The fine state of Mississippi is about to be led astray by the cretins they've elected to congress. They have introduced yet another textbook disclaimer bill, which will require that all school books that mention "evolution" be slapped with this sticker:
The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.
This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.
Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.
Study hard and keep an open mind.
Sound familiar? They all kind of run together into one blur of noise, don't they.
This is nothing new. Here's the textbook disclaimer they tried to push in Cobb County, Georgia.
This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
Here's the disclaimer that was read to classes in Dover, Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.
They all have some things in common: in particular, the pettifogging and incorrect attempt to hide behind the word "theory", as if that somehow discredited the idea; the pretense of open-mindedness, when these are actually attempts to slander good science; the setting aside of evolution as a special case, when all scientific ideas are supposed to be regarded critically; and just the general notion that the fact that evolution is discussed means the whole subject must be treated gingerly.
The Cobb County and Dover disclaimers have something else in common: they were slapped down hard by the courts. The Mississippi disclaimer should join them soon, and it's a little surprising that the backers of this bill didn't bother to consider legal precedent.
The differences are also interesting. Mississippi tries to get specific, and offers a list of topics that are not discussed in the textbook. This is very peculiar, because all of those items are topics that are discussed in some detail in the college-level textbooks with which I am familiar. The creationists have been campaigning for decades to strip out the evolutionary content of our public school science texts, and now they are using the absence of substantive discussion of select issues as an argument for further damning them? The lesson to authors and publishers should be clear: you don't gain anything by caving in to these troglodytes.
Maybe the message to the Mississippi school board now is that they should pick out science texts that carefully discuss the evolutionary context of the Cambrian, describing the pre-Cambrian antecedents that led to the tens-of-millions-of-years "explosion". Then they can describe how the majority of animal phyla (but not all forms!) diversified over the next 500 million years into the different patterns we see now, and how there are many transitional forms on record illustrating portions of this process, and how we are now discovering the details of molecular complexity that further reinforce the idea of common ancestry. These are the conclusions of modern science, and we shouldn't allow the history of censorship by public school boards stand in the way of letting these stories be told in the science classroom.
The message should be to broaden and deepen the coverage of evolution in our schools, so that we stop seeing ignorant clowns like Representative Gary Chism foisting their inanity on our children.
- Log in to post comments
This textbook contains material on atoms. Atomic theory is a theory, not a fact, regarding the composition of matter. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
What is most apparent is a clear lack of understanding of the difference between theory and hypothesis.
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
Isaac Asimov
Dmn, thght _ ws frst!
"This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things."
Not about the origin of living things. Not about the Big Bang.
And wouldn't it be nice if that "some scientists" was replaced with an accurate percentage of scientists?
Totally off topic, but there's another poll that needs the pharyngula treatment. This one at the German daily "Die Welt" website. The question: "do you believe in God". While it seems that rational thought is already winning, you may wish to make sure it stays that way....
On a positive note, the wordiness of that statement makes it easy to show its incorrectness.
Not really. Many public school educators have a very dim understanding of the law even as it applies directly to their jobs. Look at the history of bible distribution in schools -- Gideons come in, distribute bibles for a while, someone brings it to court and the court slams it down. It happens over and over, and yet they persist (because somehow they think not just handing out bibles is important, but handing them out in schools).
This Minnesota disclaimer is particularly pernicious:
Pure evil. In science, it doesn't have many meanings, so they prefer to obfuscate its meaning. This doesn't just undermine evolution, it undermines all things in science deemed to be theories.
True, but deceptive.
An outright lie, when placed on the cover of a science book.
Sorry, I meant to include the address:
http://www.welt.de/politik/article2993770/London-freut-sich-ueber-den-B…
Using internal minor controversies in the field of evolution science to entirely discredit evolution is like saying that, because my husband and I (who are both vegans) can't agree on whether to get Indian food or Thai food tonight, we must both actually be meat-eaters.
Also, let's all say it in unison at the top of our lungs: natural selection is not random!
The same yahoo also proposed bill HB 330
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2009/html/HB/0300-0399/HB033…
"Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Homework and classroom assignments must be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school district. Students may not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work."
So on biology exams they shouldn't be "penalized" for claiming we are specially created...?
Here's the disclaimer that was read to classes in Dover, Pennsylvania.
Every single biology teacher in Dover refused to read it. They had to have some moron with no moral values read it.
Know-nothing politicians can try to dumb down science education, but they will never be able to force good teachers to lie to their students.
Sure, but which of the four kinds (two, really) of theories do they mean? It's a very confusing message, indeed.
If they are not prepared to go to court why would they do this? I mean what measure of hope did Dover give them?
Either they're denying the personhood of God or are actually making a statement of atheism. I, too, believe that no one was present when life first appeared on earth.
Absolutely correct -- the notion that life arose from the supernatural will of some sky fairy is indeed a theory, and an extremely poorly-supported one compared to the notion that it evolved by chemical means.
Huh -- it turns out I agree with both these statements.
Either they're denying the personhood of God or are actually making a statement of atheism. I, too, believe that no one was present when life first appeared on earth.
Absolutely correct -- the notion that life arose from the supernatural will of some sky fairy is indeed a theory, and an extremely poorly-supported one compared to the notion that it evolved by chemical means.
Huh -- it turns out I agree with both these statements.
"No one was present when life first appeared on earth."
I object, becuase god may have been there.
Just Kidding!
In other 'I hate evolution' news, Vox Day is having a good cry right now.
I'm so irritated by this. So fricken (Can I swear on this site) irritated. At the risk of being redundant, science class is for science. GAH!
Most of the statement is actually true. True, it is misleading and singles out evolution when it should be applied to all theories, so it is already unconstitutional. Then they go and make their intent glaringly obvious with this:
You should at least understand evolution before you try to go and regulate its teaching.
keep in mind that these idiots think that Dover was rigged and that they were being persecuted by that left-wing activist judge. If only they had gotten a fair trial, they would have won! *rolleyes*
"Dmn, thght _ ws frst!"
On another site I frequent this is called disemvowellment. It happens when you troll.
The cretins are responding to popular demand. As for MS, I think its time to expel the Old Confederacy out of the union and build a giant wall between DC and VA to prevent illegal rednecks from swimming the Potomac.
Let's also not forget that evolution deals with adaptation of existing organisms and not their origin. Yes, we don't know how life got started (yet), but that's not what evolution addresses.
Well, it starts off talking about theories..then it wanders drunkenly around, stopping to call evolution a belief...before falling off the cliff of dribbling nonesense and cretinous lies.
Anyone taking this seriously should immediately be removed from any teaching post as they are clearly unfit to be around young children. In that respect it will make an excellent tool for improving education.
They seem to be careful to always refer to evolution as a theory. Intelligent design however, is an "explanation".
Creationism = a theory based on BELIEF
Evolution = a theory based on empirical EVIDENCE.
They have to make up their mind, are they teaching a science class or religion class?
Being a high school science teacher in Mississippi (through the Teach for America program) I can say that this display of idiocracy is of no surprise. My school still provides me with a framed "in God we trust" sign to hang in my classroom (which is mandated by the state) that I promptly throw away at the beginning of every semester. The current science standards for Biology I only mention the word "evolution" once. ONCE!
I proudly display a banner of T. Dobzansky's quote in my classroom, and make it a specific point to relate everything possible back to evolution. Thankfully, my school currently does not have enough text books to provide each student with a copy. Because of this I have already begun using a binder of my own creation in place of our few, decade old textbooks, so I will be able to avoid any disclaimers when they arrive.
There is a reason why Mississippi is a perennial bottom dweller in academic areas nationally. It's not the students fault, that is for sure. Although a good amount of blame definitely falls on the teachers, it will not be until the law makers and state leaders start making decisions based on facts (not faith) that we will start to close the academic achievement gap.
Creationism = not really a scientific theory
the setting aside of evolution as a special case
Christian idiots have a problem with evolutionary biology because they would become mentally disturbed if they knew people share an ancestor with chimps. Their other problem is they correctly think evolution is the greatest threat to their Christian death cult. This is a religious bill, and I'm not surprised it was introduced in the Bible belt.
I hope there's another trial and I hope it costs the taxpayers of Mississippi at least one million dollars, just like in Dover.
Here in Memphis Tn we like the great state of Miss. as it makes us look better.Not good of course, just better. Possibly related, the Mississippians have also achived the record as the state with the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in the USA.
I guess the fruits of bad education in any filed just keep on giving for years to come.
Every post is a variation of the same message. Kind of like a subscription to KKK magazine, Myers only has one thing to say, but a thousand ways to say it.
How about going out on a limb once in your life.
You profess a belief in Darwinism so apply that belief to politics.
What does Darwin say about bailing out corporations?
What does he say about the propping up of a nest of "religionists" in GAZA?
What does Darwin suggest about limiting the growth of successful populations to "save" resources for some nebulous future world?
Show some guts for once.
PGPWNIT @18:
Corrected. Yes, you fucking sure as shit can god damn swear on this site.
;)
Since it seems to be a waste of time to try to explain to these people what a theory is, I think that biologists should come together and sign an agreement with a statement such as: There are many things science doesn't know and indeed may never know, but there are also areas of science which are so thoroughly established that no sane scientist doubts it. It is a fact that the earth orbits the sun (please no pedantry about their orbiting a common centre of mass), regardless of whether we fully understand the full workings of gravity. And in the same sense, regardless of how the universe or the earth originated (whether it was through natural processes or otherwise), or how the first living cell came into being on earth, the notion that living organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors is a fact, not a theory.
I think the reason the creationists think they can throw doubt on evolution by calling it a "theory" with a negative tone is evidenced by the statement that "No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory." If they are going to use this criterion for whether a theory is factual or not, then we should put a similar disclaimer on history textbooks, since nobody alive today witnessed many historical events - all we have are these artifacts called "books" to prove these events really happened.
Another thought - by their definition are they considering creationism a "theory"? It certainly doesn't really fit their first definition "systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles". So they redefine a theory as "any statement about life's origins". I don't think these are quite the same things?
Of all the stupid stickers I've seen proposed so far, I have to say that Mississippi's is the dumbest one yet.
"Study hard and keep an open mind."
Did anyone else feel like saying, "Oh, go screw yourself!" when you read that? Do we really need to condescend to our students to teach?
Speaking of controversies, doesn't Gary know one can't be a Mason AND a Southern Baptist? Have we learned nothing about the Curse of Baphomet from Jack Chick?
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0093/0093_01.asp
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute gave Mississippi's science standards the lowest possible grade. For evolution they gave Mississippi 0 points out of 3 possible points.
In the life sciences, there is plenty of coverage, but it is rather sporadic. A few lines of evidence for evolution are touched upon, but Mississippi takes remarkable pains to avoid using the word "evolution," which might alone justify the grade "F."
"What does Darwin say about bailing out corporations?"
Nothing you babbling brook of bullshit.
Darwin was a biologist, not a divine messiah from whom his followers have to find an answer from for each question facing people today. In fact, many scientists ignore Origins of Species because later findings have proven him wrong.
AAAAAHHHHHH!
Sorry, this is exactly why I can't teach any more. You are critisized by politicians and the school board when you actually attempt to teach what you studied and went to school for. I'm a damned paleontologist and administrators want to tell ME about the fossil record. whatever. I'm a bureaucrat now.
PaperTiger: You profess a belief in Darwinism so apply that belief to politics.
???
That is so stupid on so many levels! Goes to show, the stupidity of MS legislators is far surpassed by the demographic they choose to represent.
They are absolutely incapable of doing anything except for projecting their own world view over others, and whining endlessly because of their deep-seated feelings of inadequacy (which are largely due to their very real inadequacy in understanding anything but the three things they were taught at Momma's knee).
See - I hate Libertarians because they're smart and evil. I hate the Christianists because they're stupid and therefore evil. I can never decide which I hate more -- but fortunately I don't have to, since they keep on trying to use each other.
You know. . . they do have bible study courses. Perhaps bibles should also have stickers affixed to the front?
"There are many religions, all over the world, which claim to have written works inspired, dictated, or written by a deity. Christianity and Judaism are just two of these. Religions never change their mind in accordance with observations of the world around them, so if some new information arises be sure they will not change their stance. Unless they can reinterpret their written works, and really feel like they need to.
This bible discusses God, a controversial deity some present as a non-scientific explanation for the origin of everything. No one was present when everything appeared. Therefore, any statement about universal origins based on this book rather than evidence should be considered speculation.
This book refers to the unproven belief that a quixotic, intangible, omnipresent entity exists and is having a secret battle with another intangible, quixotic, omnipresenet entity for an intangible aspect of humans called a "soul". This book speculates on all the answers and presents them as if they were authoritative.
Study hard and keep an open mind."
Barring that, I'd just like to see a bunch of known atheists teaching the bible study courses in public schools.
Paper Tiger @31>
I'm going to go ahead and ignore the assinine personal attacks and get to the meat of your non-argument. Noone is professing a "belief in Darwinism", but there are a number of people here who accept natural selection based on the evidence for it. You can leave off the reply about that requiring faith, because that retort is complete bullshit and you know it. Darwin's theories when applied to politics are 1) a nightmare and 2) not something anyone here has supported.
Your next two points don't even merit a response... obviously a 150 year old science text isn't going to comment on current event politics... what a trite, nonsensical question.
As for limiting the growth of successful populations for "nebulous" future populations: I'm going to assume that you don't accept the idea of anthropogenic global warming, OR that you're referring to the idea that you have a mandate from your megalomaniac shithead of a deity to rape and pillage the entire planet because his dead son is coming back soon.. either way, since the first is a scientific consensus and the second is a fairy tale, most of us here will choose to conserve resources for the future of our species. Funny how having a rational mind means that you don't have to apply a scientific idea, moreover one that has been improved upon over the last 150 years, to everything in everyday life. It's almost as if it isn't anything like a religion... oh wait, that's because it isn't.
Link to the Welt poll without the session ID in the URL. Results as of now:
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on ;-)
Careful. VA went for Obama, and some Reptilian called northern VA "communist"...
I agree. We need more evolution in high school biology texts. Between my fundy family, crapy text book, and creationist biology teacher (in a public school) I didn't real know/learn anything about evolution until I graduated from college and finally read the blind watchmaker. true story
What does Darwin say about the hottest new shows of the season?
What does Darwin say about Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler?
What does Darwin say about money saving tips for the new year?
Can Darwin really keep the stains out better than other brands?
http://fishfeet2007.blogspot.com/2007/04/evolution-is-only-theory.html
I think it is in a conversation with Richard Dawkins that Lawrence Krauss mentions the creationists tried this 'theory' stuff somewhere else, but eventually the scientists had their say and the ended up with science texts books with information on not only the theory of evolution, but the theory of gravity, the theory of atoms, the theory of electromagnetism, the theory of plate tectonics and all the other scientific theories.
*sigh* so many straw man attacks in there.
You profess a belief in Einsteinism so apply that belief to politics.
What does Einstein say about bailing out corporations?
What does he say about the propping up of a nest of "religionists" in GAZA (which is IMPORTANT, so we must SHOUT it)?
What does Einstein suggest about limiting the growth of successful populations to "save" resources for some nebulous future world?
How would one even apply the theory of evolution by mutation, selection and drift to politics? It describes an "is", not an "ought".
Major culture shock for you, Papertiger.
sheesh. that was moronic
Papertiger, you misunderstand us. Darwin is not our god. He is simply our prophet. Get it right.
Anyhoodle. I still have to wonder why these people find evolution so threatening. The understanding of natural selection, random mutation and life's responses to pressure doesn't rule out their God; it makes him far less necessary than otherwise, but the same can be said of chemistry, geology and meteorology. But nothing gets the godists' undies in a twist like evolutionary biology. Lots of Christians somehow manage to accept the lessons from the Biology teachers, AND still love Jebus, without suffering any crisis of confidence. Perhaps that takes some compartmentalizing, but plenty of people manage to do it. Life is too short to spend it writing stickers to slap on textbooks.
This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. This textbook discusses evolution, a well-tested theory nearly all scientists present as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of living things.
No one was present when life first appeared on earth. There is no evidence that anyone, human or divine, was present when life first appeared on earth.
Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory. Therefore, any statement about life's origins, whether scientific, religious, or otherwise, should be considered a theory, and due consideration should be given to how well any such theory is supported by available evidence.
Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. Evolution by natural selection refers to the scientific theory that random changes combined with differential survival and reproduction produced the diversity of living things.
Study hard and keep an open mind. Someone has to.
To be fair, the modern theory of evolution by mutation, selection and drift is not identical to Darwin's theory of evolution anymore. Darwin's lacked drift and -- shocker -- included Lamarckism.
Normally, I like to ignore the angry trolls, but Papertiger, you seem very... tense .
Could this be because there are a lot of similar sorts of stories in the news lately, all with the same depressing details? Do ya think PeeZed is simply pointing this out on his own little piece of the web? And, for a bonus point, do you think you'd be missed by other posters here if you found some other place to waste your time, since you seem to hate it so much?
You know this, how?
"A belief in Darwinism" you say? {checks old posts, does a search, taps fingertip thoughtfully on chin) Not that I've ever seen, and I've been lurking in the shadows of Pharyngula for a couple of years. For a start, there is no "belief" required, just a willingness to unlearn dogma and to read what's been discovered by people with more specialised education than yourself. Secondly "Darwinism" is a made-up term meant to drag science down to the level of religion and I suspect you know it. Thanks for playing, though.
The rest of your post is just excreta, as has already been pointed out ably by IST, above.
Please don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.
Dammit, why didn't my <strike> tags work?
"Sound familiar?"
Very familiar - it's pretty much identical to the 1995 Alabama insert that Richard Dawkins took apart here
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Just in case you don't notice, Papertiger, that was a joke. Darwin was not a divinely inspired prophet. As mentioned above, he was entirely capable of making mistakes, and actually made several. He was merely the first scientist to connect a large number of dots that had previously been lying around unconnected.
The notion that a magic man poofed the Universe and all life into existence using magic is not a "theory." It is an unevidenced assertion. If creationism is a theory, than any batshit crazy statement qualifies as a "theory" and the word ceases to hold any meaning at all.
Now, now. He only reads it for the articles. <duck & cover>
Because, like Microsoft, Pharyngula has its own HTML. Here you have to spell it <s> instead of <strike>.
Tualha
<s>that's how</s>
that's how
Not even the life that first appeared on earth was present?!
Far out!
There. Fixed.
Jason Nagle (#27) wrote:
How lucky your students are to have an excellent teacher who knows how to make biology interesting.
I'm wondering if you get any complaints from students or parents because you know how to properly teach biology.
ack! Evolution is not the origins of life, it's the origins of species!
I've just been in a one-week-long forum argument where once this point was clear the creationists gave a resounding "Oh" and shut up.
Alan21211 @47:
I think the discussion refers to the adoption of the Florida State Science standards last February. A last minute change pushed by the Department of Education changed the wording to give the standards some chance of approval by the state board of education. All the concepts you refer to were changed to read, "Scientific theory of..."
PZ-Most of the high school textbooks address the genetic code and, at least superficially, transcription and translation and how the genetic code "works." Transitional forms are mentioned, usually whales or horses and at least one book uses tetrapods. Of course whether or not they are addressed in the classroom is up to the teacher and the state standards.
Sure. But it's not God they're protecting - it's their own egos, which rest on the precious belief that they are SPECIAL in a way that no other living or non-living thing in the universe can possibly be. That's what it's really about.
More honestly:
"Don't keep an open mind."
And even more honestly, "We just made sure that you'd study this with a bias against science."
They must be so proud as they inhibit honest teaching of science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
51*
'Life is too short to spend it writing stickers to slap on textbooks.'
Indeed but the afflicted have no where else to pollute...and it seems an easy target...
A reality grounded half decent lawyer that values truth not just pay lip service to the concept...will rip this nonsense up and spit it out before lunch...
"They have introduced yet another textbook disclaimer bill, which will require that all school books that mention "evolution" be slapped with this sticker:"
For once, I'm actually grateful for the short attention span of the teenager. Do you really think any of them are going to actually READ all that gobbledygook on the front of their book?
The only other difference between this sticker and the others is the number of outright lies on it. Wouldn't it be funny if they had this sticker bullshit about "no transitional forms" on a book with several examples?
I think these stickers will mostly just impart the important message to young people that most adults are completely full of shit and just want to mold your behavior and thoughts to comform with theirs.
Mr. Papertiger (#31): where does PZ profess a "belief in Darwinism?" I am pretty sure that PZ accepts the evidence of evolution but you can pretty easily find out for yourself what Darwin wrote about Gaza and bailing out corporations (nothing, I presume). Facts is facts.
"I'm wondering if you get any complaints from students or parents because you know how to properly teach biology."
When I taught Outdoor Ed.,I had my supervisor ask me if I could "tone it down with the evolution". Spineless dweeb was getting complaints.
Mr. Papertiger (#31)
The greater the desperation the more ridiculous the claims
and the more barking the assertions!
I am actually flabbergasted; pinch me - it is 2009 yes?
Re: Jason Nagle (#27): it is interesting that a state has enough money to provide framed "In God we trust" signs every school year but not enough money to see each student has a textbook. Good on you for the DIY binders.
HH @58
That is probably the goal - diluting the meaning of scientific theory until it means nothing.
The concept of god is only a hypothesis.
No evidence. Not testable. Not even close to being a theory.
But it's not God they're protecting - it's their own egos, which rest on the precious belief that they are SPECIAL in a way that no other living or non-living thing in the universe can possibly be.
Yeah, granted. I think it was for the same reason that Teh Church threw such a shitfit when Galileo pointed out that the numbers suggested that the Earth was revolving around the sun along with all the other planets. How can the Earth be the center of the universe if it's not even the center of its own solar system? And if the Earth isn't at the center of all of Gawd's creation, then what does that say about us tall, big-headed bipedals?
Still, I haven't seen anyone working themselves into a righteous froth over astronomy lately. It looks like, at some point, even the hardcore fundies got the heliocentric picture and moved on with their lives. Can someone correct me on this?
Alyson, I think that's right on the money.
Alyson, I'm a bit surprised they aren't still trying to convince us that volcanoes and lightning aren't Sky Daddy's anger at us touching ourselves.
Your country, or at least, many of the people who live there scare me.
@ Alyson
Right. Add in the soul issue, though.
Do/did chimps, Neandertals, Cro-Magnons have souls?
"Censorship"- come on its just a sticker informing students about how scientific theories are formed. Perhaps they should take out that part about evolution being random or unproven but it seems fine otherwise.
So the reasoning is that no one was there at the beginning, so it's only a theory, not fact.
Really?!?! As if the only way we know anything is from our actually having been there?
Don't they realize that this line of reasoning can come back to bite them in the ass? It means (for them) that no matter what I've done, if no one was around, then any claim of what happened is "just a theory" on par with how they view evolution.
I smell mischief brewing.
I may be the first to say this, but could papertiger @31 be a poe? That's just a bit too ridiculous for me to take seriously
I just shot off an email to the good congressman in Mississippi, complete with a link here.
Here's the text:
Alyson #77
Actually Galileo wasn't the scientific martyr that urban legend likes to portray. He had a massive ego and was a bully. He went out of his way to be rude to a friend of his by writing a book where the friend's opinions and beliefs were mouthed by a character named "Simplicius." Unfortunately for Galileo, the friend was Pope Urban VIII.
Galileo accused another astronomer, Fr. Christopher Scheiner SJ, of plagiarism. Scheiner, who hadn't plagiarized anyone but was plagiarized by Galileo, was understandably annoyed. Galileo had a dispute with another astronomer, Fr. Orazio Grassi SJ, about the nature of comets. Grassi held they were astronomical phenomena while Galileo believed they were optical illusions.
When Galileo was tried before the Papal Inquisition, Scheiner and Grassi were his prosecutors. Incidentally, both men accepted the correctness of the heliocentric theory. While the official charge against Galileo was heresy, in actuality he was put on trial for being an asshole.
I've seen this before here. And since I don't spend as much time here as I would like, would someone answer a question for me? I know what a troll is, but what is a Poe?
It's deliberately misleading students about the validity of one particular field of science. that's the problem, the sticker is trying to cast doubt on a theory that in the academic arena has no controversy but in the community it's vastly controversial. Putting that sticker on would be destroying the institution that is science.
Hi!
My name is Sara and I am NOT an American, so I was wondering something to you guys that are. I know Americans are some of the most un-educated people on the planet, seriously, no insult intended, I been to third wolrd countries where they know very well about evolution and other facts ,therefore i find it interesting (and dangerous as you have access to Nuclear Weapons and prepared to use them killing people).
My main question is, If they decide to allow such things as not teaching facts like evolution, gravity and round-world (I assume they deny that the world is spherical if they deny evolution, just makes sense), HOW DOES IT WORK IN COLLEGE?
Because In U.S Colleges they allow Evolution right? They have to? Else you can not have any physicians ot scientist (they would be incompetent without the basic knowledge of our evolution). What happens when they arrive at a real School after been taught that the world is made by a magic man in the sky?
Sara
Facilis,
You haven't been paying much attention to the tactics used by ID and creationist lobbies have you? (or maybe you have and I'm being too nice to you). This is par for the course for them and their next step would be obvious. If you bang away at evolution and people begin to buy it, present "alternative theories" in an attempt to promote "equal time" and "academic freedom". Having damaged peoples understanding of science you finally present your own theory which was what you wanted taught the whole time. No where in this situation does a regard for science motivate the sticker pushers.
But this is where it starts, ulterior motives with an all too obvious focus on undermining evolution. The sticker serves no other purpose for the people who support it, and certainly isn't meant for informing students about science.
As a former Mississippi science teacher, I am unsurprised that this bill is being proposed. Teaching evolution is NOT encouraged in this state. I certainly never learned it from my science teacher (particularly since the viper was my Sunday School teacher as well as a young-earth creationist).
Science standards here are a joke and a sick one at that. If you teach anything or say anything that might upset the religious nuts, the principal, superintendent and school board will give you no support. Too many Mississippians do not want to be educated. They had much rather persist in their delusions that life was made in 6 days and racism no longer exists.
And for those of us who do support good science standards? Well, I guess if we know what's good for us, we'll keep our mouths shut.
@joeyess #87
From Urban Dictionary:
Poe
A person who writes a parody of a Fundamentalist that is mistaken for the real thing. Due to Poe's Law, it is almost impossible to tell if a person is a Poe unless they admit to it.
@Sara
No they do teach evolution in schools. Some groups just want to put a harmless sticker on a book saying that evolution is just a scientific theory.
I think it is only a some uneducated people who deny evolution. Most educated people in their fields do. Or even if they reject it, they have some kind of knowlege of it
They teach evolution normally. What I think this is about is some uneducated parents who don't want teachers teaching young children about something different about the origin of species than they learned (silly ain't it).I don't think anyone opposes teaching it in college.
Chimp: thanks for the tip.
Sara: it's true that evolution is taught in U.S. postsecondary institutions. However, this doesn't always guarantee that U.S. physicians, scientists, etc. will not be creationists. See this posting for a grim anecdote.
If you ever wondered how the world is gonna look after the fundies take over and Look Around You is taken to be the real deal, you could do worse than start here.
Sara: "I know Americans are some of the most un-educated people on the planet, seriously, no insult intended"
Sara, you sure know how to excel at that all-important first impression, eh?
On the topic of the disclaimer: it is, once again, utter nonsensical bullshit propagated by people determined to be ignorant of science, and reality in general. If they didn't insist upon forcing that ignorance into schools, one would almost feel sorry for that level of delusion.
As a Brit, I feel for Americans having to constantly fight to keep rational thought in one of the most important spheres for it to reside.
Outrageous!
Some groups just want to put a harmless sticker on a book saying that evolution is just a scientific theory.
What the school board did in Dover wasn't harmless. How often do we have to go through this? Unless the stickers specifically also refer to The Theory of Plate Tectonics, The Germ Theory of Disease, Atomic Theory, The Theory of Gravity, The Big Bang Theory, Cell Theory, etc., as JUST THEORIES, in that language, then we have to ask why they're trying to create a false controversy regarding evolution? How is creating the impression of a controversy where there is none NOT hurting the students?
Sara #89
Many secondary schools in the US teach evolution. I was taught it in biology at a Catholic high school. Unfortunately, there is a small but extremely vocal group of Christian fundamentalists who insist that the Bible is literally true. These people, called creationists, are anti-evolution because it disagrees with the creation myths given in the Book of Genesis.
The more conservative of the two American political parties, the Republicans, feel beholden to fundamentalist Christians (also known as the Religious Right). As a result, the fundamentalists have a larger voice in American politics than their numbers might otherwise warrant.
Most American colleges teach evolutionary biology. A few colleges, run by fundamentalist sects, teach creationism. However, the vast majority of creationists have no real knowledge of biology. If they have college degrees, these degrees are often in divinity, religious studies, or philosophy. Two of the more visible creationists, Casey Luskin and Andrew Schlafly, have graduate degrees in law. Schlafly particularly thinks his Juris Doctor degree makes him an authority on everything.
Stupid idiots. SCOTUS has said creationism is a religious theory. ID was determined to be form of creationism by a US court. There is no other theory in the scientific literature to explain how life went from single celled orgainisms to plants and animals. What is the need for any stickers? They do nothing to change the facts. And the courts will slap them down quickly.
I'm not sure, but I remember from the figures there were about 34% amount of doctors who believed in intelligent desgn. If you are talking about the doctors who believe "that the world is made by a magic man in the sky"(ie theism), they make up about 60% of doctors.
http://www.hcdi.net/polls/J5776/
Ok, I see I was too nice. Time to start backing up the bullshit friend. We'll start with this one. What fields are these educated people in? Show me numbers on trained scientists that don't believe in evolution and we'll see where the majority stands.
Put up or shut up.
#30 ElJay wrote:
It actually wouldn't surprise me if some of these bills popped up in states that went for Huckabee in the GOP primaries, like Tennessee, Alabama, and Arkansas. Whatever happens, I hope that any bills that are introduced die quietly in committee.
Poe's law states that, "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing." In other words, fundie religiosity is already such a ridiculous caricature that it is indistinguishable from its own parody.
Hi all!
But not teaching them or skewing reality (ie, saying that evolution is "just a theory" (theory meanign guesswork here according to them) and it is CONTROVERSIAL(??) makes them unprepared for Real School later on.
Basically you will have a pile of idiots starting College and most of them will not be able to handle it because its to hard for them, and you already got a very low number of College attendees in the U.S (we got around 97% here) so what will happen when the next generation comes?
MartinM #97
Galileo made that defense during his trial. Nobody believed it then either.
I would be interested to see the stickers on the books after they have been returned at the end of the school year. I would like to see how many have been defaced, corrected, or read what comments are written between the lines. Could be telling.
MichaelX - I think the post you are referring to was a quick job and more typos than *I* usually generate. I am betting that the poster REALLY wanted to say "do not"... I could be wrong.
The other typos are so familiar to me, they essentially make their own story. It looks like the sense is just a little reversed with a few missing letter. I hope I am close.
JC
facilis, but how can you be a physician if you do not accept our evolution?
Its, basically ,impossible with todays knowledge. And lets say he accepts Evolution, how does he fit that with Christianity? You cant be Christian and accept Evolution then you saying that Homo Sapien Sapien is the SUPERIOR of all evolved animals, and that WE must have stopped evolving as God chose our time NOW etc. It makes NO SENSE.
Also, its wrong, as we are certainly not superior to other animals.
I was claiming that most people accpeted evolution. I'm sorry if I was unclear.
Sara #109
Many Christians accept evolution.
JackC,
You are very kind to give such a strong benefit of the doubt. I would suggest re-reading all the poster in questions posts though before coming down on the side of typo.
The quoted portion of my post referred to an asinine statement about denying evolution in which it was asserted that "most educated people in their fields do".
This is an outright lie.
@56
We still have the disclaimer stickers/insert on the bio textbooks here in Alabama. The stickers are distributed to the schools by the state school board.
Rey Fox @69
Good shout. Some evolution biologist needs to write a textbook titled Transitional Forms.
Apparently I'm the most childish person here.
pffft "Chism"
Tis Himself, and that is a contradiction.
Are they saying we Evolved until this point, suddeny got a magical Soul in which other animals do not have?
where is th eline between the none-soul animals and soul-animals? How did it evolve? Why did it evolve? What IS a soul? etc.
If you are a theist and believe in Evolution, you are an idiot because of several reasons, one mentioned above.
In my experience you do indeed get a pile of idiots starting college. (*) However, there are also some smart ones, and by the time you get to graduate school the idiots have been weeded out.
It is indeed tragic that the US handicaps its kids so badly. But I believe it's not as wide-spread as you might think from reading this blog. PZ is trying to improve it, or at least prevent it from getting worse, so there's a selection effect in the stories told here.
(*) My experience is being a TA (teaching assistant) at a state university, and talking to friends TA at Berkeley, Yale, Stanford etc.
My mistake. And I owe JackC a beer.
@Sara
I can assure you evolution is taught in the US. I was taught evolution in my High School biology class, and it was taught correctly. Granted, I went to school in California, in a fairly wealthy area that had very highly rated public schools (although California is not know for it public school system, we just don't have the funds to pay good science teachers). Oddly enough, I grew up in the "SaddleBack Valley Unified School District" (ring a bell anyone?), which makes up south Orange County, one of California's religious strong holds. I had NEVER heard of any complaints about evolution in the classroom(well there was one girl we carpooled with who was scared she wouldn't do well in biology because she went to catholic school up until High School, she wanted to learn, but was afraid she was behind). In fact, the theory was even brought up in Middle School biology class, though just slightly touched on. My HS bio teavher was a recent grad from UCSB in biology, and did a great job, and evolution was part of the daily lesson plan. Anyway, by the time I got to College, I was very well versed in the theory of evolution, and even studied biology, taking multiple courses on evolution, by some very great professors.
So yes, there is evolution taught in the US, as long as you are in the public school system.
No they accurately defined theory up there in the sticker.
I don't know. But I think the facts are that a fair number of them don't.
I guess the figures show it is not.
I guess
not necessarily
Well its really a matter of beliefs isn't it? If your a nihilist with no ideas of intrinsic human value, then you won't but of course a theist will disagree.(Porbaly saying that God gave us dominion)
The Cobb County and Dover disclaimers have something else in common: they were slapped down hard by the courts. The Mississippi disclaimer should join them soon, and it's a little surprising that the backers of this bill didn't bother to consider legal precedent.
The differences are also interesting. Mississippi tries to get specific, and offers a list of topics that are not discussed in the textbook. This is very peculiar, because all of those items are topics that are discussed in some detail in the college-level textbooks with which I am familiar.
The text in the Mississippi bill is copied directly from the Alabama textbook disclaimer:
http://www.alscience.org/disclaimer.html
Err, the 2nd para in my previous should be italicized also, it's from PZ...
"Mississippi Has Highest Teen Birth Rate in the Nation"
Some experts have blamed the States increase on increased federal funding for abstinence-only health education that does not teach teens how to use condoms and other contraception.
Seems the state needs to move out of the 19th century.
Thank you kel and jj. Very concise. And very true.
Sara at #166 said-
I'm not sure I would call them idiots (well, actually I would), but they have been trained to perform some amazing mental gymnastics to work around the point you made. (There is a long tradition of this. Around 1400, one of Europe's best thinkers, Nicholas of Cusa, wrote an essay on how to reconcile learning with religion. It's titled "On Learned Ignorance." The title says it all.) They are being inconsistant in ther thinking, but they have been brought up to believe that dualism is proper- there's a long philosophical tradition of it. Blame Plato, and the people who blindly respect him without checking for errors.
As for the fate of college students not exposed to evolution in high school- most college students take no biology courses, unless their specific major requires it. Engineers usually take no biology, much less non-science majors.
Mississippi has the highest teen age pregnancy rate in the USA according to a story a few days ago. Nosing out Texas and New Mexico.
People focus on teen pregnancy rates for a reason. This is highly correlated with poverty levels and teen pregnancy often leads to life long poverty.
Ignorance, fundie xianity, and social problems all seem to go together wherever you look. Mississippi might want to get their own house in order before throwing rocks at the people who brought them the 21st century. Not as easy as lying for jesus but the benefits are greater.
I see others have noticed that the opening paragraph of the MS statement was cut and pasted from other sources (thanks Google for making that so easy).
How am I supposed to believe in ID when a MS politician can't even intelligently design his or her own paragraph.
In case anyone's interested, here's the bill on the Mississippi legislature's website. http://index.ls.state.ms.us/2009Session.html
It doesn't give bill status or anything like that as far as I can tell. Pretty lame website.
facilis: "No, they accurately defined theory up there in the sticker"
I don't agree really. They seem to be very skewed in how they portray a theory.
"The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world."
Okay, the word theory does have many meaning but in science it doesn't, it has a specific meaning that creationists ignore. Theories in science are indeed based on the natural world - they aim to explain the myriad facts we observe and gather about our universe. They are constantly tested and re-tested, put under incredible scrutiny. They are not flimsy ideas in the slightest, evolution least of all probably. And this is the issue. They paint it as that old chestnut of "just a theory":
"This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory."
Yes, while all statements of the origin of life will always be theories, given the very definition of a theory, this statement says essentially "this is JUST a theory - no-one was around to see it directly and therefore is wholly unreliable". However, not only does evolution not deal with abiogenesis (and it is shameful that this is included, speaking to the obviousness of the IDiotic hand in this), they miss the point about what evolution does actually say. This to me does not accurately or truthfully represent what a theory really is. And even if it did, it would then have to include EVERY theory, not just evolution.
Oops! My link at 128 won't get you straight to the bill. Just query for "evolution" and it'll be your only hit.
I've always figured that most creationists get their definition of theory from watching Scooby-Doo. You know how it works. About 2/3 the way through the episode somebody (invariably Fred or Velma) announces, "I have a THEORY!" No. Fred or Velma has a hypothosis. Daphne looks dumb but is probably working on her PhD in Paleontology and is sick of correcting them.
Watchman: Sure. But it's not God they're protecting - it's their own egos, which rest on the precious belief that they are SPECIAL in a way that no other living or non-living thing in the universe can possibly be. That's what it's really about.
Yup -- it's all about a vast, incredible sense of inferiority as they are incapable of recognizing any of the good they do (That's The Lord), and all the bad is theirs. Which of course, leads them in mass to fail magnificently over and over again, which leads to ever greater inadequacy as they can see that there are others who are more educated, more competent, kinder and all around "better" in the old Roman "virtu" sense.
Which only makes them hate more, and need more artificial source of feeding the ego. Most raging egomaniacs have very weak egos, just as few of the grossly obese have any sense of taste.
All the scientists could get together and agree to use the word "law" in place of "theory." The scientists would know all that changed was the name, but it might go a long way in silencing the "BUT IT'S JUST A THEORY!" crowd.
every time i hear this nonsense they spew when they say "origin of living things" i wanna scream.
that right there is an obvious admission that they have no understanding of evolution or the theory of natural selection.
i really doubt those textbooks have anything on the "origin of living things" seeing as nobody has anything concrete regarding how life first arose.
Can anyone link me to that video of Bush Sr. saying you had to be christian to be an American? It's a bit off topic, but a friend wants to see to believe... Thank you.
In 1999 the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee attempted a similar disclaimer. The Committee was composed of several creationist members knowingly appointed by Republican Governor Frank Keating. The disclaimer was rejected by the Oklahoma Attorney General, not on constitutional grounds (which by law he could not do - he can only offer an opinion), but because the action was not 'promulgated properly' and the action was taken in a closed meeting.
For details on these actions and more on why disclaimers are invalid, see items on the Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE, http://www.oklascience.org/) in the left column under both 'Articles and Flyers' and 'Archives.'
The actions of the Textbook Committee led to the formation of OESE in 2000-2001.
Yeah, except that laws and theories have different jobs to do in science.
It's cute how they wanna change science to suit their limited understanding.
"I'm not ignorant! You just make this science stuff so confusing."
If they are going to say evolution is just a scientific theory, they should also say that creationism and ID are purely religious ideas. Not even theories, and in no way scientific. Lets tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Oh yeah, Lying for JebusTM is required. Welcome to the bible Ignorance Belt.
I am just wondering how an equivalent disclaimer in the front of the bible would go down.
This book contains many contradictions and translation errors. There are many incitements to violence and people of a moral disposition may find sections offensive. Little of it, if any, can be verified and most people consider it a work of fiction.
OK. Flame away as you like, but where is the harm in teaching the controversy? As an Australian student, I studied biology in high school from age 12 to 16, then switched to physics for senior school (17-18) as it was closer to the math that I enjoyed. In University I even managed to avoid the math and got a degree in Computer Science. (Sorry PZ, but I don't understand any of the biology you mention in your blog. I love the posts on flawed logic though).
I still have a fond memory for learning about biology and genetics. The recessive and dominant gene. I am sure if I had known there was some controversy about it all, it would have been far more interesting. (I did get into a shouting match with my physics teacher who insisted light was a wave only, and failed to acknowledge any case were it behaved as a particle).
Whether the ideas around evolution are true or not (and I believe they are) then where is the harm in approaching the subject while equipping students with the ability to critically assess the material and figure it out for themselves?
As I see it, controversy makes the subject more interesting. And when they finish High School, and join the real world and the topic comes up at a local Tennis match or otherwise, they'll be able to explain why they know evolution is how it happened, rather than remembering Biology as something to do with dominant and recessive genes.
... what did you say? There is no controversy? Based on the sheer number of law suits that exist, I'd say there is. In the courts if not the science lab. So prepare kids for that. Teach them how to think, and it won't matter about a sticker on the front of the book.
Katherine, there is controversy only if there is a second theory in the scientific literature. There is no second theory in the literature, ergo, no controversy. The controversy is religion versus science, and only science should be taught in science class.
There is no controversy!!!!!!!!!! None.
Katherine. I'm thinking your not quite familiar with how the whole ID/Creationist gang works.
The only controversy is that it conflicts with biblical teachings. There's no conflict within science and academia.
"Teach the controversy" is a ruse to get "god/designer did it" into science class.
The only reason ID should be mentioned in science classes is to show the scientific method and how ID skips it. Wants to go from fairy tale to theory without any science done in between,
"The concept of god is only a hypothesis."
It's really more of an assertion.
"Some groups just want to put a harmless sticker on a book saying that evolution is just a scientific theory. "
If it's so harmless, then why are they even doing it? You can't possibly read that sticker and not conclude that it's a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and undermine the mission of the science educator. Why don't they attack any other scientific theories in the same way?
Look at it this way, we don't come into your workplace and tell you what to do or put stickers on everything you write. Yet there's an ignorant lobby (and you admitted yourself that most people who don't believe in evolution are uneducated) trying to meddle with scientific education to protect their delusions of grandeur. There's nothing innocent and non-assholeish about it.
Who capitalizes "tennis"?
Steve here you go.........
Here's a link
here's a great video that provides the quote as well.
The Teach Evolution Nowhere, Not in the States campaign
Katherine, in the scientific community there is no controversy except on how to deal with the creationists.
All there really is is a manufactroversy, created by the creationists because they can't produce any actual science only complaints.
Artificial molecule evolves in the lab
* 19:00 08 January 2009 by Ewen Callaway
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves…
Well, I guess not many of the students coming out of the Mississippi school system will end up doing anything like this, eh?
Katherine, there is controversy only if there is a second theory in the scientific literature.
I agree there isn't controversy over the Science of it all. On one hand you have a large number of fields which all rely on the ideas behind evolution, and in many ways are re-confirming evolution through new learnings built on it. And on the other hand you have a book.
So how does this end up in the courts? Why is this a debate?
Katherine. I'm thinking your not quite familiar with how the whole ID/Creationist gang works.
Actually, I spend more time on AiG (with Ken Hamm who doesn't believe creation should be taught in the classroom) and Conservapedia (with A Schafley, who doesn't think anything should be taught in a classroom) than here. I want to understand them. But I can't.
I just don't get it. What would a Creation Science lesson be? "OK Kids, God did it, we don't know how, and we can't cause God works in mysterious ways. We know it is Good though, cause the Bible says so. That about wraps it up. Time for an early lunch".
Nup. Still don't get it. And my head is hurting now. I'll figure it out one day. Why do they think what they think? Why do intelligent people with clear skills in reasoning (not the two I mentioned above) believe in a God who created the world in 7 days approx 4000 years ago?
If there was a controversy, then it should be taught. But the problem lies with one simple fact: there is no scientific controversy over the validity of evolutionary theory. The controversy only exists in the public. To make an analogy in an equivalent field, it would be like teaching holocaust denial if a suitable amount of the population didn't believe the holocaust happened. What is controversial in academia and what is controversial in society are two separate things.
I guess the Mississippians are a ignorant about evolution as the other states that have attempted this totally stupid idea
To extend the history analogy. Imagine if a sticker were placed on books regarding world war two:"The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Historical theories are based on both observations of the artefacts and assumptions about unrecorded events. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.This textbook discusses the holocaust, a controversial theory some historians present as a historical explanation for the genocide of the Jewish people. No one who was killed in the gas chambers survived to tell the tale. Therefore, any statement about the holocaust should be considered prone to error. The holocaust refers to the unproven belief that there was a systematic and deliberate genocide committed by the Nazis on Jews. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the events that transpired in the concentration camp which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the coercion Nazi officers post-WW2 into giving confessions; the lack of evidence of any explicit plan to commit such an atrocity; the lack of evidence that there was any bad treatment of the Jews by the Germans; and that there are many pieces of evidence that point to a Zionist conspiracy.Study hard and keep an open mind."The holocaust never happened, teach the controversy!
The controversy only exists in the public. To make an analogy in an equivalent field, it would be like teaching holocaust denial if a suitable amount of the population didn't believe the holocaust happened.
I like that. I think that is a good analogy. Explains why any 'controversy' shouldn't be in a biology class. (though I still wish there had been a 'critical thinking in science' class which covered this stuff when I was in school.)
Oh, science. Alright, I'm on this guys. They'll probably ignore me. Again. Wish me luck.
There is no scientific controversy. There are religious fanatics who are upset because science contradicts their creation myths. FWIW, the original writers of these myths almost certainly just thought they were stories. Within 2 pages of Genesis, there are two contradictory myths. Sure, they noticed and sure, they didn't think it was worth while editing the book.
That something is controversial says zero about whether it is right.
1. The round earth theory was controversial.
2. Heliocentrism was controversial. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for being a Copernican.
3. It was very controversial whether blacks were fully human and should be free instead of slave property. This controversy killed hundreds of thousands in a war that almost ended the USA.
4. Many people thought not too long ago and some do today that all the world's problems are due to the people who actually wrote the bible, the Jews. There was a controversy in some places in Europe about whether they should be allowed to live or not.
5. Women voting and holding complicated jobs was controversial and the jobs part within my memory.
Whether a viewpoint is controversial or not tells one little about whether it correct or right or worthwhile.
In point of fact, there are countless places for controversial subjects to be discussed. The internet, college campuses, courts, newspapers, TV etc. This happens every day, it is happening right now on Pharyngula.
One place where controversies between religious fanatics and science doesn't need to be fought is...CHILDREN'S SCIENCE CLASSES. Schools are for teaching kids what they need to know, not for fighting sociopolitical battles. Pretty obvious, if you are capable of rational thought. .
You need to figure out the difference between children, adults, schools, and open forums for adults.
Katherine,
Look in the archives. There are several that give you some ideas of what why & how PZ teaches. Its why a lot of us come lurking back year after year.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/why_teach_biology.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/how_do_you_teach_evolution.p…
How dare you sir. How DARE you. Science is not something that can be dictated in a committee, by some religious right, or by any persons of any religion, no matter their political orientation. Science is a reasoning system that uses empirical evidence and observation to make decisions. It certainly carries more weight than Yahweh or any of the old gods people still believe in. You want evidence that evolution is true? I can certainly provide. Look at the apes and human genomes. We can trace exactly where particular genes are, and what do you know, they're in the same places most of the time, 98.5% of the time, in fact. Yet, you think, well God just came down out of the heavens and said, "Alright, I like what we're going for, but this time let's go for more tool using and less feces flinging, alright? Great."
Not all of your constituents are religious, sir. You can't go around trying to accommodate the religious in science and not expect to lose votes. If you value all your constituents, you should reconsider this position. Leave science out of this, it's not your territory, nor is it any politician's territory to dictate what science is.
It's bills like this that make me ashamed to be a Mississippian sometimes. You want us to seriously be in the front of society? This isn't the way to do it. This is twelve steps back, not even one step forward. If science contradicts your creation myth, ignore it, or examine your beliefs. I know it's hard, it was for me, but it's an over all good thing to examine your beliefs. Granted, in Mississippi it's not a very safe thing, but only because we allow it to be that way.
If Yahweh is such a pathetically weak god that he can't use evolution, then I really can't understand why anyone bothers going around believing in him. Really, reason has to trump belief every time. If you prefer your faith, you can justify horrendous atrocities.
Your constituent,
Orson Zedd (not a real name, don't bother looking it up.)
At the risk of being accused of spamming I'd like to point out these warning stickers based on the Cobb County ones after the last round of sticker-gate. I think they should be applied to bibles.
http://www.cafepress.com/Justatheory
Bob at comment #10.....I found one of those bills here Indiana! Here's the digest: http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2009/IN/IN0095.1.html Where is this stuff coming from? What's the suggested defense against this? My first thought is that the law should also give a forum to students to express opinions on having NO faith.
raven @157:
I would have gone for "Katherine the Trying" rather than clueless. I think Kel's post on the holocaust summed up a lot of your points. I agree there is no 'science' controversy. Therefore, will conceed that the science classroom probably isn't the best place to bring up the political/religious controversy surrounding it all. Your last point is something I guess I hadn't paid too much attention too. There is a difference between how material needs to be presented to different groups (ie, kids or adults), and I need to remember that.
But there is something in the topic of evolution which is controversial, which fills many blogs (including this one), they make movies about it and has been going on for a fair while. Each side calling the other names isn't having the desired effect of the other side backing down and saying "Oh, yeah, we are wrong", which made me think that education is the answer. But you are right. There is a difference between what is taught in a kids science class and what can be more fully discussed in a forum aimed mostly at adults.
Caz Fan @158:
I'll have a look. Thanks for the links
Katherine, the harm is in teaching Flat-Earth Theory as a valid theory, or Creationism as a theory, or Holocaust deniers as theory.
There are limits, and it has certainly been crossed here. If any idiot can make any claim and have it contradict reality, the nyou gona end up with a country where a vast majority of the people are idiots and unedycated and thin kthat evolution is just "a theory"..... Do you know any country that claims first-world statues and have this?
I do.
The reason it ca nnot be accepted is this: Its not true.
Very simple. Just because they are ignorant of facts like evolution, spherical world and the holocaust does not give them the right to question it. They are, in one simple word, Idiots. Dangerous idiots that needs to be stopped.
Basically, to make it simple:
There is no controversy that Evolution happened, or that the Holocaust happened or that the world is Spherical, this is facts.
There is also no difference between anyone denying Evolution, denying the Holocaust or denying Spherical earth, they are the same, and ironically enough, the people that deny evolution usually are Spherical Earth believers, VERY CONTRADICTIORY, isn´t it?
Hmm... :)
Katherine,
In a nutshell, the public debate has come about because certain religious fundamentalists in the U.S. equate the teaching of evolution with the teaching of atheism and perceive a threat to their political and social influence. Read through Rep. Chism's suggested sticker or any antievolution bill and you'll see that they don't understand science, let alone modern evolutionary theory, but they know they're afraid of it. Argue with any creationist and it immediately becomes a religious (or to be charitable, philosophical) rather than a scientific discussion, whether they claim that the universe is 6,000 years old or that complex biological structures required supernatural help. Fear and ignorance are powerful motivators - every now and then I've defused a contentious response by patiently explaining that it's a matter of science, and the naysayers literally have no evidence (zero peer-reviewed research papers and holding). It's also particularly ironic that in perceiving a threat to their First Amendment rights (which teaching an anti-religious viewpoint in a public school science class would be), they turn around and...propose legislation that paves the way for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Hope I've managed to shed a little light on the situation. We have a rather distinctive social and political climate here in the States that makes this sort of large-scale brouhaha possible.
My good colleague Mr. Zedd at #159 wrote:
This is the point, in neat nutshell. We can't force you to accept science, but please don't pretend you have an objection on scientific grounds. I wish more fundamentalists were like the Amish and practiced what they preached, removing themselves from the hustle and bustle of the mainstream rather than trying to force everyone to accept a particular religious or social dogma. Plus, the Amish sell delicious food, but I digress....
James F said it all, very articulately, makes me all horny reading such a nice post.. mmm.. :)
chism is fucking funny looking lolllllllll - Refucklican lmfao- someone actually ELECTED him lollllll
Well god damn it all!
So... it's not that there are "topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life", it's just that the answers aren't in the textbook?
What would be the single best reference for each of: "the Cambrian Explosion", "the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record", "transitional forms", and on the DNA "plans"?
In other news, Mississippi officials apparently messed things up by releasing a press statement saying "Evolution is the only message teens need to hear", while simultaneously printing-off thousands of textbook stickers reading:
I guess two wrongs sometimes do make a right.
The controversy isn't any secret. It has been going on since Darwin presented his theory in 1859.
1. Creationism is mostly political and tribal identity building. Creos come from xian offshoot death cults based in the south central USA. Even the majority of xians don't buy it. They tend to be far right wing reactionaries fighting a rear guard battle to bring back the Dark Ages.
2. Since when does the length or intensity of a controversy make one side or the other legitimate. It doesn't. We fought a 5 year very bloody war in the USA over whether black people were property or worthy of freedom. The battles between Catholics and Protestants over who the Real Xians(TM) are, lasted 400 years, killed tens of millions, and is still going on although the shooting stopped 8 years ago
There is zero evidence for creationism or ID after 2,000 years. It is simply ancient mythology. They lost in the forum of science centuries ago. If you look where the battles are, it is school boards, courtrooms, and state legislatures. Because they can't convince anyone on the facts, they have to use political coercion. And that isn't working well either.
Yes, Evolution can't be trusted because it is only a theory, but the Bible is consistant and True/accurate always.
Give. Me. A fucking. Break.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Ts9hEDv6M
Ugh, they always leave a bitter aftertaste, these videos. But i'll take the 97% of it that makes sense, and ignore the very last bit. I assume that all of you will do the same.
Truth is, these kind of videos are extremaly common, i ran across like three just today. One slammed the Bible using verses to prove that Jesus couldn't possibly be the son of gawd [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfRkgukXyE4 ]- especially with respect to how the guy wore his many titles (and note- when the hell is Jesus Ever referred to as Emanuel, by anyone? Seems like a failed prophecy in and of itself). Curiously, they make the same agregious assumption that their word is somehow above scrutiny. Sigh. Well, half right is better than not at all. I Guess :-/
Sorry, i guess my last comment was off-topic. But i had to get it out.
Here is a stupid question, I'm really hoping one of you fine folks can answer: At what point in ones academic career is one likely to be subjected to topics such as the Cambrian Explosion? For my part I managed to achieve a B.Sc. without ever learning about the Cambrian Explosion, and consider myself to have a pretty good grasp of what makes up a Scientific Theory. Why are these disclaimers even necessary in the first place? Surely by the time one is required to tackle such issues as the Cambrian Explosion, one is well on one's way to an undergraduate degree, and should have a very clear idea of the difference between postulates, hypothesis and theories?
Seriously. I'm not baiting or anything. I really need to know.
And how can they get away with doing the totally incorrect thing of saying evolution is trying to explain abiogenisis??
"Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory."
When will hey get it into their heads that evolution is about the diversity of life, not it's origins.??
"Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence."
I know what they meant, but it sounds like they're saying: "There exist gaps, but there's no evidence that these gaps exist."
And I wonder why "theory" is capitalized here. "OMG LOL Evilution is a religion!"
I just read the page on "Representative Gary Chism".
After I' finished vomiting, I thought the description give ....
( "a Mason, York Rite and a Shriner. He is ...... He is of the Southern Baptist faith." )
Could be usefully shortened to:
"He is completely brain-fucked."
Katherine #151 asked,
A) Because they want to. The fantasy land that they live in is, in their view, better than reality. and
B) Because some thinkers 2300 years ago said that was OK.
Suggested reading: Bertrand Russell's The History of Western Philosophy
joeyess,
Thank you so much. I know it was a bit off topic, but that somebody here would know!
Evolution is a FACT based on a huge amount of evidence.
Intelligent Design is a (lame) theory based on absolutely NO evidence.
The word evolution can be accurately applied to both the observation that life changes through time (and yes, this observation can be described in various ways at the level of resolution I'm using it for in this comment--I merely chose one that's common) and the ToE, which explains that observation. Both are important. To assert or imply that evolution isn't a theory, but is instead a FACT, isn't accurate, and doesn't help. I'm not saying that's what you did, but just some clarification in case.
Josh - Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Jeremy @ #133
"All the scientists could get together and agree to use the word "law" in place of "theory."
If we simplify a bit...
Facts tell us what happens.
laws tell us how it happens.
theory tell us why it happens.
For example, Newton gave us the law of gravity, but
he could not explain what is gravity. So we had to wait for Einstein to have a theory of gravity.
So we have the fact of evolution, we have the laws of the evolution, and we have the theory of evolution.
They are different things
Please re-read my comment. Evolution can be referred to as both a fact and theory, depending on what you're specifically talking about, but the "fact of evolution" is NOT the same thing as the "theory of evolution." The fact of evolution is explained by the theory of evolution. The distinction is important. The statement "aircraft fly" offers no explanation as to why they do. The statement "aircraft fly" is analogous to the "fact of evolution." To simply say that evolution is both a fact and a theory is too oversimplified. That statement doesn't accurately describe the situation. This was the point that I was trying to make in the earlier comment. Perhaps I made it poorly.
Let me first of all offer a hearty fuck-you to everyone calling Mississippians stupid. Not all of us are dumb enough to allow this garbage to go uncontested. The fuck-you goes twice to those who think we should secede.
Secondly, I will be writing letters to every major newspaper in the state and my representative (which, now that I think of it, may in fact be Chism...sigh), plus the student newspapers of my two universities. I hope that you will join me in fighting this rather than pointing and laughing. (Save that for when it passes...sigh again.
Sara,
Many universities have remedial classes to make up for the students poor education prior to arriving at college.
OT but did anyone notice the quote at the bottom of that Die Welt article? Nick Spencer said "If a pilot said to me 'the flight from London to Paris will probably not crash,' then I would take the train." Pascal's Wager anyone?
How many non-witnesses does it take to equal one witness? I ask because as I recall there were no on site witnesses to the resurrection. Yet, I rarely if ever hear it referred to as 'just a theory'.
domo arigato gozaimashita
Not for the first time I have to mention Gould's brief and very readable chapter in Bully for Brontosaurus ("Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding") which lays to rest the whole "Evolution can't explain the origin of life so it's wrong and speculative and blah, blah, blah" claim.
I wish there were a way to require everyone who enters public office to read it before they're sworn in.
I bring this up every time this argument pops up in order to maybe, possibly, perhaps goad someone into reading it who might not otherwise. Yeah, I know. But I can dream, can't I?
The link to more info on the book.
I've written to several Mississippi newspapers about this. (Won't do much good to write to my rep, he's Chism. Ugh.) It may not get published, so the text is here: http://www.sappari-zenzen.net/?p=113
Way back up in the thread Sara wrote:
I know lots of other people already pointed out that many high schools do, in fact, teach evolution competently, so I figured I'd rather address that comment about Americans being "some of the most un-educated people on the planet." Every so often, the National Science Foundation releases a report on Science and Engineering Indicators. The section relevant to this discussion is Chapter 7. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding, where citizens are polled on basic science questions, and then their answers are compared to the results from other countries (see my blog for more discussion and tables). True, for evolution and the big bang, which contradict a literal reading of Genesis, Americans score worse than most countries. But, once you move to other topics, Americans are on par with the European Union, and better than many other countries. For example, on the question "Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?" the overall average of correct answers was around 70%, with 75% of U.S. residents answering correctly, and 66% of EU residents answering correctly (South Korea had the most correct responses at 86%, with Malaysia and India scoring 71% and 70%, respectively. No data existed for other countries. I still find it amazing that anyone could answer that question incorrectly). On the question, "Electrons are smaller than atoms [true or false]," U.S. residents scored the highest at 48%, with the EU, South Korea, and Russia close behind at 46%, 46%, and 44%, respectively. So, the problem of evolution doesn't seem to be so much problem of the overall quality of science education in the U.S. (it could still be better), but rather a concentrated attack on specific subjects motivated by religious concerns.
Just as a clarification, that last sentence in my above comment is meant in comparison to other countries. Obviously, when 1 in 4 people in a country think that the Sun goes around the Earth, there's definitely room for improvement in the education system.
OK, it looks like commenting is coming back, so let me take this opportunity to say that I think my disclaimer is funnier.
alternate disclaimer
"This bible contains material on divinity and theology. There are many
competing theories of divinity and theology. This material should be
approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically
considered. You should study all competing theories of divinity and
theology before drawing your own conclusions as to the validity of the
material contained in this bible. "
lol, that is funny. I think I'll have to buy the book on that alone :P