Battle over evolution heating up

News 8 Austin ^ | 8/20/2003 | Antonio Castelan

[new cruelty]

The debate continues over what information Texas biology books should present.

The Texas Board of Education is looking to pick the best science book for students.

Members of a campaign called "Stand Up For Science'' said it's meant to protect the accurate teaching of evolution in Texas high school biology textbooks.

The push was unveiled on Wednesday by some religious leaders, scientists and parents. It comes as the state Board of Education prepares to adopt new biology textbooks this fall.

Terry Maxwell, a professor of biology at Angelo State University, doesn't believe creationism should be in biology textbooks.

"Science uses evidentiary reasoning and it uses no other approach," he said.

Creationists generally believe earth was formed supernaturally by God.

Reverend Tom Hegar said while he believes in God's powers, those ideas need to stay at home or in the church.

"Faith and science are complimentary. Don't use faith to build your science. Don't use science to try to destroy or shrink my faith," he said.

Seattle-based Discovery Institute believes the theory of intelligent design should be in Texas biology books. According to the Institute, intelligent design is the hypothesis that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Science backers say that's the same thing as creationism.

"Textbooks should fix embarrassing factual errors and tell students about the scientific weakness of neo-Darwinism as well as its strengths," Discovery Institute officials stated in a faxed memo.

Maxwell said two different ideologies make it harder for students to learn science.

"If you interject ways of knowing other than the way science is practiced by mainstream science you confuse children," he said.

Austin biology teacher Amanda Walker said evolution is the cornerstone for understanding the living world, and influences medicine such as prostate cancer, heart disease and AIDS.

The evolution proponents also criticized what they said are attempts to teach creationist theories.

The Board of Education can reject books because of errors or failure to follow the state curriculum.

The board will make its final decision on the biology textbooks in November.

People have until Thursday, Aug. 21, to sign up to speak at the final public hearing Sept. 10.

In July, the first public hearing brought 42 speakers who offered their opinions at the public hearing on biology, but only half of them were familiar with the particular books.

Board member Gail Lowe said then she was disappointed that many of the people who testified for or against certain textbooks hadn't actually read them.

"They seem to be here to express a viewpoint, but it doesn't seem to relate to the textbooks we're actually considering," she said.

[=Intervention=]

" faith, which is the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof"

When people speak of having "faith" in someone else, they don't mean that there is no evidence or logical proof for that person to do something or to behave a certain way. Faith is much more like "trust" based on sufficient evidence. As long as faith is defined as being wholly without reason and counter-rational, it becomes an easy way to shuffle off those those with whom you disagree to the small rooms in the intellectual asylum.

[whattajoke]

The only proponents of Creationism are the boogeymen who live inside of evolutionist's minds.

And, of course, in Seattle, Washington; headquarters of The Discovery Institute which is who is leading the "battle" in distant Texas.

[whattajoke]

So many errors, so little time...

Without bothering to call attention to all of your odd assertions, I'd urge you to read up on what a "theory" is before dismissing them as nonsense. You may be amazed to find that bridges, houses, airplanes, computers, electricity, etc are all predicated upon "theories."

Intelligent people tend to hyperconform to one another and staunchly defend their pet theories

Oh what a wonderful world it would be if only stupid people ran the show? Huh?

The concept of scientist as the thoroughly dispassionate disinterested observer and recorder does not fit any university within the known universe...

I'd agree with your statement had you not left out the word, "creationist" between "known" and "universe." See, there's this little process known as peer review that you apparently are unaware of. oh, why bother.

[metacognative]

A lot of wishful thinking in your paragraph. Can you think scientifically without the straw man 'creationism'? Are you a hard core atheist? Read " Evolution in Crisis" by Michael Denton.

[MEGoody]

"utterly fantastical and false belief systems"

So creationism has been disproved? Falsified? Please provide data which shows this.

[PatrickHenry]

I stand by what I said, viz., it takes more faith to believe man evolved from apes than to simply believe Genesis 1.

As you wish. I visited the website of the Journal you mentioned: The American Scientific Affiliation. I haven't studied their material, but from their "statement of faith" and their "mission statement," it appears that they may be more interested in theology than science. For example:

"Mission I: To develop the American Scientific Affiliation as an instrument to integrate and interpret the discoveries of natural and social science with the insights which we derive from the total message of Scripture and our Christian faith."

I suspect that these people would be unlikely to follow the scientific data if it were to lead them away from a literal interpretation of scripture. Fine fellows, but probably not a leading source of cutting-edge scientific research.

[PatrickHenry]

So creationism has been disproved? Falsified? Please provide data which shows this.

Another post from more than 6 months ago, but it's responsive to your request:

A provocative question that Junior recently directed to a creationist: "Biblical prophesies notwithstanding, what biological predictions does creationism make?" The creationist didn't respond, but I do, as follows:

I can think of a few creationist predictions. Because -- according to creationism -- all species were specially created at virtually the same time, and did not gradually evolve from earlier forms:

1. There should be no transitional species.

2. There are most certainly no pre-human (but still humanoid) species.

3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the chronological evolution of life.

4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several, having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth. This isn't a direct prediction, but it's inferred by the concept of special creation. There is no reason at all for each to be so similar to the others in their molecular structure. For example, there's no creationist reason why a lion can eat animals from all over the globe.

5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs and humans) living together at the same time.

I call these The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism.

In fairness to the creationists, although the first three have already been disproved (for example: #1 -- Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, #2 -- Human Ancestors, more #2 -- Comparison of all skulls, #3 - - Tree of Life Project ), the last two (#4 and #5) can't yet be considered to be totally failed predictions. All we can do is point out that the predicted evidence has not yet been discovered. Given the lack of actual research being conducted by creationists, it is unlikely to be discovered.

[f.Christian]

bttt

[whattajoke]

You posted a quote supposedly damning evolution. One scientist said something in 1960 and now an entire branch of science is dead? But it's worse, see, when I see supposed anti-evolution quotes mined from creationist websites with those magical ellipses in them, I'm leery of them. As it turns out, of course, your ellipses do a nice job of hiding a sentence which precedes your quote:

"As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process."

See there, hoosier, he accepts evolution, but is simply calling attention to the difficulties we had (and still have to some extent) with the mechanisms involved. And remember this is 43 years ago, which is an eternity in evolutionary science, which has only been around for just over 100 years! Have you no shame?

[whattajoke]

Yeah, I was gonna mention that the journal is decidedly slanted, but figured I'd stick with the ellipses issue. In fact, heres the table of contents from the 43 year old unheard of random journal:

Volume 12 Number 1 March 1960

A Critique of Evolution
Toward an Evangelical Philosophy of Science
The New Challenge to Christian Scholarship
Evolution: Some Recent Points of View
Evangelism among University Students

[whattajoke]

Can you think scientifically without the straw man 'creationism'? Are you a hard core atheist?

Huh? Would it be better if I call it "ID?" And I'm unclear as to how my religious beliefs, or lack thereof, have any real-world bearing on the science of explaining the diversity of life on the planet earth.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up! Bump!

[hoosierskypilot]

The point of the quote is that evolutionists treat their hypotheses as if they were foregone conclusions, and dismiss all who disagree as unscientific. Thompson simply points out that they are unable to verify their claims.

That, IMO, makes it unscientific.

[ZULU]

Evolution and the arguments over it are an idiotic waste of time.

Instead of rehashing and beating to death this issue, fundamentalists and devout Christians and Jews should be OUTRAGED by the spectacle the Federal Courts have created over the First Amendment and its modern re-interpretation that its purpose is to expunge God from public life at every level and at every point.

The assinine decision of a Federal Judge in Alabama, the pandering of the Alabama Supreme Court Justices to that assinine decision, the cowadice of the Federal Supreme Court on this recent issue, leads us ONE MORE STEP towards ATHEISM as our National Religion and established Church.

[whattajoke]

Re your post 134...

which has what, exactly, to do with a debate about evolution?

[f.Christian]

Good News For The Day

‘I am among you as one who serves’ (Luke 22:27)

"Albert Schweitzer was a man with a strong intellect, and great musical gifts. One day, he was reflecting on his fortunate life in Europe. He thought of his considerable mental facility, his many privileges in education and the arts. He asked himself: "Why do I have so much, while others do not?" he could only think of one answer: "I have been given these gifts in order to serve my fellow man." Then and there he vowed and ideal of service. Service became the law of his life. He went to Africa as a missionary doctor."

"Here is how he describes one moment in his years of service: "The operation is finished in the dimly lighted dormitory. I watch for the sick man to wake. Scarcely has he recovered consciousness, when he stares about him and exclaims again, and again, 'I have no more pain; there is no more pain.' His hand feels for mine, and will not let it go. Then I begin to tell him, and others there, that it is the Lord Jesus that has told the doctor to come here."

"The African sun is ... shining --- through the coffee bushes into the dark shed."

"But we, black and white, sit side by side, and feel that we know by experience, the meaning of the words, 'you are all brethren.' Would that my generous friends in Europe would come out here with me and live through one such hour!"

My comments ...

I am personally offended and insulted that they would teach we were descended from animals - APES ...

evolution is the most bigotted and racist abortion --- spiritual - intellectual rape - murder - tyranny on the face of the earth!

[PatrickHenry]

The point of the quote is that evolutionists treat their hypotheses as if they were foregone conclusions, and dismiss all who disagree as unscientific. Thompson simply points out that they are unable to verify their claims. That, IMO, makes it unscientific.

It's true that you've found one man who makes that claim, and I know he's not the only one; but the science of biology goes along its merry way, being scientific. There are tons of evidence that support evolution. Thompson says it's not true. Well, this is America. He has his opinion. Everyone's happy.

[f.Christian]

I watched a tv special about ayres rock in australia and it was the most convoluted evolution bs I'd ever seen .

My theory -- explantion is ...

it's an underground blowup - out --- through a soft spot hole in the earth's crust - plate !

If evolution was true and these were plates turned sideways ... their would be some fossil evidence in them and my theory would make their presence nearly * impossible * --- they could be drawn in from the surface and resurfaced in the extruding process !

* Here it is * ...


Most of the canyons and gorges (( revealing layers forming below surface cambrian layers )) actually formed by drying - shrinking cracks ... water naturally flowing through them because of their lower elevations - depth (( evo erosian phooey )) !

At some point plates collapsed upon themselves forming rocky mountains and some fragmenting - opening allowing islands and mountains to protrude - rise above and through the plate valley - ocean floor edges !

Heating and cooling would have changed the size of the earth ... probably hot --- very small !

Starting to cool forming a surface crust ... getting larger again --- and then like a cake bubbling rising up sections and with more cooling drying cracks !

Towards the center top middle half of the geologic column life forms appear fully formed ... cambrian explosion --- nothing below !

There are ... * NO precambrian fossils * ---

except for worms - mollusks (( unless the earth was hollow and they floated to the surface )) !

While the top layers were being formed from flooding and volcanic activity ... most of the column layers were formed from below and at the same time forming most of the above ground ... i.e., buttes - hills - mountains -- surface plate geography we see today --- not enough time for all this evolution nonsense that wouldn't be possible with unlimited time anyway --- pure fantasy- fiction !


Cambrian plates are on mountain tops and rising mountains would raise plate and ocean floors to various elevations !

All this geology and life washing out of a mudball is OBVIOUSLY an evolution hoax -- legend !


Also catastrophic cosmic collisions would interrupt evolution so many times over a long period of time it would also make evolution IMPOSSIBLE !

[ZULU]

The conncetion is, arguments about evolution are far less relevant to the moral status and moral compass of America than what is being done in Alabama today by the Federal Courts.

[Dimensio]

(sparkle motion?)

Donnie Darko reference. I thought that it was a cute line, though it makes more sense in context.