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.

[LiteKeeper]

Response to Scientific American article on creationism

15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American

[jlogajan]

Textbook publishers have turned into little more than paper mills. Anything they can get Texas and California to buy will be snapped up by everybody else, no matter how chock-full of boneheaded mistakes, myths, and disproved "facts" they are.

Textbook publishers may publish crap, but adding religious crap to the mix doesn't improve things.

[donmeaker]

I figure Evolution and Creation are both faith. G-d could have created the bones in the earth yesterday to confound us. He could have created us in the last 5 minutes with all the memories we think we have for the same reason.

I just think, for the sake of integrity, that people who don't believe in Evolution should be denied the products of the science that they abhor. No vaccinations. No antbiotics. No internal combustion engines. No bioengineered crops. No air conditioning. And the list goes on. And they can try to heat their houses with dephilogistated air.

[WOSG]

Actually IMHO that is what Intelligent Design theory is attempting to do, ground creationist notions in verifiable/falsifiable philosophy and science so it can be presented in a scientific way.

Jury's out on it, the idea may evolve over time. :-)

[Rudder]

...ground creationist notions in verifiable/falsifiable philosophy and science so it can be presented in a scientific way.

There's only one way to do science: collect empirical data. Creationism has not done that. Rhetoric (or whatever its called: "Philosophy' or "gounding" or "presenting") at this level--without hard data--is empty and, most importantly, not science.

Creationism seems to be getting the cart before the horse. It will have to seek scientific (empirical) validation before it can present itself as science.

[Almondjoy]

So did God create a path in animals that would be mistaken for evolution on purpose?

[King Prout]

"The requested document does not exist on this server."
What is this agreement, where does it reside, how do I get there from here?

[King Prout]

re: option#2
in other words, allow science to plumb the "how" and allow religion to address the "why"?
That's something I've been leaning towards, myself.

[King Prout]

good point.
(sparkle motion?)

[hoosierskypilot]

Ain't it the truth. The fundamental law of biology is that life cannot emanate from non-life. Yet evolutionary hypothesis says that's exactly what happened.

Evolutionary hypothesis says life began under conditions that cannot be reproduced. If it cannot be reproduced, then it cannot be demonstrated. That means it (evolutionary hypothesis) is unscientific.

The fact is, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.

[hoosierskypilot]

Stop it, Russell! You're using logic and common sense! Evolutionary hypothesis cannot afford to be confused with facts!

[King Prout]

Be bolder.
Ask instead: Did God create the light from stars located hundreds of trillions of light years distant from Earth EN ROUTE at the time of Creation, so that we would now observe that light, and those distances, and -knowing the speed of light in a vacuum is constant- would come to the false but evidentially-supported conclusion that the universe is several orders of magnitude older than any numeric estimate that can be derived from a literal reading of Genesis?
Personally, I'd rather conclude that Genesis is an inaccurate work of Man than call God a liar.

[Da_Shrimp]

For the teaching to be accurate they need to describe evilution for what it is - an evil theory.

Could you define why evolution is an 'evil' theory? Thanks in advance.

[USMMA_83]

Just read any of Joseph Cambell's works. Start with the "Masks of God."

[USMMA_83]

Oh boy! Are you going to get it now. These threads are better than watching the "The Three Stooges." It's so stupid, it's funny.

[jennyp]

Three-Blind-Mice placemarker.

[tm22721]

How can conservatives tout 'Intelligent Design' but then at the same time denounce Islamists for being in the 14th centruy ?

Pure hypocrisy.

BUMP

[PatrickHenry]

What is this agreement, where does it reside, how do I get there from here?

Having link troubles. Donno why. It's here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/960260/posts

[visualops]

SA gives this as the official "link to" link:
Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&ref=sciam

[BMCDA]

100 Placemarker