I simply don’t know how else to put it. I can only phrase this so many ways, write about it so many times without repeating myself. So I’ll let the Texas Freedom Network say it.
No, I have to say something. Creationists in the government will try anything, do anything, to get around that pesky Constitution. Remember that, always.
[Update (like, ten minutes later): Sigh. Congress (though generally not I) loves them some meaningless resolutions, which usually pass unanimously. So what happened here?]
March 14th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Texas: DOOMED
March 14th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Well, sometimes I think that the best option in these cases is to just sit back and wait for the bill to be challenged. Even the most conservative courts see through this sort of charade, and the legitimacy gained with each case does much more for the cause of rationality than getting a bill killed in commitee due to protests, however rational and correct the protests may be.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Some people in Texas had minds?
(Ducking and covering…)
March 14th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I changed the title. It was unfair, and this is more accurate anyway.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
@kuhnigget,
Well, there’s Austin.
Other than that, only isolated individuals…
March 15th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Phil, according to the following list, “Some people in Texas have lost their grip on reality” years ago already:
Dumb Texas Laws*
* When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone.
* A city ordinance states that a person cannot go barefoot without first obtaining a special five-dollar permit.
* It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.
* You can be legally married by publicly introducing a person as your husband or wife 3 times.
* It is illegal to drive without windshield wipers. You don’t need a windshield, but you must have the wipers.
* It is illegal for one to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a hotel.
* It is illegal to milk another person’s cow.
* A recently passed anti-crime law requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed.
* It is unlawful for a person to consume an alcoholic beverage while operating a motor vehicle upon a public roadway, if the person is observed doing so by a peace officer.
* The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.
Abilene
* It is illegal to idle or loiter anyplace within the corporate limits of the city for the purpose of flirting or mashing.
Austin
* Wire cutters cannot be carried in your pocket.
Beaumont
* Collegiate football is banned at Lamar University.
Borger
* It is against the law to throw confetti, rubber balls, feather dusters, whips or quirts (riding crop), and explosive firecrackers of any kind.
Clarendon
* It is illegal to dust any public building with a feather duster.
Dallas
* It is illegal to possess realistic dildos.
El Paso
* Churches, hotels, halls of assembly, stores, markets, banking rooms, railroad depots, and saloons are required to provide spittoons “of a kind and number to efficiently contain expectorations into them.”
Houston
* Beer may not be purchased after midnight on a Sunday, but it may be purchased on Monday. It is illegal to sell Limburger cheese on Sunday.
Galveston
* It is illegal to drive a motor car down Broadway before noon on Sundays.
* No person shall throw trash from an airplane.
* Landing an airplane on the beach is illegal.
* No person shall inhale fumes from model glue.
Harker Heights
* No person may disturb a church service by swearing.
* Drivers of city vehicles must respect all traffic rules just like the rest of us.
Jasper
* Dogs must be on a leash at ALL times. Fine of 100 dollars.
LeFors
* It is illegal to take more than three swallows of beer while standing.
Lubbock County
* It is illegal to drive within an arm’s length of alcohol – including alcohol in someone else’s blood stream.
Mesquite
* It is illegal for children to have unusual haircuts.
Port Arthur
* Obnoxious odors may not be emitted while in an elevator.
Richardson
* It is now illegal to place a “for sale” sign on a car if it visible from the street. It is illegal to do “U Turns”.
San Antonio
* It is illegal for both sexes to flirt or respond to flirtation using the eyes and/or hands. It is illegal to urinate on the Alamo.
Temple
* No one may ride a horse and buggy through the town square. You can ride your horse in the saloon. Cattle thieves may be hanged on the spot.
Texarkana
* Owners of horses may not ride them at night without tail lights.
*Source: dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/texas
March 15th, 2009 at 12:57 am
P.S. For some reason, the formatting of the above text has spaced more than I had intended. Without a preview/edit facility here, I’m not responsible as to how things turn out over there, once I hit the bloody submit button.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Err… in the first line, that should read: “… spaced out more…”
NUTS!
March 15th, 2009 at 1:09 am
About the “Pi Day” vote, I wonder if those same congressmen would have voted yes on the resolution if those who drafted it had added an “e” to the end of “Pi” in “Pi Day”.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Anyone know the likelihood of this Texas bill getting passed? Is it even out of committee yet?
March 15th, 2009 at 1:13 am
You know what they say … Ignorance of the formatting is no excuse!
March 15th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Huh? What’s the big deal here? Does $\pi$ care? I don’t think so.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:14 am
Religion in any shape or form is the greatest danger to human development, and NO! until there is absolute proof of god, there is nothing to discuss.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:20 am
@IVAN3MAN
I noticed that they conveniently don’t have links to the actual text of the laws for most of the crazier ones, which leads me to believe they’re urban legends. The laws that do have links to the actual text only seem dumb because they’ve been taken out of context.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:34 am
I recently wrote a letter to the school boards who are considering accepting creatintelligent designonsim….
J/P=?
March 15th, 2009 at 4:02 am
Pi is an unproven theory. We must teach the debate and allow students to determine the circumference of a circle in other ways.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Would someone kindly tell if this is true?
If it is, I think we’ve just found the best place to continue the fight for equal marriage rights.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:47 am
The bill on only filed. It’s a not close to being a law yet, so for now I think we just need to keep an eye on it, rather than assume doom.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:57 am
I couldn’t find them on snopes, but I did see the train law cited as coming from Nebraska in the blog post BA linked to.
However, I did find something else on snopes. According to them, even though 10 people decided to vote against a pi day resolution, a resolution honoring the Boston Strangler, a serial killer, passed unanimously:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/desalvo.asp
March 15th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Ya know,,, no where in the constitution does it state that religion can/can’t be taught in schools. Now I don’t support Creationism in any way, shape or form. In fact I’m about the most hard core atheist I know of. But, the First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. To me this means that CONGRESS can not say that everybody must worship a certain God/Gods.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Classic lack of moral imagination. They could care less what the people who don’t follow their imaginary sky fairy feel because they thing they have The Truth…
March 15th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Kurt, you’d be surprised at a lot of things that “aren’t” in the constitution: http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstateconstitution/p/Constitution.htm
March 15th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Kurt:
You’re forgetting about the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment expands the bill of rights protections to state and local governments. So, not only can congress not establish a religion, neither can the state government.
Public schools are funded and run by the state government (and usually the federal government too.)
Therefore, a public school cannot push religion on the kids. That doesn’t exclude a theology class, or learning about religions. However, the state cannot push the tenants of the religion as fact. That would be a violation of the establishment clause.
But, I’m not a lawyer.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Oh, sure, Dr. BA, go and change your title on me, thereby making my usually pointless comments even more pointless and incoherent. Har-rumph.
So…
People in Texas had a grip on reality?
Meh! Doesn’t have that ring to it.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:54 am
I reside in Texas and I have two daughters (twins both 11). Though my in-law family and daughters are all native Texans, I am imported. I guess I offer that only as an excuse! I do, though, enjoy living in Texas and by-and-large it is a nice state to live in, BUT it is part of the so called “bible belt” and foolishness can be found aplenty.
First off, I involve myself in my daughters’ education as much as possible. I ask them constantly about what they are learning in school, particularly in regards to science. I don’t find any evidence of foolishness in their education so far. However, this is always a constant worry for me, ergo my constant involvement.
As long as I’m involved I believe they’ll be okay. After all, children pick up all kinds of silliness from all manner of sources and being diligently involved in their daily life and always being available to them is the greatest assuredness of a healthy education and upbringing.
That said, this ridiculous stupidity is insanely disturbing to us Texas parents who live in reality and strive to teach our children in ways consistent with reality. Again everything returns to involvement. Those that choose to try and circumvent children’s education to their own views and belief systems have no qualms about involvement, not excluding shoving their drivel in your face and feeding their drivel to your children “for your children’s own sake”. Again everything returns to involvement—theirs and/or yours.
Now, I’m not one to walk around the capital building with a sign on a stick but I do vote, I do write letters, I do keep myself informed, and I do scream “Bulls*!” when I see it. Again everything returns to involvement.
But, this is Texas after all and if I’ve learned one thing since coming here seventeen years ago it is: if you don’t agree with the herd then “shut the hell up”.
Well, I say bulls*!
March 15th, 2009 at 9:24 am
José:
Maybe so, but since creationist nutcases enjoy quoting Darwin, et al., out-of-context, I figure that we can have some fun and do likewise.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Perhaps the 10 that voted against the Pi Day resolution did so because it’s a waste of time for Congress to pass these non-binding resolutions. They should be working on more important things.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:34 am
One of the Republicans to vote against the Pi day resolution was the idiot Texas Republican Ron Paul, so, Texas was represented in this as well.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
You can’t read too much into the no votes. Ron Paul and Jeff Flake are both on there, not because they’re anti-science (Paul is a medical doctor, and not an idiot) but because they vote no on nearly everything.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
You’re right, Congress loves meaningless non-binding resolutions, after all they are so absolutely politically safe. Your seat is never on the line because of them and it makes one feel like they are doing *something*.
I am curious to hear why those Republicans voted no since the article you sited doesn’t know either. Could very well be they thought it was a waste of time.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
kudos to the Texas Freedom Network for fighting the good fight.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Could they please just freaking secede for reals already?
March 15th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Texas once wanted to secede. I say they give that a try again, and we let them. “Oh no, you can’t leave the union! Oh, all right. Here, take Florida while you’re at it, ok?”
March 15th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Uh, the text of that bill says nothing about teachers teaching scientific falsities to children. It provides protection against students being “penalized” if they happen to believe something different and want to learn about it, and it allows their teachers to explain alternative scientific theories as long as those theories have legitimate scientific backing. I’m not a creationist by any means, but it sure seems like allowing students and teachers to remain open-minded about what they’re being taught or being told to teach is a good thing. Taking “critical” stances on science is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. I’m not sure why we need these attacks against people who believe slightly differently from yourselves after years and years of scientists modifying, changing and revamping their theories over and over again.
Nothing in that bill is attacking evolution. All I hear are excuses for attacking people who think differently.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
“It is illegal to urinate on the Alamo.”
I reckon you can thank Ozzie Osbourne for that one!
March 15th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
The problem Adam, is that there are no SCIENTIFIC theories that disagree with evolution. There are some THEORIES(such as the “theory” of gods existence) that disagree with evidence based knowledge, but they are not subject to the scientific method, thus they are not SCIENTIFIC theories.
GAry 7
March 15th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
[...] Bad Astronomy comes a story regarding the ongoing debate in the Texas State Board of Education chambers regarding [...]
March 15th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
I don’t want to come in and be the conservitive guy… but a few things:
First you are clearly speculating on why they did not pass the resolution… they make a suggestion that it may be because of this previous resolution… but that is not fact… its a theory
I honestly would vote against all of these simply because they are dumb, and the fact that it even went to vote is a waste of tax dollars.
and @Gary Ansorge
There IS a SCIENTIFIC THEORY of Intelligent Design (not creationism, ID) which is completely legitimate, unless you are a liberal who has something to fear with alternate ideas.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:57 am
[...] politicians still tick me off March 15, 2009 — Richard by celerrimus Some people in Texas have lost their grip on reality: [Via Bad Astronomy] I simply don’t know how else to put it. I can only phrase this so many [...]
March 16th, 2009 at 6:25 am
adam
Your post was addressed at the tfn blog which was linked to, because you posted the exact same thing there. This leads me to be suspicious of your intentions.
Also students can’t be penalised on their beliefs, but they SHOULD be penalised if they say (for example) the Earth is 6,000 years old instead of 4 billion on their science tests.
March 16th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Kurt said:
Yes, and this means that federally-funded schools are not permitted to favour one religion above others. Which means either equal time for each and every religion in the entire world, or the teaching of no religion. Which do you think is the only practical option?
March 16th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Adam said:
Well, either you’re being disingenuous, or you’re incredibly naïve.
Generally, high-school science does not enter the realms where there is genuine uncertainty, ambiguity or controversy in the science. Therefore, high-school students are taught scientific conclusions that are well-established and widely accpeted. Therefore, if any student “believes” differently, they are simply wrong, and should be penalised for being wrong.
For a teacher to introduce their class to alternative theories that have genuine scientific backing is already permitted and / or encouraged, where it is relevant and where time permits. This bill will add nothing in such cases. IIUC, what this bill will permit in addition to what is currently available is that any teacher can tell their class any old nonsense, provided they can point to some source that claims to be scientific (such as the DI in the case of evolution), and the schhol board and state BoE cannot stop them.
Being critical of anything you are told is good, but this should be applied judiciously. In the case of science, where high schools teach well-established and widely-accepted conclusions, there is little point in being extensively critical, because the conclusions have already been criticised, checked and refined. In the case of evolution, I think the subject should be taught bit by bit, as a detective story, to present as much of the evidence as possible. However, time and parental censure (and, in some cases, ignorance on the part of the teacher) rarely permit such in-depth coverage. Or do you also recommend an in-depth critique of Newtonian mechanics?
March 16th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Please please please, let’s define the language correctly:
“Theory” does not equals “Guess” or “Idea”.
A “Theory” is the opposite of a guess. A “Theory” starts as a hypothesis. You then design experiments based upon that hypothesis and you predict the outcome of the experiment. If the experiment provides the predicted outcome then the hypothesis moves closer to becoming a theory.
A “Theory” must make predictions and must be falsifiable. For something to become a “Theory” it must be proven to fit all known evidence and must have explained all experimental results. In other words, the word “Theory” is vastly closer to the word “Fact” than it is to the word “Guess”.
There is no theory of intelligent design. ID is a hypothesis and nothing more. A “hypothesis” is a guess or an idea. ID has no unique explaination of any observable evidence, it makes no predictions and therefore provides no experiments that can prove the prediction. With no predictions or experiments available it cannot be falsified.
Therefore, ID is not a “Theory” of anything and is not science.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:19 am
@Travis McCrea says:
There IS a SCIENTIFIC THEORY of Intelligent Design (not creationism, ID) which is completely legitimate, unless you are a liberal who has something to fear with alternate ideas.”
Hmm, no. ID is NOT a legitimate scientific theory. For it to be legitimate, there would need to be hypotheses, researching, testing, evalution, reformulation and refining of those hypotheses, and so on. ID was conceived solely as an intellectual exercise. THERE HAS BEEN NO RESEARCH! ID proponents’ “cience” consists consist entirely of trying to explain why they believe evolution is wrong.
If someone will point me to actual scientific research and peer-reviewed articles which are NOT primarily along the lines of “evolution can’t explain the blood-clotting cascade therefore it must be designed”, I would love to read it.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Really? Mind explaining it to us? Scientists have been begging the intelligent design proponents for decades to show us a scientific theory, but so far they have steadfastly refused. They have admitted on several occasions that it does not exist. If you have one it is the biggest breakthrough in intelligent design since its inception in the late 1980’s.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:01 am
@ adam: Just think about this for a second. Are you aware of any cases of any students being penalized for their beliefs? Are you aware of any cases where teachers have been penalized for helping students understand scientific principles using legitimate scientific evidence? If not, then what point does the bill serve?
You should be very wary of laws that seem to protect rights and privileges that already exist, laws that seem to solve non-existent problems. Usually, like in this case, they are really aimed to sneaking some hidden agenda by without getting noticed.
There are two undefined terms here that leave the door wide open for creationism.
First, what constitutes being “penalized”? Would getting points taken off because said the world was flat on a test be a penalty? There is a good chance it would be seen as such, or at least that schools would be afraid it would be seen as such.
Second, who gets to decide what is “scientific evidence and information”? The teachers? That leaves the door wide open for teachers to include absolutely anything they want. A lot of people, including some teachers, see the Bible as scientific evidence. If the law was interpreted this way it would make it legal to use the bible as a scientific textbook.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:26 am
@Gary Ansorge – I’m not saying there are theories which disagree with evolution, but there sure are a LOT of ways of teaching evolution, e.g., nothing Darwin found legitimized the promotion of the idea of gross body structure changes, that is, species changing body structure, crossing phyla, etc. And yet this is exactly what I was taught happens in high school and college and it wasn’t until I did further research (with no agenda, mind you) into the subject on my own that I found the dearth of convincing scientific evidence that back what is ACTUALLY being taught in schools as opposed to what scientists have ACTUALLY found. I wonder, how many people have ever even bothered to read Darwin, and yet pretend to be experts and put words into his mouth?
@Darth Robo – I posted it in both places because those are two different audiences. I wanted to present a little bit of fairness towards everyone attacking these Texans, calling them idiots, morons, etc. I’m not a Texan, but talk about a lack of tact. I have no motives other than to not be herded into the arrogance of the mindset I find constantly on websites and blogs I otherwise find fascinating, being myself an absolute scientist at heart. Being what I consider to be a true scientist, I cannot dismiss out of hand anything that is CURRENTLY contrary or in disagreement with what the scientific community finds in vogue. Sorry. That’s how I roll.
@Nigel Depledge – I’m not being disingenuous. Naive, perhaps, in believing that the intentions of this legislation and its backers are not simpletons or clowns trying to put their heads in the sands and ignore science altogether or brainwash children. The truth is that my entire academic life has been filled with lies and half-truths on both sides, so forgive me if I see the value in attempting to disrupt that and allow teachers and students the opportunity to explore ideas that may not necessarily be popular but nonetheless may be true. I disagree with nothing you have said, but I happen to believe this bill is NOT the malicious, science-hating legislation you’ve made it out to be. That’s not being naive. It’s simply a matter of interpretation.
@TheBlackCat – I am aware of students being penalized for their beliefs, yes. One example: I took a biology class in college some years ago and I presented a paper which (and this will likely make me even more unpopular here) asked for a more reasoned debate on the question of whether or not the global warming trend was largely and/or directly caused by man’s activities. I did not deny a warming trend, nor did I engage in whining about a conspiracy or a media agenda or anything of the sort. I did research on peer reviewed scientific publications, used data and interpretations given by legitimate climatologists and analysts, and came to the conclusion (as did many of them) that it is incredibly difficult to conclude that man is indeed directly, largely responsible. We simply don’t know enough. Etc. Anyway, I was docked a full letter grade because my professor did not like my questioning the status quo with regards to global warming. She even admitted to it, without shame.
So, yes. I think there is a lot of room for improvement in education when it comes to protecting students not only from the ignorance of the anti-science types, but also from the professors, teachers and scientists who are too blinded by their own romantic ideas and politicized science to see what is really going on in the world.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:40 am
@adam
First, I’ll start by stating that the theory of evolution is not limited to what Darwin wrote. It has grown quite significantly since his time, and it has changed as new data have become available. So, the modern theory of evolution actually does not resemble much of what Darwin posited. The claim that “experts” are putting words in Darwin’s mouth is, therefore, a bit off.
Second, what specific evidence did you find to be missing? I’m assuming evidence regarding large-scale morphological changes? The fossil record does quite a good job of providing that evidence. In fact, you may be interested in the recent discovery of tiktaalik, a form transitional between two different species that was discovered due to the predictions made by evolutionary theory.
Finally, if you are looking for evidence of, say, a dog giving birth to a bird, you will not find it. The theory of evolution does not say anything remotely close to that. Keep in mind that speciation takes a long, long time, especially for long-lived animals. Also bear in mind that the definition of “species” is a tricky one. It is quite difficult to determine where one species ends and another begins. There is no hard, fast line that delineates the difference.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:25 am
We are a dumb bunch down here, and it doesn’t get any better if you figure Austin into it, either. It remains to be seen if we are ready for self-government.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Todd, I wasn’t limiting evolution to Darwin. I was citing a specific case of what is being taught ABOUT Darwin’s ideas in schools today, that is, that his ideas are being misinterpreted and then regurgitated by teachers and professors as other ideas entirely that fit their own, sometimes narrow, world view. This problem only becomes compounded as we move away from Darwin and into the specific and more recent findings. People tend to interpret things the way they want, overemphasizing what fits their ideas and underrepresenting or ignoring altogether anything that causes them difficulty. That’s the way it has always been. I’ve seen it constantly since I became aware of it.
I don’t have the time, desire or expertise to get into a thorough debate on the fossil record. I am aware that the basic body plans of all creatures of record were present in the pre-Cambrian fossil history, and as far as I am aware there is little (if any) evidence of animals crossing those boundaries as a result of environmental pressures on a species. Maybe the tiktaalik says otherwise, I don’t know.
And regarding speciation, from my research I have found that relatively large changes undergone by species have at times happened very rapidly, not at all like the long, slow changes I was told restricted evolution when it was taught to me.
My point is there are mechanisms at work in evolution which we simply do not understand. I have yet to see an adequate explanation for the concurrent evolution of similar or identical complex organic structures within species separated on the “tree” by countless eons. I don’t understand why I wasn’t taught about these things in school. I feel cheated and irritated that difficult or unpopular ideas about scientific concepts were NEVER taught to me in an education that cost me thousands of dollars. I had to find things out on my own. And now I’m constantly bombarded by that half-assed education by individuals who think because they learned it in college, it has to be true, and now they’re experts, despite never having done anything resembling an impartial or objective fact-finding mission of their own even once in their lives.
And we’re going to call Texans ignorant? Come on.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
You are right, Darwin did not find anything that “legitimized the promotion of the idea of gross body structure changes”, but then again Darwin published his book 150 years ago. Science in general, and evolutionary biology in general, has progressed a huge amount since then. We now can trigger major morphological changes in organisms in the lab, we have detailed fossil records of many of these changes, and we know a lot about the genetic behind the changes. The evidence on the issue is very solid now.
Which is actually pretty amazing. The fact that many of Darwin’s ideas have been so thoroughly confirmed by evidence that he could never have even imagined is a testament to how reliable his ideas were. Of course there have been significant changes, and a lot of evolutionary mechanisms he had not anticipated, but many of his core ideas have been remarkably confirmed. If his ideas were wrong you would expect that, as happened with Newton’s laws, that as the evidence grew and as our measurements became more detailed, the ideas would slowly begin to break down. On the contrary, they have been overwhelmingly confirmed.
“In vogue”? “Out of hand”? You are talking like evolution was something the scientific community came up with on at drunk party last year. You do realize that evolution is the fundamental basis for all biology, right? And that it has been for a century? It is not “in vogue”, it is backed by mountains of scientific evidence (pun intended) including direct experiments observing its occurence (including, despite your assertions, major morphological changes to organisms). Those opposing it have absolutely nothing to back them up, their so-called evidence has been utterly demolished time and again.
Not only are you naive, you are also completely ignorant about the history of the issue. Intelligent design and creationism have not been able to make it scientifically, every argument they have provided has been shown to be totally without merit. So instead they have, for the last 50 years or so, tried every imaginable underhanded tactic to get their ideas taught in science classrooms.
For the last few years they have been pushing these “academic freedom” bills with the express purpose of doing the same thing again. These bills have been cropping up across the country, often accompanied by politicians saying outright that they are intended to get religion taught in science classrooms. The intention of these bills is well-known and by no means secret. We are not guessing at what the bill is intended to do, we have been told outright what the purpose of these bills are.
First of all, you were not penalized for your beliefs, you were penalized for using those beliefs as the basis for a school assignment. There is a big difference between having beliefs, and using those beliefs to answer questions about science. You will not be punished for believing the world is flat, but if you put that as an answer to a question you will be rightfully deducted points. In science classes you are expected to be able to understand and use science, you don’t have to believe it but you do have to be able to answer the test questions. Without that, the entire system breaks down because students can put anything that want on any answer to any science question and when it is marked wrong they claim it is their belief and that the teacher is breaking the law by deducting points.
Second, why on earth were you writing an essay about global warming in a biology class? It is completely the wrong subject, and if I got something like that from a student I would not even accept it, I would demand that they right it on an appropriate topic. It also indicates, despite your assertions to the contrary, that you do in fact have an agenda.
Third, without seeing the essay I cannot say whether it might have been poorly researched and/or poorly reasoned, which would be a legitimate reason to deduct points. Considering every review of the scientific literature so far has found essentially unanimous support for the idea that humans are causing global warming, I suspect one or both of these is probably the case.
Fourth, that was a university course not a public grade school course, which is what this discussion is about. University professors have a lot more leeway than grade school teachers do.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Just a minor thought about those who voted against 14th March being declared Pi day.
Perhaps they realise that it would appear absurd to those who reside outside of North America. In the rest of the world dates are normally given as day/month/year and having 14/3 as Pi day is just silly.
Most of the world has to remember this oddity of the US when reading dates; 9/11 makes sense to you but what happened on 9th November is what a lot of people will think or even worse they’ll think the attack happened in November and not in September.
@TS
and NO! until there is absolute proof of god, there is nothing to discuss.
Strange comment.
Do you demand absolute proof of Scientific theories/models?
If you do you’ll be out of luck.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Exactly what sort of exposure have you had to the process of scientific inquiry that should make us trust your opinions on the subject? What was your major in college? Were your science classes aimed at science majors or non-science majors?
I am doing a PhD in a field of science right now, and I have seen quite the opposite. The best way to get ahead in science it so show information that contradicts the established ideas. If you look at people who won Nobel prizes, they are the ones who made major, world-changing, breakthroughs, not people who parroted back what was already known. The articles that get you noticed, the research proposals that get you funding, it is all things that overturn existing ideas. Articles that make it into the prestigious journals like Science and Nature are the ones that appear to indicate major breakthroughs and major new or different ideas, in fact there is a lot of talk amongst faculty I know that these journals are so keen to do get the latest new or revolutionary research that they accept articles that may not be quite as well-researched and well-supported as they should be. So they seem to err on the side of being too open to new or revolutionary ideas.
So you admit that you do not know enough to understand the subject, yet you still feel qualified to contradict those who do?
The body plans do not usually undergo major changes in modern times because such changes would be lethal to modern organisms. The changes all occurred back when the different phyla were all very similar worm-like species, at which point the changes were trivial in their overall affect on the organisms.
How old are you? If you were taught they were all “like the long, slow changes” then you either misunderstood or had a bad teacher. It has been known for a long time that changes can happen fairly rapidly. “Fairly rapidly”, however, is in terms of geologic time, hundreds of thousands to millions of years (depending on the extent of the change). So perhaps your teacher was talking in terms of human years, in which case yes they do happen over very long periods of time.
Uh, “convergent evolution” is a well-known and heavily researched phenomenon. Due to the limits of physics and the limits placed by past evolutionary history, there are only a finite number of ways to solve a given problem. For that reason, organisms often develop similar ways to solve those problems. For instance, the aerodynamics of flight are fairly rigid, and land vertebrates have a fairly fixed skeletal structure, so it is natural that they would develop similar methods of flight. The rules of optics are similarly rigid, and organisms are limited by the light-sensitive molecules that evolved very early in the history of life and that are shared across all organisms, so it is not surprising they developed only a handful of ways to see.
Sounds like you either had a bad teacher or weren’t paying attention, I was taught about convergent evolution in middle school, probably even earlier, although I found out about it much earlier on my own in numerous different science books aimed at kids that I read. It was covered over and over and over in my science classes in sometimes excessive detail.
You are assuming they are difficult or unpopular. On the contrary, convergent evolution is extremely popular area of scientific inquiry because it can tell us about the sorts of limits that organisms have on the range of structures they can develop. You are simply assuming that because you were not taught it that the scientific community is somehow suppressing it. This couldn’t be further from the truth, convergent evolution has been discussed in just about every class or book I have seen that deals with evolution in even the slightest amount.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
@adam
May I ask how old you are and what years you were in middle/high school? It may provide some context to your experiences.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Can you take a look at the Fixed Earth website and debunk this junk for me? http://www.fixedearth.com
The babbling is so confusing and I am not even sure how they prove this…except to say it is true
March 16th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
@ Haze,
Poe’s Law states:
Click on my name for more information.
March 16th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
If I were a Texas science teacher and had this foisted on me I’d teach the strengths of evolution and the weaknesses of intelligent design. From what I’ve read, they never say specifically which theory I have to teach the strength/weakness of.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
@ Keith:
If I were a Texas science teacher and had this foisted on me, I’d teach some obscure Nerdocrumbesian creation myth as an “alternate” to evolution.
See how quickly they’d come a running.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
@ kuhnigget: I think you would find that those beliefs are suddenly not scientific enough for their tastes. It is only their beliefs that get a free ride.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:35 am
adam, Nigel Depledge addressed your intial post more than adequately. But about these comments:
>>>”The truth is that my entire academic life has been filled with lies and half-truths on both sides,”
Which “sides” are you referring to and which “lies and half-truths” are you talking about? If you’re referring to the “debate” over evolution, the debate is not a scientific one, and the “lies and half-truths” are coming squarely from the creationists who wish to replace science with religious apologetics.
>>>”so forgive me if I see the value in attempting to disrupt that and allow teachers and students the opportunity to explore ideas that may not necessarily be popular but nonetheless may be true.”
Sure. I guess science teachers could talk about the ideas of Gravastars as opposed to black holes, and talk about the “strengths and weaknesses” if you like of ‘both sides’. But as black holes are “in vogue” (to use your term), they are ultimately what students will be taught about in that instance.
In the case of evolution however, there has yet to be another SCIENTIFIC “side” presented. And all objections to it which have been put forward so far have their origins in creationist sources, and as such they’ve been debunked as non-scientific nonsense for decades. Sure, I’ve heard of this “Intelligent Design” thing, but like everyone else here I’m still waiting to hear what this “scientific theory” is…
March 17th, 2009 at 6:22 am
(Wayne) Christian (responsible for the bill) is extremely active in the community as a member of the First Baptist Church of Center, Lions International, Gideons International, Promise Keepers and the Christian Coalition.
Click my name for linky.
March 17th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
@TheBlackCat – I’m going to make this as short and to the point as I can, which means I may not adequately express or explain myself. You’ll have to bear with me.
You’re fixating too much on specific examples. I understand that Darwin was published 150 years ago. I’m simply saying I was filled to the brim with concepts I was told came from him but, in fact, did not.
When I say “in vogue,” I’m not referring to evolution as a whole. I’m not sure why you’re not following me. I thought I was being pretty clear I’m talking about scientific concepts IN GENERAL. This is not simply limited to evolution. I would also like to see the irrefutable evidence for species hopping the phyla and/or body-plan barrier. That’s not a challenge. I would like you to point me in the direction of where I can find it, since I’ve yet to see anything convincing.
And you’re right, I am ignorant of the issue at hand. Which makes me objective, in a way, since I read the text of the bill WITHOUT awareness of the agendas on either side. Right? Think about it.
I WAS, in fact, penalized for my beliefs. My beliefs were that I agreed with the conclusions of some of the climate scientists I researched and cited–that we do not know enough to conclude without reservation that man is directly responsible for the warming trend. You simply don’t understand the context of the assignment I was given. I know for a fact that if I had presented something pointing to the opposite conclusion, that man is indeed responsible, I would not have been docked a grade. You also don’t know anything about the class whatsoever. Why is it relevant why I would choose to present on global warming? We were given potential topics, we consulted with the professor, and our topics were rejected or approved. Mine was approved. Simple as that. And again, I do not have an agenda other than to seek the truth. Thanks for the assumptions, though. I would also vehemently disagree that there is anything resembling unanimous support of anthropogenic global warming, and the mere suggestion of it from you simply leads me to believe that you are ignorant on the subject. It takes more than reading papers and interpreting statistics.
Why does my major matter? I am not a biologist, but I will tell you that I was an engineering major at a major university and am currently preparing to pursue a law degree. I have a scientific background and grew up in an environment in which I was surrounded by scientists (physicians, physicists and biologists). I am a little disturbed that you are so quick to call into question my scientific background the moment I call into question the institution by which I received, formally, that background. I immediately figured you were going to bat for something, and then of course I read that you’re a PhD student. I find that very interesting. I’m not going to sit here and tell you that you must have had the same experience as me. I’m sure you didn’t. Before I was an engineering student I took several classes in preparation to apply to medical school, and in each one of those classes, without fail, my professors took every opportunity to disparage any idea they disagreed with, whether it was intelligent design, the existence of God, whatever. As a person with an open mind, I found it incredibly troubling that an institution of higher learning, a forum of ideas and conversation ostensibly promoting the free exchange of intellect and philosophy would be so ready to ridicule anything its staff didn’t happen to like. That rubbed me VERY much the wrong way and I vowed never to get caught up in the condescending arrogance of those that surrounded me, even if it made me just as disliked and unpopular as the ideas I might defend. Is that good enough for you? Or would you prefer I just roll over and let you tell me how to think?
And yes, I am allowed to contradict anyone I please. I don’t have to be an NBA point guard to offer pointers on dribbling. It doesn’t mean I’m right, but are you seriously going to just conclude that I’m automatically wrong?
The specific examples of evolution I referred to that you addressed, I don’t want to get into it right now. You can take that as me backing off because I don’t know what I’m talking about, but honestly, I’ve had debates about these things too many times and it never goes anywhere because everything comes down to interpretation and lack of evidence. I wasn’t bringing them up to start a debate. I was bringing them up so it didn’t come across as me just babbling without a point. I’d have to start getting very specific (the chance of random mutations forming identical structures in disparate species, as one example), and I don’t want to. The specific examples are completely beside the point I was originally trying to make. Which you seem to have missed because you somehow interpreted my comments to mean that convergent evolution was unpopular or difficult. That’s not what I meant at all. So either I’m not explaining myself properly or you’re not understanding me or both. Doesn’t matter.
@Todd – I am in my mid 20s.
@Darth Robo – I’m referring to being filled with politicized science and misinterpreted facts on the scientific side and misguided ignorance on the other. I’m not sure why you think the science you learned in school is so pure. It’s not.
Anyway, you’re not following my point. I never said anything about an alternative to evolutionary theory. But there are concepts and ideas WITHIN evolution that are certainly subject to debate. Are there not? So what’s the problem with what I said in that context?
March 18th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Yay look more Texas bashing!
I thought we were promoting intelligent rational thought, groupthink and insults based solely on where someone lives do not fall under this ideal.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
adam
>>>”I would also like to see the irrefutable evidence for species hopping the phyla and/or body-plan barrier. That’s not a challenge. I would like you to point me in the direction of where I can find it, since I’ve yet to see anything convincing.”
What evidence do you have of a barrier? You were given the example of Tiktaalik. The fossil was predicted before it was found. You weren’t interested.
>>>”And you’re right, I am ignorant of the issue at hand. Which makes me objective, in a way, since I read the text of the bill WITHOUT awareness of the agendas on either side. Right? Think about it.”
So you admit you’re ignorant. You then show it later in your response to Black Cat by saying you don’t want to get into a debate over the scientific aspects of evolution, but still have the audacity to say “everything comes down to interpretation and lack of evidence”. YEC’s who think the Earth is 6,000 years old say that it’s how they interpret the evidence. They are wrong, plain and simple. You also claim to have had a rough ride when you got your engineering creds. So no, you are NOT being objective. You’re making sweeping statements about “fair say” and expecting us to take your word for it. On the other hand, there are many here who DO know the scientific aspects of evolution. There are also those here who HAVE followed the “debate” over evolution for a long time. We recognise the same “critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses” language which the DI has been touting for years.
You are right that on the surface, there doesn’t seem to be anything controversial about the bill. But critically analysing scientific evidence is how science works. So in that respect, the bill appears to be redundant. If we are to take the intentions of this bill at it’s word, then it is not even needed. Then it appears to give students a “get out clause” for not subscribing to currently accepted scientific concepts. Then couple this with the fact that Wayne Christian is associated with fundamentalist Christian organisations that deny evolution on religious grounds. Couple this with the fact that fundamentalist Christians are as we speak actively attempting to push religious apologetics in a number of states across the country. Search this very blog, you won’t have to search far, Phil has written about many of them. If you believe there are good intentions at the heart of this bill, you are being incredibly naive.
I don’t claim to think that science learned in school is “pure” or not politicised. Science is always open to new evidence and therefore adjusts to that evidence as it comes in. So something taught in schools today may be slightly different to what’s taught tomorrow. And yes, politicians like to get their hands into science and make a mess of things. In the case of evolution, the ONLY ones responsible for politicising it are creationists. There is no scientific debate over the validity of evolution. Their interest is political only. Evolution does have elements which are debated by biologists. Was “Flores Man” a new hominid species or was it merely diseased? A Chihuahua can’t mate with a Great Dane because of the size difference, so one biologist may say they’re separate species. Another may disagree by saying they may technically still be genetically compatible. Debates like this are common in all scientific fields, but they do not invalidate those fields. And students in public schools are certainly NOT qualified to make judgements on these kind of debates since they lack the knowledge and experience.
School students do not get to decide what is and what isn’t science. Scientists do.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
OK, I’ve missed a few days of this stuff, but here goes anyway.
Travis McCrea said:
No, there is no scientific theory of ID. Even some of the DI fellows have admitted as much in print.
If you look at the publications of the ID proponents, you will find a great many strawman attacks on evolutionary theory, you will find a few arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity, but what you absolutely will not find is a new scientific theory.
The “theory” of ID, if you parse away the lies, obfuscation, sophistry and irrelevancies, is this:
Someone, somewhere designed some stuff in the natural world, at some time. Somehow.
Seriously, that is it.
Even if the IDists attacks on evolutionary theory were right (which they ain’t, BTW), they haven’t anything with which to replace it.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Adam said:
Well, Darwin did uncover evidence of significant morphological change (to whit: the Galapagos mockingbirds), but I have no idea what you mean by “crossing phyla”.
Of course, I cannot speak for the people who were trying to educate you, but several possibilities spring to mind here:
- It could be that your additional research has failed to uncover the huge and significant quantity of evidence that exists;
- It could be that your teachers failed to understand evolution;
- It could be that, despite your additional research, you have failed to understand evolution.
But what there is not is a dearth of evidence supporting evolutionary theory. All of the mechanisms it contains have been observed to occur. Dramatic morphological change by selection is demonstrated by dog and pigeon breeding and plant breeding. Speciation events have been observed, mainly in plants and microbes. That gross changes have occurred in the past is demonstrated by some excellent transitional sequences in the fossil record (in particular, horse and whale evolution, the evolution of early mammals and, of course, the evolution of birds from dinosaurs).
Well, if you are not being naive, perhaps you would care to explain why this legeslation is needed at all. Why is there any need for legislation to enforce what already may occur? Why is there any need for teachers to have additional protection if they wish to introduce classes to non-mainstream, but nevertheless high quality, science? In fact, what could there be that fits into this category? If something is good science, then it either should be being taught already or it is beyond the abilities of high-school students and should be saved for university-level tuition.
In short, if you are right and there is no hidden agenda, then what is the point of the legislation?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
@ Nigel:
I missed this Travis McCrea gem:
unless you are a liberal who has something to fear with alternate ideas.
Apart from poor grammar, someone is not too clear on the definitions of liberal and conservative.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:58 am
@kuhnigget – I was trying to protect my irony meter from overload by glossing over that bit.
March 19th, 2009 at 6:25 am
Adam said:
And you seem to have missed Todd’s correction that evolutionary theory has moved so far beyond Darwin’s ideas that they form only a part of the whole.
So, without a bit more specific information about what your teachers were telling you about Darwin, no-one can answer your challenge. Unless you are prepared to get a bit more specific with that kind of allegation, it is irrelevant.
You imply here that Darwin’s findings were not specific. In addition to some very general, uniting principles, he also reported specific findings and made specific predictions. He specifically predicted that all living things were related to either one or a very few common ancestors. This has now been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.
Any finding in the last 120 years can be considered “more recent” than Darwin (he died in the 1880s, for goodness’s sake). Everything that has been discovered in biology since Darwin has either confirmed his theory or is consistent with it. So what do you mean by “the problem becomes compounded when we move to more recent findings” [my paraphrase]?
And scientists have been aware of this for over 400 years. The whole point about science is that you only draw conclusions that can be supported by evidence.
So what is your point here?
Are you saying that your teachers were misinterpreting evolutionary theory? If so, how do you know this? Or are you saying that you did not understand what your teachers were telling you? Or are you saying that you understood what they were trying to tell you but that you rejected it because it did not fit your world view?
So, where does your expertise lie? What makes you qualified to judge what your teachers were trying to teach you?
Not really. The pre-Cambrian fauna were mostly mollusc-like, worm-like, arthropod-like or simply bizarre. The body plans that are so familiar to us today (e.g. vertebrates) mostly appear in the record during the first 50 million years of the Cambrian. But that does not mean that the body plans were not present in the pre-Cambrian, only that they are not represented in the fossil record.
What do you mean, boundaries?
Do you accept or reject common descent?
Of course no vertebrate is suddenly going to give rise to an arthropod lineage (for instance), because natural selection can only work with what is. Evolution can’t go backwards, because previous extinct forms will be incapable of competing with their descendents. This means, for example, that the common ancestor of both arthropods and vertebrates would be unable to compete with the early arthropods and early vertebrates. That’s why it went extinct. Therefore, the steps in between arthropod and vertebrate lineages cannot be retraced.
And yet the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossil records are overflowing with signs of change.
All of the major transitional forms indicate that Darwin largely got it right. Since we know that reptiles and fish both exist, and are both vertebrates, evolutionary theory says there should have been some connection between them. The fossil record has early fish and early reptiles in different ages, so the theory predicts that something in between should have existed in the interveing strata. Paleontologists went and looked into those strata and found Tiktaalik, which is transitional between a primitive fish and an early reptile.
Archaeopteryx shows the same kind of thing. So does Ambulocetus. So do the transitional forms between reptiles and mammals. And so on.
There was a school of thought that claimed that evolutionary change only occurred over long time scales. But this statement depends largely on how you define “change” and “long timescales”. Darwin himself posited that rates of change would vary, according to prevailing environmental conditions. The fossil record indicates that rates of change vary, and this was formalised as the idea of punctuated equilibrium by Eldredge and Gould.
The formation of new phyla requires many hundreds of millions of years, not for the ancestral species to divide into two new ones, but for those species to give rise to an extensive network of descendents that would qualify as phyla. Remember that taxonomy is a human imposition on the natural world. At the root of every division (whether one genus from another, one family from another, one order from another, one class from another, or one phylum from another) is a single species giving rise to two new species. If the descendents of these new species become so numerous and diverse that we call them two phyla, then that single speciation event was indeed the origin of two new phyla. But it all starts with speciation, and speciation itself starts from diversity within the ancestor species.
I daresay that’s true, but there are many mechanisms that we do understand (among them genetic drift, natural selection, sexual selection, hybridisation and so on). Are you trying to imply that evolution is largely mysterious? If so, you are wrong. The process is largely understood.
This sounds like it comes straight out of an ID text book. And it is disingenuous at best.
First, let’s have an example of such “concurrent evolution” of similar structures separated by “eons”. I.e. is your statement related to the real world in any way?
Second, the phenomenon of convergent evolution (where two or more distinct lineages achieve the same solution to the same problem) is well known and not very surprising, so what is the issue here?
Finally, just what do you mean by “complex”? If you mean “complicated”, this is a relative term, so to what are you comparing these organic structures? And don’t forget that selection is incrementally additive, so of course complicated structures can emerge with enough time. Also, this must be set in the context of how plastic organismal morphology is.
Erm, well, because they are not really issues. Or because your schoolteachers had been intimidated by creationist parents into glossing over all the detail of evolutionary theory. Or because your teachers were incompetent. Or because they tried but you did not listen. Or whatever. How is this relevant to anything at all?
Your education is relevant to your own understanding, but it is not relevant to humanity’s collective understanding of evolution. The best way you can fix your education is by making a genuine effort to understand the science.
And what do you expect any of us to do about that?
BTW, evolutionary theory is only unpopular with creationists who refuse to face reality. And the core concepts are not difficult.
Populations of organisms contain variation. Not all offspring survive to adulthood and then reproduction. Thus, heritable variations that confer an advantage will inevitably spread within a population. Therefore, populations of organisms change over time. If two populations of a species are reproductively isolated, the likelihood of them changing in exactly the same way will be very small. Thus, they will become different from one another. Once this difference is large enough, we would identify them as separate species.
This, in essence, is natural selection. There are other mechanisms, but this is widely held to be one of the most important.
What about this is hard to grasp?
Judging from the content of your posts, you are projecting.
You seem to think that, because you have “taught” yourself, what you have learned must be correct, but what sources did you use? And how thoroughly did you understand them? It seems to me that your understanding of what evolutionary theory actually says is rather weak, at best.
You have claimed that you are not being disingenuous, and yet the objections you raise about evolutionary theory are, indeed, disingenuous. Variously, they are not real issues or you are whining that no-one handed you understanding of this stuff on a plate.
Not all Texans. Just those who reject reality. Do you live in Texas?
March 19th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Chris Wills said:
Although, Chris, you have to admit that there is absolute proof that the phenomena being investigated by science exist.
March 19th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Adam said (answering the Black Cat):
No, you were not being particularly clear.
High-school students should be given as comprehensive an education in the scinces as time allows. Sadly, this means that the surface will barely be scratched. Topics for inclusion in high school must be carefully selected. Usually, they are aspects of science that are considered by scientists and educators to be the most important areas of each field, and the most well-established or well-supported. Your use of the term “in vogue” implies that science teaching follows the dictat of some kind of fashion police, but that ain’t so.
Your demand to be shown examples of species hopping the “phyla / body-plan barrier” shows how poor your understanding is. There is no such barrier, because no organism will give rise to immediate descendents with a radically different body plan. Offspring are always similar to parents. The term “phylum” is a human label on one stage of a gradual process.
Have you ever read TOOS?
And you’ve never heard of Machiavelli, obviously.
Being ignorant of the intent of the cretionists who propose such “academic freedom” bills simply means you are easier for them to hoodwink.
Well, if you wrote your essay in the mid-80s, you would have been right. By the mid-90s, however, those scientists were very much in a shrinking minority (and, astonishingly, most of them were funded by big oil companies. Isn’t that an amazing coincidence?). By the late 90s, the science had established pretty firmly that human activity was accelerating global warming. What remained was filling in some detail. SO it was all a matter of context.
BTW, your use of the word “beliefs” is rather poor. Scietists do not “believe”, they conclude.
And if that was the scientific consensus at the time, this is right and proper.
Because you said it was a biology class.
What has climatology to do with biology?
But this was not obvious from what you said before. Why mention that it was a biology class at all if that was not relevant?
And this goes to show that you have not been reading the actual science. Instead you have been reading opinion pieces from climate-change deniers, which does not count. The science is clear – human activity has increased the levels of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) in our atmosphere and this is causing increased greenhouse warming. At this stage, some 25 years after it was first mooted, this is beyond reasonable doubt.
You answer your own question.
You are pontificating about evolution, yet you are not in a position to judge its validity. Your ignorance is painfully obvious.
Really? I find that quite hard to believe. And why do you pick these two examples, specifically?
If I were discussing biology with students and they mentioned God or ID, I too would be disparaging. God, you see, is not relevant to biology, and ID has been shown (many times) to be utter garbage.
Oops. Better luck next time.
Actually, yes. If you choose to pontificate on a topic where your understanding is not even rudimentary (at your own admission, no less), I will dismiss your opinion.
In science, an ignorant opinion is worth almost nothing next to the opnion of an expert.
March 20th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Adam said:
But the science I have learned at university and since is pure and apolitical. In fact, the science I learned at school was very nearly apolitical too (the big issue was acid rain, and there was absolutely no-one trying to deny that it happened or what caused it). This is because it was based on facts, and facts simply are.
But, hey, I was lucky enough to live in the catchment area for a very good school.
I don’t think anyone has followed your point. What was it again…?
Yeah, I noticed that, yet you also seemed to be quoting from ID tracts at one stage.
Because all of the areas of evolutionary biology where there is genuine scientific uncertainty, ambiguity or doubt are at the cutting edge of discovery. These have no place in a high-school class, they are university-level stuff.
Therefore, they are not relevant to a debate about the teaching of science in schools.