will be much more concerned with the results if they're paying their own good money for little Johnny to learn to read.
Many of the parents won't spend a cent they don't have to.
A rare open statement of the creationist policy of "Back-Again-Dumb-As-A-Stump"-ism. Points for honesty.
If you're a teaching type professor, then you probably don't have much tolerance for those who would disrupt the classroom at your level.
Why should it be more tolerated at a lower level?
Many parents won't spend a cent....(What happened to survival of the fittest?)
Tough love says we need a generation of hard decisions to get rid of that tendency.
We don't hold the kids hostage for their parents' mistakes.
I mostly teach at the advanced undergrad/grad. level. You're right; I don't put up with people holding private conversations in class, though it's seldom much of a problem. But the kids I'm talking about are in 9th grade in an urban high-school, not physical chemistry for chemical engineers.
any large changes from one generation to another.
So basically - they never SEE it happening - they are dead before they can really witness it - but they have proof in a test tube - and hang onto it until it's debunked and something 'new' arises and later debunked - and one more proof arises and later debunked and it keeps evolving.
God and His Word doesn't evolve - He always was, always will be and will ALWAYS REMAIN THE SAME. One either believes God or man. Infinite God (His Word) vs.finite man (his word). Gee, one doesn't need to be a (rocket) scientist to figure that one out - that is, is one is really looking for truth. And that truth sets one free - from deception.
Great. No one's accountable.
That's not working already, thank you very much.
Furthermore, integrated proviruses are extremely stable: there is no mechanism for removing proviruses precisely from the genome, without leaving behind a solo LTR or deleting chromosomal DNA.It seems that there is no known mechanism for removing deleting a provirus while leaving the original integration site intact. If you have different research that leads to a different conclusion, let me know.
"The only coding system under discussion is in living cells, and this system resembles nothing produced by humans, except in the limited cases where we have tried to imitate it."
Not true. Living systems constitute a Shannon communication system. It is symbolic in its coding. The more research we do on it the more it seems to behave like computers.
"Are you seriously claiming there is no way to tell the difference between Velikoskyism, geocentrism, and modern astronomy; between necromancy, astrology and science; between YEC and science, etc?"
Not a priori, no. Astrology is science in that it is a search for how the world works. It is a _failed_ science, but that didn't make it's persuit any less scientific. There is no a priori reason to think that any failed science won't "unfail" itself in the future. In fact, our modern conception of the universe is essentially the same as the science of Aristarchus, which failed in his own day, and for many centuries to come!
Trying to make an a priori distinction in what is a scientific persuit and what is not is simply an exercise in trying to create ad hoc rules that match what is currently socially considered science.
"You can't claim those are not scientifically answerable questions, and still maintain the first is a scientific statement."
That is not the position of ID. The position of ID is that those questions don't _need_ to be answered in order to establish a design inference. Not that they aren't good questions and shouldn't be discussed.
What is SETI but a huge design inference? IIRC, when we send out space probes, they have included a special disc of some sort to communicate who we are to other beings. This assumes that the other beings would be able to make a design inference without knowing anything about us.
The fact that living systems can be classified does not mean they are comparable to anything humans have produced. If we do produce anything comparabel, it will be because we copied.
There is no form of artificial intelligence as effective as natural selection. We have not even been able to copy its effectiveness.
At any rate, you are simply sidetracking my statemenent, which is that variation and selection constitute a powerful form of intelligence.
The "natural selection" that occurs in genetic algorithm is very different from the claims of neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism claims that "genetic algorithms" can program themselves, while every genetic algorithm I've ever seen requires a designer.
The thing is, in order to work, the designer of a genetic algorithm has to develop a semantics that allows an efficient search of the search space. A genetic algorithm isn't much more than just another name for a non-deterministic search. Without being guided (or perhaps better termed "focused"), the genetic algorithms would never reach the result. Intelligence is required to limit the incremental search space.
Here is a quote from someone active in evolutionary algorithm research:
Sir - Stephen Meyer's article (Opinion, January 28) on intelligent design was a thoughtful and calm outline of the background to the debate.I have written a little bit on the subject myself. Here is an extended essay on the subject. I also write a shorter version here.
In my own research area of evolutionary algorithms, intelligent design works together with evolutionary principles to produce better solutions to real problems.
Sometimes the results are novel and surprising, but, on reflection, they were always inherent in the initial formulation. Without the initial activity of an intelligent agent, the evolutionary mill has no grist to work on.
As molecular biology advances, the Darwinist dogma becomes ever more implausible as an explanation for the sort of complexity that Meyer describes.
Prof Colin Reeves, Rugby, Warwickshire
So there must have been systematic studies, then, correlating birthdate with destiny? Attempts to check astrological predictions with results? Attempts to find the mechanism by which zodiacal signs affect our lives? None of these? Why, then we have some demarcation criteria, don't we?
Trying to make an a priori distinction in what is a scientific persuit and what is not is simply an exercise in trying to create ad hoc rules that match what is currently socially considered science.
No one claimed it was a priori. Straw man.
That is not the position of ID. The position of ID is that those questions don't _need_ to be answered in order to establish a design inference. Not that they aren't good questions and shouldn't be discussed.
They need to be answered to integrate ID with the rest of science. We don't explain things in a vacuum. A biological theory, however well it explains life, cannot violate the laws of physics.
What is SETI but a huge design inference?
"The "Great Flood" part was shown to be false in the late 1700s."
Not really. More and more evidence is accumulating. If you look at the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments they are spread across vast areas, quite distinct from the cenozoic sediments which are mostly local in origin. Likewise, paleocurrent analysis shows that throughout the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, the paleocurrents on each continent were going the same direction.
Most people don't know this, but there is a pretty much worldwide unconformity separating the Precambrian from the Cambrian. It is pretty stark in the locations where it is visible. Likewise, there is a similar global unconformity at the K/T boundary. These are the basic markers of the begin and end of the global flood.
It's kind of silly to bet against something you can see happening. The fact that we haven't figured out everything about genetic algorithms doesn't mean they don't exist and don't work.
I will leave this discussion with the observation that the most dangerous thin about your position is the implication that problems that have not been solved cannot be solved.
The history of science suggests this is a losing assumption.
"The Theory of Evolution is (1) made up of millions of facts and (2) these facts are organized by well-supported and well-tested theory."
Please describe the well-tested theory of macroevolution, and how it is well-tested. If you are referring to neo-Darwinism, please tell me how (a) we know that the changes were caused by mutation, and (b) how we know that they were random, especially given that very few mutations that happen today are actually random.
Experimentally, neo-Darwinism has been an utter failure. Cell-mediated mutation has been a much richer source of information, but those types of changes are subject to the organism's semantic constraints.
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.