AP Wire | 05/15/2006 | Debate on teaching evolution resurfaces — These guys just never give up. Apparently we’re the only ones to dog them. Now they’ve come up with yet another new angle. Evolution can only be tauught along with something called “Critical thinking.” Critical thinking, of course means “cretionism.” Ah — South Carolina, we love you!
COLUMBIA, S.C. – Philosophers dissected the age-old dispute over teaching evolution in biology classrooms Monday as lawmakers prepared to debate its latest manifestation at the Statehouse.
A House committee will consider Tuesday an amendment that establishes how textbooks, software and other instructional materials are selected to require they “critically analyze” the subject matter.
It is the latest tactic by conservative lawmakers who want students to learn about problems in the theory of evolution.
“I feel like we’ve got textbooks out there that are not appropriate,” said Rep. Bob Walker, R-Landrum. As a member of the Education Oversight Committee, Walker has led an effort to convince the state Board of Education to change wording in the evolution curriculum.
Biologists, who say an understanding evolution is crucial to learning how organisms became what they are today, say “critical analysis,” as proposed by Walker and others, is a backdoor way to inserting intelligent design into the curriculum. Intelligent design is the theory that life is so complex that there must have been a designer, namely God.
The evolution debate is likely to continue on at least two other fronts after Tuesday’s meeting. A one-year provision in the Senate’s version of the budget, which is set to be debated in a House-Senate committee, calls for all instructional materials to include “critical thinking.” Also, the academic standards panel of the Education Oversight Committee, rebuffed by the Education Department in its latest effort to adjust the biology curriculum, is meeting next Monday. It is set to discuss how to resolve the impasse between the two agencies, which must agree on new standards.
I don’t see what’s all the fuss; the kids don’t pay attention anyway and before it’s all over many will subscribe to far loonier mantras than evolution or creationism.
And in South Carolina (where I am) most of the kids can’t read all that great anyways. This whole debate is an arena for the grownups to strut their stuff, the kids couldn’t care less.
Scientists spend their entire life studying a subject. So these school board members are supposed to suddenly be smarter than large numbers of people who spend their lives studying a subject?
Similarly, scientists have a desire to create and to discover. If evolution were somehow fatally flawed, wouldn’t it be the biggest conspiracy ever if there weren’t some scientist somewhere that wouldn’t want to be famous as the person who came up with a scientific alternative that proved evolution was completely wrong? No one wanted to beleive Newton, Galileo, or Einstein, but they were able to prove that their discoveries were more accurate than previous theories and so people came to accept them. So if evolution were completely wrong, it seems incredibly unlikely that there wouldn’t be some scientist out there who would be able to disprove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Those that want “intellegent design” or whatever it is called taught, what exactly would you teach? “Some people think evolution is wrong and that there is some higher being that created life.” There. I just taught it. Now what are we going to do with the rest of the class?
Higghawker,
so you say that genes cannot cross the barriers between species?
How about viruses that make your body cells create more viruses when you’ve got the flew? I know, this is no mutation, but what is a mutation? The difference between a symbiotic or “own” gene and a parasitic gene is this: the former passes through the individual’s germ line, just like mitochondrial DNA does, the latter does not. At some point in the early history of life, a number of specialized procariotic cells have formed a cell colony which later became so tighly integrated that it is today no longer looked at as a colony but as a cell itself: the eucariotic cell that we all are built from. It’s widely accepted today that mitochondria, chloroplasts and probably many other organells are actually procariotic symbionts that have given up their freedom for the safety and productivity of a eucariotic cell.
Now, you say, that a dog will always breed a dog. How do you know that?
Have you ever taken a look at the tribe of canidae? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae
This is a pretty big family of closely related genera. They are all dogs, but would you call them all dogs? How come, some of them can interpbreed with various success?
You may have seen that there has been an outcry on the base of a scientific report recently that has found that homo and it’s closest ancestor, the common ancestor of chimps and bonobos, have interbred for much longer than was thought and actually have had offspring. What a scandal! Well, maybe not, because that’s just how species separate: for some reason they are drawn apart and proceed into different directions, but they’re not immediately totally incompatible.
Greets
pj
ps: another Dawkins book: the ancestor’s tale.
jason shows us the Republican Party approved soundbite for this issue.
I tend to think of myself as a great fan and sometime practitioner of critical analysis, so I welcome the introduction of this process into any discussion of early earth theory. I’m just shocked (and somewhat amused) that it’s the Creationists who are championing this process. My previous observations from within my own Christian community were that we ran fast and hard from any reliance on critical analysis.
Logical fallacies too often led to non-answers like “God’s power is beyond our comprehension” and “it’s not our place to question God’s will.” These non-answers were often accompanied by the implication that further probing or dissatisfaction was a sign of faithlessness, which we all know puts us on the fast track to hell.
As new arrivals to the “critical analysis” party, I hope the Creationists will use their own religions as warmup exercises. After some practice, perhaps they’ll be ready to attack our curricula with more useful results.
35 Peter, Good post, I try to look at both sides with an open mind.
With the information we have on DNA alone, I logically can’t allow myself to say this happened by accident. Look at the brain and all of its complexities, did this just “happen”? The eye is one of the most complicated mechanisms in the world, the heart, it just screams of intelligent design. This is a great discussion, one that will always be. It is the search for knowledge that always brings me back to the beleif in a creator. Cheers
Ben (22) I was merely pointing out that acceptance of creation or evolution is ultimately based on faith. All the others that said that there is no evidence for creation – (23) The global flood is an integral part of Biblical creationist theory – my examples are those that I am fairly sure (as I explained) lend no weight to evolutionary theory. It has been demonstrated that rapid, catastrophic events (like, say, a global flood …) can produce many of the patterns associated with geological evolution – such as rock strata – and better explain certain phenomena (like multi-strata fossils) (Look at Mount St. Helens for one). Also, explain the fact that apparently writing came about in widely separated human populations at around the same time, within a few thousand years of now … about the right time frame for creationism, yes? Those that claim there is no evidence for creation can only do so because their own bias prevents them from interpreting evidence in a creationist framework. The facts do not speak for themselves, our pre-existing bias forces us to interpret them to support our own position. (one source of fairly well reasoned arguments of the creationist view of origins is http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp). Also on the issue of different species – variation within a kind is also an accepted by creationism – as long as two species can still interbreed, they would have been one created kind, that has mearly specialized through the millenia by natural selection. I still would like to see an iguana have a millions-of-generations later descendant (or any descendant) that is a dog. I have no problem with natural selection, variation within a kind (kind being a creationist word for the original, created types of animals). The idea that random genetic mutations could actually produce information and complexity is the only one I have trouble with – the odds are astronomical. You can put your faith in fate if you like, and I’ll put mine in an all-powerful God.
Higghawker – The eye is actually a good example of Evolution, as there are many variants of it, and many would be examples of different “stages” of evolution. From light sensitive cells onward.
With the information we have logic alone says Evolution MUST happen. It is only when we ignore logic that we have to give up and rely on faith (whatever that faith is).
Faith says “I don’t understand this, there must be something bigger here that created it”
Science says “I understand this, but I need more detail. Lets get to work”
Faith begins where logic ends. There is nothing wrong with Faith, but it must be recognised that there can never be, by definition, any proof for faith.
38: They didn’t “just happen.” Millions of years of slow change happened. A tiny genetic error occurred in an individual, it was either beneficial or beneign, and it was passed on to the next generation who also passed it on. Millions (billions?) of these tiny useful, genetically transferrable changes, improvement and such add up.
and higghawker (38) – nice post – of course this discussion will go on forever (or till death, or the afterlife, or judgement day, whatever you personally believe) I will freely admit that creationism can not be proved – but I am forced to disagree with those that say there is no supporting evididence, or that evolution can. There are valid points to both creationist and evolutionist arguments, and weaknesses that must be taken on faith. End of story. I believe I’m right, you believe you are – only time or Judgement Day will tell us, and whoever is wrong is in deep trouble when that day comes.
40. Hey greg… not quite…
how far have you studied science? past the text books? past the fresh printed professor wrote it last year texts? past the hand written the top guys just figured it out notes, or even to pioneer something no one else figured out?
you’re right in implying that science has a limit, but you seem to miss the sentiment that more answers bring more questions, and when you reach the end of the knowable science, you still have to have faith in your science, because there are a lot of unanswered questions.
on the other hand, anyone doing what the bible says will test everything, not abandon Logic for Faith. the book says, “Test Everything, Hold on to the good”
just saying, Logic and Faith are not mutually exclusive, but in fact, everyone has faith in something.
There is no “debate”, except in the minds of the religionists. The rest of the world moved on 150 years ago.
I’m starting to resolve that the southern states finally get their wish and secede from the U.S. Jesusland should go it’s own way and overpopulate itself into oblivion. Unfortunately, they tend to shoot people a lot. The border would bear watching.
I always loved the way Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies put it, when she described the North invading the United States. That is metaphorically perfect. They really are a seperate theocracy, and more than a little maddog insane.
Bruce 4:
“I was merely pointing out that acceptance of creation or evolution is ultimately based on faith.”
Well you’re wrong.
Its funny. Creationists always say “give me proof, give me proof”. You give it to them and the cry “not that proof, give me another” issues forth.
Natural selection is the tool of evolution. The two are linked.
I however support teaching creationism in SC, after all where are minimum wage workers going to come from when we wall off the hispanics?
“Good Morning Children, take out your bibles”
“Now apply Critical Analysis”
woktiny (40) I’m not 100% sure I see your point. Let me try to make the differentiation I think is most notable:
Religion looks at a an unanswered question and sais: God has created this, I shall not question it!
Science looks at an unanswered question and sais: What do we know about this and what can we do to find a satisfying answer.
If we had left the task of gathering knowledge to religion, for all that I know, we’d still be believing the earth was flat and the sun revolving around it. Religion, specifically those sisters Christianity and Islam, have been fighting against every new bit of knowledge that intruded into what they thought to be their realm.
My explanation for the growing ranks of “believers” rather than “knowers” recently is this: no longer is science as easy as “an apple falls to the ground” but understanding current physics or biology or whatever requires such a great intellectual effort that many are either too lazy or just not smart enough to do it. They then come to what Dawkins calls the “argument of personal incredulity” that is “I can’t understand how something as useful as [an eye|a heart|a wing|the brain] can have evolved therefore evolution must be wrong. Well friends, it’s not evolution that has been wrong in this case and maybe it’s time to demand a few answers from your personal intellect rather than from science.
pj
Brian (49) good post.
On the design issue: the eye, that ID believers always think of as one of the best examples for “a design that could not have happend by chance” is actually a very interesting beast as Dawkins explains in “Climbing Mount Improbable” which is highly suggested reading for everyone confused by the terms “Microevolution” and “Macroevolution”. The eye has evolved 40 to 60 times independently in different animals. It’s “design” is, however, very different in those animals. There’s far more than the two most evident archetypes of the facet eye in insects and the lens eye in, well, everything else we usually think of. One of the striking differences that clearly point away from “design” is that the lens eyes of squids the light sensitive cells are arranged “right”, that is, the light sensitive portion pointing towards the lens, the attached nerve pointing away. In mammals (actually probably much earlier as the same is shared by reptiles), this is exactly the other way round and thus very counter-intuitive: the visual nerve actually points towards the lens, thus being in the way of the light coming in. Obviously, however, in the early stage of mammal eye development, this was not an evolutionairy problem, having an eye with the light sensitive cells pointing the “wrong” way was still better than having no eye at all.
A designer, unless totally nutty, would probably have minimized the number of different designs. If he had found a design to be versatile and working ok, he would have applied it in as many places as possible. The eye, however, is a great support for the fact that evolution, in essence, is short sightened: something arises that becomes an evolutionairy advantage for the individual. It will therefore become more frequent in the gene pool and be the basis for further change down the road. There will, however, not be a “redesign” based on an afterthought.
pj
Sounds the Alarm (46) so, you’re telling me that natural selection is either a part of evolution, or completely invalid. Its probably not a great analogy, but that’s like saying that because the internet (natural selection) is critical for Internet Explorer (evolution), and is most commonly used with IE, that the internet is worthless apart from IE – what if I want to run Firefox? (not a browser war, just an analogy) – and Peter, you were attacking Christians for acting on blind faith (48) (there’s evidence, but I’ve already pointed to that, so I won’t repeat it here) and insult their intelligence, but then you make a statement (based on what?) that the backwards-nerve eye is apparently wrong – what if there is a reason that science has not yet discovered? Or just that you don’t know – evolutionists used to point to “vestigial”, apparently useless, organs in humans as evidence of evolution, and then, as the years passed, they found uses for most of them. Just because you don’t understand the design doesn’t stop it from being designed.
No, What I said is natural selection is the tool evolution uses to shape a species. No more, no less.
Listen Bruce – I’m on your side. I want your kid to learn creationism, to believe that instead of electricity being the reason the light bulb lights up, its magic from god and thus never to be doubted or explored. I’ll need him to cheaply work my yard when I get old.
Bruce IV (51)
Did I say the cones and rods in vertebrate eyes were apparently wrong? If you go back to my comment and re-read it, you’ll find that I put the word wrong in quotes. I did so to make it clear that I am not in a position to judge evolution right or wrong. I, indeed, have vertebrate style eyes and hey, I’m pretty happy with the way they work. What I was trying to illustrate, and I’m sure you did understand that and only decided to attack what seemed to be a weaker point than the argument itself, is the fact, that there’s about 40 to 60 types of eyes that are sometimes radically different. The eye, being the most typical “can’t have evolved” examples by creationists, is actually a pretty easy thing to evolve (see my post (27) for some data on that). Same goes for wings and, basically, everything else. The fact that our minds can’t easily deal with the kind probability calulations involved does not provide any basis for a creationist argument but rather, as I said above, sais something about those minds.
If you’re really serious about this questions you should do what I have done and get some literature “from the other side”. Information never hurts. I’ve read creationist literature and I found lots of “arguments of personal incredulity”, sometimes even “arguments of personal ignorance”. I would be interested to hear how you think about the works of Richard Dawkins or Maynard-Smith once you read it. I strongly suggest “climbing mount improbable” (for starters), “the ancestor’s tale” (a very broad overview but very fascinating to read) and “the selfish gene” (don’t be put off by the name, it does by no means support an ellbow society with genetic explanations). If you really want some fascinating views at the inner workings of evolutionairy and genetic processes, try “the extended phenotype”. This one is a real eye-opener, but a bit harder to read than the others.
pj
South Carolina bans evolution!!
Nice, Very nice …. Let them move back to the stone age …. ha ha ha … they are half way there in any case