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.
cretionism? Is that word misspelled on purpose? Or is it a different word altogether than what I’m thinking of?
But yeah, they won’t give up on this. But I like what Lewis Black has to say about Christians taking the Old Testament literally. He says it’s not their book. Their book is the New Testament. The old testament is for Jews…and you never see a Jewish Rabbi giving lessons about the New Testament, so why should we see Christian preachers giving lessons about the Old Testament? STICK TO YOUR OWN BOOK!
It’s like Dvorak says below — folks on this site actively oppose the anti-intellectualism, anti-science activities of the fundamentalist freaks inside a lot of American Christianisty. We are the only so-called Christian nation with so many flat-earthers.
This latest attack just illustrates the hypocrisy and lies these cretins accept as legitimate ethics. If you think these clowns are giving your religion a bad name, if you want to keep from being lumped in with them — guess what? The ball’s in your court. It’s YOUR responsibility to counter their sleazy propaganda — instead of whining to the folks who already are working at it.
cretionism aside, the theory of evolution is just a theory. I think students (people) miss that. Frankly, I’d be satisfied not knowing for sure where humans started so long as I live. Yeah, it would be interesting to know, but it doesn’t matter. Evolved or creted or creted by evolution, we are here now, what are we going to do about it?
how about we quit arguing and teaching about the unknowable past, and start teaching our students something that affects the future, like the *knowable* past, math, physics and ethics*
*ethics: how not to be self-serving, dishonest, or manipulative; learn some respect and start contributing to some greater good, like society
JC, Ha..Freudian slip…I corrected it!
And good points Moss.
Relativity is also a theory, good luck finding credible scientists to oppose it. Evolution is a theory in name only.
Maybe because of my own upbringing I do not see the problem in this. During my mid- and high- schooling my father intentionally got me Bible and Coran and Capital by Marx (and other less known ideo/religious books) with the clear purpose for me to understand those points of view… I think it worked well (and didn’t turn me into religious zealot – I am scientist by profession now). School is appropriate time and space to learn about such ideas.
I suprised this hasn’t happened in my town sooner. Almost everyone I talk to here is Christian, and, no lie, the Church-Per-Square mile is the highest in the nation (it’s like Starbucks, on my main street in Aiken, there are three churches within 100 feet of each other)
Who needs science? When you have religion?
Neal Saferstein
Good follow-up to the “literal bible” story. Sometimes faith and spirituality have to be separated from politics.
Funny, I was taught about “critical thinking” in grade 4 or 5. Those teachings tell me that this “Education Oversight Committee” are a bunch of wankers.
As far as the “whose book is whose” arguement, to be fair, Christianity generally views the OT as a prelude to the NT and is essentially just as important religiously. To Christians, the OT is prophets talking about Jesus before he was born, and the NT is disciples talking about Jesus after he died.
I think the problem lies in the “taking the Old Testament literally” part. The OT has be translated dozens of times through just as many languages. It has many parts were written explicitly as poetry, and each of the dozens of books it contains reference a symbology peculiar to specific ancient cultures, which symbology is hardly if at all analogous to contemporary western symbology. It is ludicrous that people in modern times try to project their pre-disposed world view on ancient texts with no consideration for the original context.
Oh, and for the record, I’m a practicing Christian that doesn’t have a problem accepting a harmonious coexistence of organic evolution and creation by a divine power.
Yes! Now is the perfect time to make the teaching of Flying Spaghetti Monster-ism a legal requirement. Our goal is 1/3 teaching time for creationism, 1/3 for FSM-ism, and 1/3 for a mountain of overwhelming observable evidence.
Join us, and help all to be touched by His Noodly Appendage!
RAmen
And thus, it teaches you to never trust a Christian Scientist. Only God knows what will they do to force their beliefs onto others.
School is appropriate time and space to learn about such ideas.
School is. Science class is not. And that’s really the issue. Where do you draw the line at “different points of view” in a class that’s supposed to teach science? Should EVERY religious belief and crackpot theory be included in science class as a legitimate scientific theory?
And if the Christianists really believe this, that “critical thinking” is so important, then why aren’t they also proposing the teaching of Hindu origins of life or Scientology? And why are they so adamantly opposed to “different points of view” in programs like sex education, in which they think only one point of view, abstinence, should be taught?
The judge in the Dover case got it right. They are liars who are deliberately masking their religious agenda in order to create a “debate” about evolution that doesn’t really exist the in scientific community.
thats funny – when I was in college I took a class called *drumroll* “critical thinking”. It involved reading a statement or story of some sort and then critiqueing it and argueing diverse points… anyway I found that creationalism is now called critical thinking… lol
Whoa. Forget about whether or not students should be required to pray to cretinism in school. How do you deprogram someone brainwashed into thinking “objective value judgement” is defined as “obedience to authority”?
My first exposure to identifying logical fallacies came from a Reagan republican who taught social studies; I know the kind of damage this sort of thing can do. I wound up being an existentialist until my early twenties and was considering converting to bhuddism when I finally overcame my revulsion long enough to complete “The Fountainhead”, which snapped me out of it.
The thought of anything like this seeing the light of day makes me want to hold a candlelight vigil or something, though.
13. right on – I want the Norse and Hindu creation myths taught, and lets give animists the coverage in biology that they deserve as well.
and, oh, the irony – Christian fundamentalists without the courage of their convictions to stand up and say, “Hey, I wanna teach religion in science class!”
Be my guest, but I won’t teach evolution in your church and you don’t teach creatinism in my school.
I want to go to the South Carolina House and say the following:
“It has already been conclusively shown that ‘Intelligent Design’ was just another name for Creationism. ‘Critical Analysis, once it too is taken to court by the rational citizens of this state, will prove to be nothing more than another name for Intelligent Design.
“With that in mind, I propose that to save the state money and to skip a bit ahead in the debate, we just assume that ‘Critical Analysis’ will be struck down and immediately rename it ‘Stubborn Ignorance.’ As soon as we change it to that, we better change it again– one last time.
“I propose that the great State of South Carolina bring ‘The Bible’ into our public schools.”
” the theory of evolution is just a theory.”
Everything in science is a theory (e.g. Gravity, Relativity, Atomic theory, etc.), but that doesn’t mean they are incorrect or inaccurate, those theories are based on evidence that “proves” them, Evolution can/is tested and has evidence to support it, Gravity can/is tested and has evidence to support it, etc.
Creationism and evolution. In islam they beleive both.
10 To Christians, the OT is prophets talking about Jesus before he was born, and the NT is disciples talking about Jesus after he died.
And that is the crux of the matter: Christianity can not exist independently of the OT. It depends on the OT for the phophecy of a Messiah, since they believe He is that messiah… [while Jews do not…]
I found a section of God: a biography to be interesting in that it mentioned something I haven’t read anywhere else.
http://www.jackmiles.com/default.asp?ID=15
Mr. Miles makes mention of the fact that Jewish scholars traditionally divide the Hebrew bible into three general sections: Action, Speech, and Silence. God is active in the beginning: creating the world and all that is upon it, flooding the world, destroying Sodom & Gomorrah, etc. Then, a section where God does not physically affect the world, and the final section which is mainly just a history of the Jewish people.
The interesting comment – to me – is his mention that the Christian OT changes the order of the sections, compared to the Hebrew bible.
While the Hebrew bible’s three sections are in the order of Action, Speech, Silence, the Christian OT changes the order of the sections to Action, Silence, Speech – apparently so that the prophetic sections serve as a direct lead-in to the NT gospels [where the prophesy is fulfilled].
Decryptor (18) please tell me how eveolution can be tested. Please. You would have to have a recorded history at the very least hundreds of thousands of years long, and a group of scientists carrying the experiment along that long. Their contemporararies would probably think they were crazy for following the hundred-thousand year old scientific data, as they’d have nothing but faith to hold to its correctness (i mean, all you “scientific thinkers” now won’t believe me when I say my 6,000 year old book (give or take a few millenia) is accurate in a scientific sense) – picture a world where the theory of evolution has fallen from popularity – do those scientists still hold to their test? If you tell me that evolution can be observed within a more reasonable human time frame (say, a generation or two), I would like to hear examples. Please leave all claims of bugs with immunity to pesticides at the door, that simply proves natural selection (which rational creationists have no problem with) not evolution. The resistance genes were already there, just made prominent by exposure to the pesticide, and death of all non-resistant flies. Animals such as the flightless cormorant also do not count, as that has lost genetic information (for wings) not produced any. Please, show me your tests for evolution (which I would define as an increase in useful genetic code due to random chance – correct me if I’m wrong)
Bruce IV (21) Show me your test for creationism? What you want us to believe it on faith without any evidence at all? Good luck!
Please leave all claims of bugs with immunity to pesticides at the door, that simply proves natural selection (which rational creationists have no problem with) not evolution.
First of all, “rational creationist” is an oxymoron. Second, natural selection, which many creationists DO in fact have a problem with, is part of evolution, which along with random mutation is how evolution works.
Third, if you are SUCH a strong scrutinizer of scientific theories and need even more overhwhelming evidence of evolution than the mountains of data that already exist, PLEASE do us the honor of providing us with the mountains upon mountains of data that convinced you that the earth was created literally as the Bible describes (and please leave all claims of grand canyons and global floods at the door). I mean, since you are obviously so incredulous even about scientific theories with a vast majority consensus, the evidence for Creation must be overwhelming indeed.
So, I’m just checking here, according to you Bruce – Natural Selection is ok, but Evolution isn’t?
I’ll say it again: Evolution is the process (change over time) Natural Selection is the mechanism that the process uses.
If you wanted to attack something then attack Natural Selection at least, because there *are* a few small… well not even holes.. disputed theories as to some of the background processes that power it. These points are really, really, really minor, but they at least could be fuel for a critical point.
However attacking Evolution just makes you look stupid. There are thousands of practical examples of it, not just from the fossil record, but also observed ones (and even more when you get down to Macro- and Micro-Evolution).
Scientific theories can be tested by trying to disprove their evidence and methods. Much like you can test and disprove mathmatical theories (although the concept of a mathmatical proof is a little stronger.. because it deals with differing concepts). To provice a complete description of how to test and prove evolution would require a LOT of space, however if you want to read about it a little Googling will get you a LOT of information from scientific papers.
When you read the term “Critial Thinking” it appears to be a good thing. However if it is not actual critial thinking and merely the same old concept of “Alternative Explainations” then those alternatives need to withstand the same kind of scientific analysis and testing that Evolution and Natural Selection have. Creationism can’t, and will never do…
That help as an answer?
The idea that all living things originated from a single life form billions of years ago cannot be proved. Small changes do occur, but eventually those changes come to a genetic barrier that is impossible to cross.
A dog will always produce a dog.
This is a major problem for evolutionsts. Even “Darwins finches” only proved that a finch always stays a finch.
Design demands a designer.
Bruce VI:
There’s two necessary components for evolution. I’m glad that you’re already accepting the one which is natural selection by what Darwin called the “survival of the fittest”. The term fitness is, by the way, heavily disputed today as it clearly does not mean that the specimen with the most physical power will survive. I personally sympathize with Dawkin’s concept of the “selfish gene”, where “survival of the fittest” makes perfect sense without any tweaking of the term fitness.
Ok, from your comment above, I take it that you accept all this so far as proven.
Now for spontaneous mutations. We know that spontaneous changes of the genome happen. In fact, in sexually reproducing life forms there’s a whole set of repair systems for those spontaneous errors in the genome. Indeed the genome is probably the most precise historical record we have over such long distance, just because errors are repaired with such precision.
Sometimes, however, they aren’t. We know that exposure to radioactivity can cause cancer. This form of cancer can be looked at a freak mutation that, on a gene level, happens to be extremely successful in the local environment (it isn’t in the more global environment of the individuum or the species, but that doesn’t matter as it’s genetic information isn’t passed on through the germ line anyway but has been created anew by particle processes). It’s successful because the cancer cells do not stop to grow and divide. So here is spontaneous mutation. I assume that you also accept that this exists.
Now, it’s a long way from a cancer to a wing or an eye and it takes a lot steps to get there. What many creationists get mixed up is their own ability to understand nature and nature itself. It might be hard to imagine how an eye or a wing has been created by the two forces discussed, but this is your problem, not nature’s.
The only thing you have to accept now to become a evolutionist is that there’s a tiny rate of “positive” mutation. This is not to say that there’s “guided mutation” it’s just that out of the huge number of possible changes hat radiation, errors in miosis, mitosis, chemical errors etc. etc. etc. create to the genome every second, some, a very small fraction, happen to have a very small but positive imact on the animal built by the resulting genes. If you put those together, you get what I described above.
Thinking and understanding nature are sometimes hard work for the brain. Believing does not require any intellectual effort other than conciously avoiding to ask questions.
The example is taken from “Climbing Mount Improbable” by Richard Dawkins, a book I can only suggest to anyone who really questions how the most complex structures can arise out of chaos.
Three things:
There is a difference between a ‘theory’ and “Theory’. A theory may be no more than a hypothesis (It looks like every time I wash my car it rains), while a Theory is developed from observation and evidence. It can be proven by use of the Theory to create predictions that can be tested. Example here would be micro evolution. After all, pretty much every lifeform on Earth has an EXTREMELY high percentage of DNA that is identical (and the differences can be used to determine how the variation occurs, such as the ‘ruminant stomach’ in cows.)
The claim that there are no ‘intermediate’ life forms demonstrates a total lack of knowledge. ALL lifeforms are intermediate, between a previous version to a later ‘species’.
The classification of life forms into species, kingdoms, phyla, etc. is not a ‘god’ given situation. The definitions are all created by humans, according to the similarities and differences between forms, e.g. fur means Mammal, egglayers may be reptiles or birds (successor to Dinosaurs), which naturally makes the Playtpus an oddity.
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy
J/P=?
this argument can be ended now ,view the latest undeniable evidence here http://www.metacafe.com/watch/35459/guinness_evolution/
Geez – LAST TIME I CHECKED CRITICAL THINKING WAS A GOOD THING!
Does anyone remember the Sliders episode where they decided not to invent the A-bomb? I was just wondering what the world would be like if Darwin decided not to publish his work.