Posted on 03/27/2009 6:23:20 AM PDT by laotzu
AUSTIN — The State Board of Education gave a nearly-final nod to new science curriculum standards Thursday that would change a long-standing Texas tradition over how schoolchildren learn about evolution.
The tentative vote — a final one is expected today — will mean teachers and students no longer will be expected to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution and the theory about the origin of life developed by Charles Darwin 150 years ago.
The move is a setback for critics of evolution, who argued that teachers and students should have to analyze the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution — a standard that has been a part of Texas school science standards for 20 years.
But the argument over how to teach evolution continues, with final votes today on several amendments that some scientists say seek to cast doubt on evolution.
One asks students to evaluate fossil types, as some contend gaps in fossil records create scientific evidence against universal common descent. Another questions “natural selection.”
Scientists are working on Rick Agosto, D-San Antonio, in an effort to switch his votes on the amendments. He voted with the social conservatives on the amendments, though he ultimately sided with scientists on the “strengths and weaknesses” issue. The vote was 7-7; eight votes were needed to restore it.
Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, who missed Thursday's hearing, is expected to participate in the final vote.
“If you can't attack evolution through strengths and weaknesses, talk about the insufficiency of natural selection. We see this in other states. This is what creationists are doing — is attacking evolution,” said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
Scientists and more than 50 national and state science organizations urged the 15-member board Thursday not to include references “to creationist-fabricated ‘weaknesses' or other attempts to undermine instruction on evolution.”
Many scientists contend basic evolutionary theory at the high school level has no weaknesses, and to suggest it does would confuse students.
However, Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, fought to restore the “strengths and weaknesses” clause, which board-appointed science experts removed from the proposed standards. The board's seven social conservative members supported that effort but fell one vote short.
Not all scientists agree about evolution, Mercer argued.
“There are questions about evolution. ... There are weaknesses,” he said.
Darwin's theory of evolution posits that all life is descended from a common ancestor.
The theory is not without its critics. Darwinists try to conceal some of the weaknesses and fallacies of evolution theory, said Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands.
“They are not the sole possessors of truth. Our schoolchildren belong to the parents, and they want their children educated,” she said. “They don't want them indoctrinated with one side. They know that evolution has weaknesses.”
The new science curriculum standards will take effect in the 2010-2011 school year and last a decade.
The standards will influence new science textbooks, not only for Texas but also for most other states. Publishers, considering the volume, typically duplicate textbooks used by Texas schools. About 4.6 million students attend K-12 grades in Texas public schools.
“Ring species are examples of speciation in progress, where one species may turn into two. Evolution, in other words.”
Please tell us what completely new, previously unknown, and more complex species arose in this manner. In order to be scientific evidence, this must be observable, reproducible, and predictive.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution does NOT say, "one kind turns into another kind." It says that there is a common ancestor, from which many kinds may develop. Ring species allow us to observe this process. Gone for the rest of the day, so this may be my last post on this thread.
OK let me try to explain. Earlier you asserted that evolution is not science but offered no basis for your claim. Now you say you are OK with teaching it in public school. This is confusing to me, because if you really believe it is not science, I don't understand why you would want it taught there.
Personally, I have no problem with discussing ID in high school biology class. I think it is a good opportunity to discuss the scientific method by challenging students to identify what ID advocates need to do in order to be taken seriously. (e.g. adopt falsifiable hypotheses, test them, analyze data, and publish findings). No matter how much one disagrees with an existing theory, one needs more than those criticisms to have a legitimate alternative theory.
I have been around academic science for a long time. I honestly see far more openness to dissent than people around here believe exists.
“Not in an introductory high school class, no.”
Well, we did.
Biology is a soft science when compared to mathematics or physics. Macro evolutionary theory has always been based and taught that we started off as a single cell and morphed our way up the food chain to man. That single cell part of the theory has failed to pass the mathematics test of probability and the physics test of thermodynamics and 50 years of experimental effort trying to get raw aminio acids to create something as complex as the DNA molecule. This is the athiest / secular humanist religion in a nutshell. Random events create complex systems out of raw materials sloshing around in the ocean therefore God and religion are unneccessary.
The problem they have is that Darwin had an overly simplistic view of the single cell and they had an overly ambitious desire to hijack his theory to create their own religion. It would be nice if they would simply concede after all this time that no one knows where or how we came about and therefore it will always be an article of faith to believe one way or the other.
The crux of the latter is not precisely "speciation". The problem is the extrapolation that follows from that. Through apparent ring species, you have a salamander species which appears to be an ancestor and which seems to give rise to a different salamander species -- one with which the ancestor can no longer breed. OK. Interesting, but that doesn't take you as far as you want to go.
Look at whales instead. Once upon a time there was an animal that lived in the sea and had gills. That ancestor gave rise to a species which lived on land, lost its gills and developed lungs. That ancestor gave rise to a species that went back to the water, became absolutely huge, and gave rise to many other species. But no gills.
All of that took a long, long time, and lots and lots of intermediate species, right?
But this isn't really about species. It's about Kinds. Land animal? Sea animal? Gills? Lungs? No legs? Four legs? Fins?
Salamanders turning into salamanders is one thing. Fish turning into land-dwelling behemoths, or land-dwelling behemoths turning into Blue Whales is more than just a shade different.
And I don't think ring species is sufficient evidence for anyone to conclude "... and that's where whales come from."
You mean the finch beaks?
The populations that returned to “normal” after whatever temporary climate variation was over?
Nope, no problem with that.
“One last reply before I’m out the door. See here.”
Well, you’re out the door, so you won’t see this right away. However, I would point out two things -
1) This is not your reply. This is a link to a web site.
2) Tell me when the salamanders evolved into something that were not salamanders. Until that happens, you haven’t come close to demonstrating Evolution.
Thermodynamics shows you can't go from a single cell to something more complicated? How do you figure that?
:::rolls eyes::: Sure, so lets not dare talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
Golly, those who adhere to the dogma of evolution sure are scared.
This is not a popularity contest.
Thermodynamics says to reverse entropy one must add energy. The universe is entropic, it wants to achieve the lowest possible energy state which means things literally disintegrate or vibrate themselves apart if left alone in a perfect vacuum. The complex DNA molecule must reverse entropy to self assemble which means energy came from some where to jump start the process. Most people start throwing out cosmic rays and lightning bolts to get around the thermodynamics argument, but it only makes the probability (which is 0 to begin with as mathematicians define 10E-50 or smaller to be considered 0 in probability cases) of the self assembly of the DNA molecule occuring even worse. Mathematicians and physicists have went into great detail on this topic, I encourage you to go read up on it.
Genes carry the information to make a protein. A protein is a molecular structure that performs a vital task (structural, enzymatic, metabolic, signaling, etc).
Your complaint is like saying one cannot plant an apple seed and grow an orange tree. WOW. No kidding.
What does “random” mean to you when the Bible clearly states that God controls all “random” processes?
Prov 16:33 The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the lord.
“Random” processes are used all the time in the natural world, and in biology particularly.
Yet God's power doesn't stop at the casino door.
The dichotomy that Creationists wish to create is that either all things are created by God, or all things developed from random events. That limits God to not having any power over random events, and is thus not a Biblical view.
So you’re talking about the appearance of the first cell, not the first cell growing in complexity?
Yes, self-assembly of the original DNA molecule that has been carried along throughout time turning things off and on evolving us human types according to the classic picture we were shown in school. The nobel prize was awarded in 1962 for discovering it. We have spent the last 50 years of bio-genetics exploring it. Darwin had no idea his simple cell was so complex.
The amino acids I am talking about are the raw materials in the “primordial” soup that the DNA molecules formed from? Random processes and events fall under the category of probability theory. The formation of the DNA molecule from the primordial soup would be a random process. I am merely pointing out that science does not back the evolutionists up when it comes to the basis of their entire theory. They need to quit thinking their science is infallible and show some humility toward other viewpoints.
In the end, each person will believe in what makes the most sense to them.
Thanks for the ping!
Abiogenesis deals with hypothesis on how life could form from inanimate matter.
Evolution is about how living organisms that are imperfect replicators change in response to environmental conditions.
The “primordial soup” would be both nucleic and amino acids and anything else God needed to throw into the mix so that at his command, the oceans and the land would bring forth life.
The basis of “evolutionists” entire theory is natural selection of genetic variation, not how life came about in the first place.
When it was declared that the debate over global warming was over, it moved that subject out of the realm of science and into politics.
According to this article, the same attempt is being made regarding evolution.
Personally, I consider them both science, and therefore debatable.....in and out of the class room.
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.