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.

[Salman]

While we're at it, let's not forget the general dumbed down nature of textbooks these days. Bear with me you anti-evolutionists.

I believe that God willed the universe into existence, with laws that permitted evolution to take place. We can debate this on some other thread, I just want to establish my position.

Dumbed down textbooks, public schools, etc.

I contend that no public school that I know of, at least in the United States, is actually teaching evolution. I went to public schools in New York City, but I learned about the theory of evolution from my father.

The public schools are not teaching evolution, they are teaching Flintstonism. Not the same thing.

[WOSG]

ouch!!!

Dont use that condescing Scientific American Q&A from the newly politicized Sci Am.

(And i say this as a subscriber).

There needs to be a way to respond to creationism without being a knee-jerk about it like they are.

I am still mad about how they treated a skeptic Bjorn Limborg (sp??) "The skeptical Environmentalist" who skewered *their* unprovable faith-based pseudo-science notions!

[Blackyce]

Alchemy is taught right along chemistry. It's called nuclear physics, and it's laws allow for the transmutation of other metals into gold. Of course they didnt know that in the enlightenment era and likely criticized their predecessors for even pondering such things.

[slimer]

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.

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

[TheAngryClam]

Uh, a theory, maybe, but evil?

[Doctor Stochastic]

It would be good to have such a course. There are some offered at the college level.

[general_re]

The public schools are not teaching evolution, they are teaching Flintstonism.

Part and parcel of the fact that public schools generally do a horrible job of teaching anything useful or necessary. My wife and I have spent the summer bringing our son up to speed with all the things he should have learned last year in the third grade, none of which the school did properly. On the other hand, he can quite confidently lecture you about the evils of smoking, so it's pretty clear that they can teach the things that they choose to. Broken by design, the public schools are...

[Doctor Stochastic]

In that sense, the Creationists are just the twin of the PostModernDeconstructionists. Both claim to have "superior knowledge" that ist to be used even when in conflict with scientific endeavor. Sometimes it seems the the scientists must be correct if what they are doing is attacked by both the Left and the Right.

[WOSG]

"Why should a religious story be taught outside of a religious studies class at all? Further, Genesis is not the only "creation" story out there."

If nothing else it would serve to puncture the myth developed by Western rationalist philosophers that there is a great divide between different modes of thinking and they belong in separate spheres of reality. Descartes and his dualism thing. Wrong, one reality. Actually there is not a divide between faith and reason, the greatest philosophers (Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant) tried to bridge that gap. Science is not "self-reliant" as an epistemology, as it relies on the testimony of the senses - but how much can you trust them? So is "senses" more or less trustworthy than "revealed truth"? ... Maybe this belongs more in 'philosophy of science' but at least *presenting the creation stories* then explaining what they explain and what they dont explain would help kids THINK. ("So how old is the earth, anyway?")

And isnt that what teaching is supposed to be all about?

This nonsense of kicking out everything not 'official science' is well, er, narrowminded. So yes, teach Genesis and the other 'creation' stories as a part of attempts to deal with and understand the created universe, then explain what Aristotle figured out and then what others figured out along the way.

[WOSG]

"Not any more. Now that these skills, once considered elementary, are nearly vanished, the aim seems to be to preclude debate, not to foster it."

We live in another age of sophistry. Just like the age before Socrates.

[WOSG]

I laughed, I cried. What and exciting 2 minute journey the book preview on Amazon was. :-) Thanx

It reminds me of the 500 page tome I just read - Tony Schwartz "What Really Matters" - only shorter.

check this linked list - "Silence of the Clams" ...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/3CYTVIMZVJQG4/ref=cm_lm_dp_l_1/002-9670089-1588848

[general_re]

Perhaps also a history course tracing the development of modern religions, and examining their impact upon the cultures that produced them would be useful too. Public school courses tend to do a funny arm's-length dance with the subject of religion and its influence on the course of history, with the result that the study of history is done a disservice.

[TheAngryClam]

Everyone always wonders where my name comes from.

I highly recommend the book. Did Amazon's preview have the part where the Clam decides to find meaning in live by converting to Islam, renames himself Malik Al-Shabar (or Shabazar, I don't have it in front of me) Abdul, only to convert back because he can't find the direction toward Mecca and is "unwilling to worship a god who mocks him."

That was one of my favorite parts of the book. Incidentally, my Muslim friends all liked it too, because they were certain it was making fun of the Nation of Islam, which, apparently, is considered lower than dirt among more orthodox Muslims.

[Dimensio]

Hmm.

Should the nuances of the Revolutionary War be a required topic for a Calculus course?

[WOSG]

"Why do humans spend time building things. If they would just wait, it would magically pop out of the Earth by the brillant mind that is evolution."

I think you may be getting the idea of what the biotech revolution is all about. :-) Take evolution and speed up 100x, and use that to make new drugs.

"According to many people, evolution is the most intelligent force in the universe."

Process for generation new ideas (or new anythings)

1. Take an idea from your pool of ideas.
(for sexual version, take 2 ideas; for kinky sex version, take N ideas).
2. Modify it (in some random way).
3. Decide if it is worth keeping. If not, chuck it; if yes, add it to the pool.
4. Go to step 1.

The world's most robust and general improvement system - the feedback loop. If you can come up with something better, it would be worth a fortune!!


"If it can build a complex human, imagine what kind of automobile or energy plant it build for us."

I've used "Simulated Annealling" algorithms which are like genetic algorithms to build computer circuits. Yes, we can use these ideas to help us *intelligently design* new things of all types.

"I'm glad we have so many brillant teachers who understand the mind of Evolution, and are willing to share it with our kids, to bring them out of the darkness of religious stupidity."

That's the part that would be unfortunate, to fall in the trap of making science and religion antagonists, when in fact, science is highlighting the utter beauty and complexity of the Universe far beyond the imaginings of primitive minds, so that it can enhance an appreciate of the gifts from God. Doesnt knowledge bring us closer to understanding God?

Philosophic nihilism is the wrong conclusion to draw from evolutionary theory. JMHO.

[Nephi]

Creationists generally believe earth was formed supernaturally by God.

While evolutionists generally believe that the earth was formed and all species inhabiting earth were created supernaturally by chance.

The evolutionists have less evidence to support their fairytale than creationists do.

[WOSG]

Dittos on that.

The late 19th and 20th century was hit with 3 big ideas - Marx, Freud, and Darwin - that have generated huge controversy and intellectual ferment.

It turns out 2 of the ideas were pseudo-scientific and false: Marx and Freud. The Socialist left is enthralled with both, as evidenced by, even today, humanities profs with "marxist" this on the official titles. Yet Marx was wrong on his Theory of Value, his predictions, his understanding of capital, and much else. He was wrong.

Freud's theories have been debunked and superceded, even though for some time psychoanalysis held back progress in understanding the physical/chemical basis of psychosis, but his pseudoscientific mind model have been coopted by leftists and anthropologists etc. to project their own attempts at cultural (Gramscian) transformation, even as neuroscience and therapy has moved way beyond his now obsolete ideas. Sexual repression in the sub-conscious from childhood memories as the source of all neurosis was hoo-ey but that wont stop feminist radicals from using it in non-scientific ways to advance cultural/political agendas.

But Darwin hit on the metaphor that has unlocked understanding of a host of things in the biological world.

Curiously, the left is allergic to the social implications of Darwinism (eg Social Darwinism, it's economic equivalent which is really free-market economics, etc., and now the "Socio-biology" angle) I find that distinction interesting.

[Rudder]

Creationism has nothing to do with alchemy.

Nor does it have anything to do with science. Creationism is trying like the camel to sneak its nose under the tent of science. Whether one subscribes to creationism or to evolution is secondary to the major issue: for creationism to be considered as science it must first become a science by virtue of using the scientific method to establish a data base. All the heated rhetoric in the world will not make creationism what it is not: science.

[Rudder]

While evolutionists generally believe that the earth was formed and all species inhabiting earth were created supernaturally by chance.

Before you pronnounce upon evolution, try to get it correct. The above statement of yours does not pertain to evolution.

[LiteKeeper]

Socialism. Evolution. Global warming. And the list of liberal scams goes on and on and on as long as they are in a position to brainwash the naive via media and "education."

mega dittoes