Teaching of evolution set to go under microscope (Texas)

The resignation of the [Texas] state's science curriculum director last month has signaled the beginning of what is shaping up to be a contentious and politically charged revision of the science curriculum, set to begin in earnest in January.

Former science director Chris Comer says she resigned from the Texas Education Agency to avoid being fired after officials told her she had improperly endorsed evolution. She had forwarded an e-mail announcing a speech by a prominent scholar on evolution, which the state requires schools to teach.

The [State Board of Education] must vote on any changes to the curriculum. Most board members, including the chairman, have said publicly they don't want to introduce intelligent design into the curriculum, and many of them also have said they want to keep the current language on evolution.

[...] Even small changes in the language could mean big changes in textbooks later on.

Don McLeroy, a conservative board member on the losing side of the vote [adopting textbooks in '03] and a Sunday school teacher, later told a church group that he believed he could have persuaded more members to reject the books if he had challenged the assumption [of naturalism].

"How can the materialistic philosophic naturalistic base dependency of Darwinism be brought into the discussion and used for our benefit?" Dr. McLeroy asked, according to a recording of the speech. "We didn't use it. All we did was stay with evidence, and we got run over."

Dr. McLeroy is now chairman of the board. Gov. Rick Perry appointed the Bryan dentist to the post in July.

Ten Republicans and five Democrats sit on the state board. Dr. McLeroy is part of a bloc of seven social conservatives who often vote together.

Evolution is a barren theory.

As if.

There are whole fields that emerged out of evolutionary theory. Much of modern genetics did, and the particular field of population genetics came directly and entirely out of the effort to reconcile classical evolutionary theory with then new theories about the gene and inheritance.

Many advances in the fecund field of molecular biology have had evolution as a crucial or contributing factor behind their discovery. For instance many functionally important DNA sequences were first recognized, and only later better understood, because evolutionary analysis showed them to be conserved across evolutionary lineages.

Much of the still very incomplete but growing understanding of "junk" DNA, regulation of gene expression, and the like have such a basis. Here's a recent example where it was discovered that not just sequences or regions of the DNA have been under selective pressure, but so in a number of cases have individual nucleotides(!) scattered in non-coding, nonselected regions of the DNA.

We don't know the importance of this discovery yet because we don't know why these single loci are preserved, but they could easily have some important function which could lead to new understanding of, who knows what -- gene regulation, disease, anything. This is what evolutionary theory has done time and again: it's told scientists where to look for something interesting. These apparently functional single nucleotides almost certainly would have been overlooked, possibly forever, but for the assumption of common descent and application of more specific theories about genomic evolution.

Gregor Johann Mendel a priest was the father of genetics. He produced his correct theory of genetics slightly before Charles Darwin produced his false theory of pangenesis.
Evolution has contributed nothing to genetics but has been modified because of it time and again. Charles Darwin’s theory said that people inherited their parent’s acquired traits and that one generations environment resulted in the genetic adaption of their children.

“We don’t know the importance of this discovery yet because we don’t know why these single loci are preserved”
“These apparently functional single nucleotides almost certainly would have been overlooked, possibly forever, but for the assumption of common descent”

Actually it is the Creationist’s belief that everything that is there, must be there for a good reason. Even if we don’t know why now, as we learn more we will continue to see the genius of the Creator and his divine purpose. It is the Christian view that God created an ordered universe that led to the discovery of most of our laws of science which define the order that Christians knew to be there even before they discovered it. Those who believe that the Universe and the contents thereof is the result of a random cosmic accident and that we are most surely filled with the vestiges of things long since rendered irrelevant by our evolution have time and again dismissed things as vestigial only to later on be shown that they indeed had current biological purpose and function.

I applaud the fact that this time around you have the foresight to know that what looks like a blank spot to you now will soon enough be shown to have a purpose. It shows that you have learned through science that there is purpose behind our design and the blank spots will never just turn out to be some random purposeless vestige of a prior species.
The fact that you ask “why” and not just how, belies that you suspect that there is more at work than just random chance and selection. If random chance and selection is the answer to all “why” questions you should stop using the word and only ask how. If there is no Creator, there is no purpose, no reason, no “why”, only “how”(by accident of course).

Honestly, If this whole universe were the result of some Godless cosmic accident and governed by chance and the path of least resistance, could there be any useful purpose for you to be struggling to change my mind?

If however you are in denial of your Creator, I can see how you would want to make a strong rebuttal when I point out you were created for a purpose and and with that comes responsibility to the Creator you defy.

Actually it is the Creationist’s belief that everything that is there, must be there for a good reason.

Wow! You make my point beautifully, and frankly a bit stronger than I would have put it myself.

So then you concede, if ALL DNA loci must be considered functional, that it would be absolutely impossible for a creationist to consistently do what evolutionists do routinely, and to great benefit as to the advancement of science: indentify likely loci, sequences and regions of the DNA for investigation even BEFORE knowing their particular function.

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.