Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As Texas debates over science standards that may include the latest catchphrase from the anti-evolution crowd, demanding that the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution be taught, a Texas creationist confirms exactly what I've said for years: the "strengths and weaknesses" language just means they want to incorporate old creationist arguments into the curriculum. Scott Lane of the San Antonio Bible Based Sciences Association says he's ready with a whole range of those weaknesses:
In response to the several letters in the paper over the past two months SABBSA would be very happy to oblige and provide scientific evidence of weaknesses in evolution and for creation. We stand ready to go to any venue you invite us to, and can present several hours of scientific evidence which supports creation. Included in these will be the fact that evolution violates the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, as well as the Law of Biogenesis. We can show you creation evidence in the fields of microbiology, genetics, probability, biochemistry, biology, geology and physics which support creation and undermine evolution.
In other words, he's got every absurd and discredited argument out of the creationist jokebook. And that is exactly what all of these new bills, like Louisiana, are going to do. They're an open invitation to creationist teachers to begin incorporating creationist materials into their science classrooms, just as John Freshwater did in Ohio as soon as their state board of education sent up the batsignal to do so in 2002.
And that's why these bills will create lots of lawsuits. They're too vaguely worded for an effective prima facie challenge on the law itself, so we have to wait for teachers to begin implementing the policy and then file as-applied challenges.
Politics
Comments
Couldn't we find some national venue for this "debate" and be done with it once and for all? Seems a shame to waste all that time & money doing it one state or school board at a time.
Posted by: Mike | December 16, 2008 9:39 AM
What exactly is "the law of biogenesis"? If it's being used to discredit evolution it's obviously nonsense, or being wholly misapplied (for, as we know, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life). Creationists might be better employed considering some to the mathematics of zero - ie n*0 = 0. Now there's a law relevant to their arguments!
Posted by: AnthonyK | December 16, 2008 9:39 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | December 16, 2008 9:40 AM
From Wikipedia:
Redi's and Pasteur's findings that life comes from life is sometimes called the law of biogenesis and asserts that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 16, 2008 9:46 AM
AnthonyK and Herod,
Basically, some law that states that life can only come from life, which thus "disproves" evolution. Once again conflating the Theory of Evolution with abiogensis.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | December 16, 2008 9:51 AM
After reading into it, it appears that [surprise factor 0] creationists misunderstood this one as well. Redi and Pasteur were both saying that complex life, multicellular, etc., cannot come from non-living material, but that it was still possible for very primitive life to arise from non-living chemical compounds.
Same old creationist-ID lack of understanding/quote mining.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 16, 2008 9:52 AM
And the Creationists have conveniently lopped off the "modern" to equivocate between what Pasteur was talking about and the initial appearance of life on Earth.
Posted by: Dave S. | December 16, 2008 9:52 AM
What is the Law of Biogenesis?
"Any Biology curriculum must be limited to include only sources consistent with the Book of Genesis."
It's not the law Texans wanted to pass, but after the 3rd, 4th and 5th laws of Themodynamics kept getting fillibustered, they quit messing around with subtleties and went for the jugular.
Posted by: Odie | December 16, 2008 9:54 AM
The "Law of Biogenesis", in creationist hands, is essentially the old 747/tornado argument. Basically, Pasteur and Redi found that a monkey won't spontaneously pop out of the aether. To a creationist, this translates as, "Self-replicating molecules could never have spontaneously arranged in a protien soup, then be selected for fitness over billions of years to form complex life."
Posted by: Ranson | December 16, 2008 9:57 AM
Mike, the internet has provided many national "venues" for this debate - Talk Origins, The Pandas Thumb, ScienceBlogs, etc., etc. When Lane says he is "ready to go to any venue you invite us to", he actually means any venue where he can tightly control the content and presentation, so that facts, logic, and evidence are excluded in favor of proselytizing. His ilk will never agree to a format where he has to answer questions and justify his numerous erroneous and dishonest assertions.
Posted by: Art | December 16, 2008 10:12 AM
It is certainly not a consensus opinion amongst biologists that evolution and biogenesis are completely separate.
If we take evolution to mean change and chemical evolution to mean change of self replicating or catalyzing organic chemicals then evolution has certainly occurred prior to the existence of recognizable organisms. I understand that this is far beyond the understanding of YEC believers but simply stating abiogenesis is a separate process from biological evolution is fundamentally incorrect - unless you define biogenesis, the initial start of life, as being the very first self replicating molecule.
Posted by: Sigmund | December 16, 2008 10:50 AM
Art, I exactly agree. I guess I'll keep fighting online but while the internet provides corners of sanity (ie scienceblogs), there is little chance this could ever be considered the definitive standard of discussion or debate. Too much noise, too little structure, too easy to ignore or downplay.
What I mean is, get the league of women voters or some such organization or group of organizations to setup a real debate. Invite the leading proponents and give them the structure that makes sense to present, debate, argue and come to grips with this subject on a national scale. If you don't show up, you lose. If you show up, you'd better be able to put up or you lose.
My dream is to once and for all have Casey Luskin or some other DI fool get his butt kicked cleanly and definitively. To have the Cynthia Dunbar types spout nonsense on national TV would be priceless. To have the religious buffoons have their incredible lack of understanding of nature, science and technology lit up for all to see would make all the outrage seem worthwhile.
Okay, okay, a guy can dream.
Posted by: Mike | December 16, 2008 11:28 AM
So, the Creationists most recent arguments come from the 1600-late 1800s? Damn, good thing they keep current. Actually, since they believe that the older a thing is, the better (unless the older thing comes from somewhere other than Roman Palestine), this really is news to them. Pretty pathetic, actually.
Posted by: Badger3k | December 16, 2008 11:49 AM
Re Sigmund
I understand that this is far beyond the understanding of YEC believers but simply stating abiogenesis is a separate process from biological evolution is fundamentally incorrect - unless you define biogenesis, the initial start of life, as being the very first self replicating molecule.
That's exactly how the dividing line between abiogensis and evolution should be defined. Biological evolution requires the existence of replicators, else it cannot occur. Thus, biology doesn't begin until the first replicators occur; prior to that, there is only chemistry. The argument essentially is that evolution is independent of the chemical processes that resulted in the occurrence replicators.
Posted by: SLC | December 16, 2008 11:57 AM
Included in these will be the fact that evolution violates the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, as well as the Law of Biogenesis.
That's all I needed to hear. I now know beyond a reasonable doubt that their presentation is pure nonsense.
Sigmund: I, PZ, and many others are in the camp which asserts that life is a just a special case of chemistry, that there is no discontinuity from simple chemicals to complex organisms, and that chemical evolution is just another form of evolution. So we don't draw the distinction between "evolution" and "abiogenesis."
Posted by: rsquare | December 16, 2008 12:01 PM
Mike, as we saw in the Presidential Debates, such events don't convince very many people - they merely confirm each side's opinion. Additionally, any restricted debate format favors Creationists employing the Gish Gallop - they can dish out more easy-to-understand lies in three minutes than a scientist can debunk for a layman audience in thirty.
Posted by: BobApril | December 16, 2008 12:05 PM
The argument essentially is that evolution is independent of the chemical processes that resulted in the occurrence replicators.
Really? What is mutation if not a chemical process? What is the expression of variable traits -- through development -- if not a complex chemical process? There's no magic point where the rules of chemistry are replaced by rules of "biology" or "genetics." It's all chemistry.
Posted by: rsquare | December 16, 2008 12:06 PM
Would someone be so kind as to send this idjit a copy of "Natural selection for least action", by Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178), which happens to show how Evolution not only does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but may be mathematically derived directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Posted by: abb3w | December 16, 2008 12:13 PM
rsquare, in reductionist terms its true that life is just a special case of chemisty, but by that criterion so are bulldozers. It seems clear to me that mechanisms and principles involved in the evolution of organisms (especially multicellular organisms) are likely to be so radically different from those involved in the origin of chemical replicators that it is extremely useful to separate the two. No doubt there is some overlap at the edges, but the bulk of what we call "evolution" is vastly distant from such cases.
Posted by: Tulse | December 16, 2008 12:15 PM
Just wait till they start siccing "The Law of Biogenesis" on the theory that living things are made up of atoms. Life only comes from life.
Posted by: Sastra | December 16, 2008 12:16 PM
Ok, I've heard the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument, but how in the blazes is evolution supposed to run contrary to conservation of energy?
Posted by: Alex, FCD | December 16, 2008 12:16 PM
The Law of A-tool-o-genesis - since modern tools cannot be manufactured without the use of existing tools and equipment, the very first primitive tools must have been provided by space aliens, probably by using a large black monolith.
I really think the the "Law" of Biogenesis should be considered more of a guiding principle, along the lines of Occam's Razor. When you see maggots appear in the rotten hamburger, it might be spontaneous formation of life...but under the Law of Biogenesis, it probably makes more sense to see if something's laying eggs in the meat. A guide to researchers, not an inviolable law.
Posted by: BobApril | December 16, 2008 12:18 PM
Posted by: Mark Duigon | December 16, 2008 12:51 PM
Mike said: "My dream is to once and for all have Casey Luskin or some other DI fool get his butt kicked cleanly and definitively. To have the Cynthia Dunbar types spout nonsense on national TV would be priceless. To have the religious buffoons have their incredible lack of understanding of nature, science and technology lit up for all to see would make all the outrage seem worthwhile.
Okay, okay, a guy can dream."
Your dream came true. It's commonly known as the Dover Trial.
Posted by: Art | December 16, 2008 12:51 PM
That's only if you restrict the term "evolution" to "biological evolution". But evolution is a much broader concept than that. Evolutionary processes occur in all kinds of systems.
Posted by: Riman Butterbur | December 16, 2008 1:17 PM
It's my understanding that creationists use the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics to discredit evolution by saying that evolution causes a decrease in entropy. However, if someone says that to you, you should politely take them to a window and point to that warm, glowing source of energy for our open system. If that person insists that the sun only provides heat and light energy, which can not be turned into useful energy, kindly describe the steam engine and photosynthesis.
Posted by: catgirl | December 16, 2008 1:34 PM
Re Riman Butterbur
Mr. Butterbur is absolutely correct and accurate. I provided the biological modifier for the first mention of evolution but inadvertently forgot to provide it for the second mention. Mea Culpa.
Posted by: SLC | December 16, 2008 1:35 PM
Posted by: H.H. | December 16, 2008 1:39 PM
I can hardly wait to see which of the the geological evidences for creation this particular ground of nutbags is gonna whip out.
Posted by: Josh | December 16, 2008 1:50 PM
Whoa. Several hours? I bet those evil Darwinists can only manage 15 minutes of evidence. Or maybe 20, I don't know.
Posted by: konrad_arflane | December 16, 2008 3:52 PM
Riman Butterbur is correct that evolution occurs in many systems. I have long been waiting for my coffee maker to evolve into a cappucino machine. No luck so far, but then the individual species in my kitchen (Coffee mister (Lineaus)) has been stable for a long time.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 16, 2008 4:32 PM
Mark Duigan said:
That, and research laboratories, educational institutes and learned societies.
And indeed, an extensive debate took place in all of those venues, back in the 19th Century. Evolution came out on top.
Unless the creationists have come up with some genuinely new information or ideas since then there's no good reason to go through it all again.
Posted by: SimonG | December 16, 2008 4:33 PM
Where to begin? Evolution is accepted by virtually all mainstream scientists. It is confirmed by a variety of scientific disciplines, paleontology, geology, and embryology among them. It has been the accepted scientific paradigm for over 150 years. While scientists disagree over the mechanisms of evolution, nearly all of them agree that it occurs. Saying that there are weaknesses in evolution, which is no more scientifically controversial than gravity, is as absurd as the fact that people who believe in virgin births, talking snakes, and that the first woman was made from a man's rib bone are saying evolution violates natural law!
Posted by: Raymond Minton | December 16, 2008 4:41 PM
The only thing I would say that disagrees with Raymond's excellent comment above (and it is a terrific comment) is that what he wrote about evolution being accepted by mainstream science is somewhat irrelevant to the arguments against evolution. We use that defense all the time, but in terms of science itself, the defense doesn't matter all that much. Everyone could, in theory, disagree with evolution and that (the disagreement itself) would not change the validity of the theory. Scientific theories stand if they explain all relevant observations. If they don't, then they need to be adjusted. If they can't be adjusted, they will ultimately be overturned in favor of a better theory.
But all of us could think the theory sucks. That's really kind of irrelevant if the theory unifies a bunch of hypotheses and offers a good, parsimonious explanation of phenomina observed in nature. Snowball Earth is a theory that's gestating right before our eyes. Most people still refer to it as a hypothesis, but really it unifies several hypotheses. It's an incipient theory. It has taken a ton of flack; lots of geologists and climatologists don't like it. It continues to weather (no pun) the storm. It has yet to be falsified. In fact, I think it's on more solid ground than ever. Our approval of it is irrelvant--it looks like it might well be correct. As always, science is not democratic.
I make this point only to try and reiterate (again...) that those creationists out there who make those little lists of detracters of evolution aren't helping their cause. At all.
A, I could care less what some climate scientist or whatever thinks about a biological theory (in the same way that no physicist is likely to give a shit about my opinion on string theory) and B, the detracters are irrelevant unless they're actually putting up real observations that the theory of evolution cannot explain. It's been 150 years guys. You can start any time...
Posted by: Josh | December 16, 2008 5:11 PM
Since the Wiccan article degenerated into a series of Monty Python references, you'll excuse me if I point out that the creationists' intent, even after Dover, to keep fighting this losing constitutional battle and using discredited arguments to do it is like the scene in the Holy Grail of the Black Knight who keeps losing limbs to intransigence - "'Tis but a scratch."
Posted by: Ex-drone | December 16, 2008 5:26 PM
Come on folks, Scott Lane is a high school teacher. You're not seriously going to take the word of research scientists over his, are you?
Posted by: James Hanley | December 16, 2008 5:30 PM
I like Monty Python as well as the next person, better then some, but this is not a Monty Python moment. It's straight out of Saturday Night Live. It's the Land Shark.
Landshark mumbles.."Plumber ma'am." ("scientific creationism")
woman says.>>."I didn't call a plumber." (SCOTUS rules that creationism is religion)
Landshark mumbles... "Candygram" (cdesign proponentists)
Woman opens door, gets eaten. (Another school board gets sued and loses big time.)
Posted by: BaldApe | December 16, 2008 6:24 PM
What the hell? Last time I checked, biology and physics were two separate disciplines. Now I know they're full of it, with a capital "S", if you know what I mean.
Posted by: DeckerFanBoy | December 16, 2008 9:33 PM
present several hours of scientific evidence which supports creation. Included in these will be the fact that evolution violates the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, as well as the Law of Biogenesis
Will he present evidence that female homo sapiens were created from a rib bone of male homo sapiens? Or that the rotation of the earth stopped for one day so that a mob of Jews could slaughter a mob of Amorites?
Posted by: dave | December 16, 2008 9:44 PM
Ok, I've heard the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument, but how in the blazes is evolution supposed to run contrary to conservation of energy?
Probably something along the lines of: "Evolutionists are atheists, and atheists believe that everything came from nothing, which violates the 1st law of thermodynamics."
Or that the rotation of the earth stopped for one day so that a mob of Jews could slaughter a mob of Amorites?
Silly heliocentrist, the earth didn't stop rotating for one day...the sun stood still in the sky!
Posted by: AL | December 16, 2008 10:15 PM
How many generations has it gone through so far?
Posted by: Riman butterbur | December 17, 2008 1:25 AM
Ah Kehrsam - there's problem right there, no Coffee Misses - ☺ DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 17, 2008 1:57 AM
Why do creationists think that all they have to do to PROVE biblical creation is to discredit evolution. The spaghetti monster waits in the shadows for such fools as these.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 17, 2008 5:11 AM
"Why do creationists think that all they have to do to PROVE biblical creation is to discredit evolution"
This should probably read
"Why do creationists think that all they have to do to PROVE biblical creation is to discredit [B]and/or slander[/B] evolution
Posted by: dean | December 17, 2008 12:40 PM