Biology amendments

Lawrence Allen proposes to strike the noxious 7B from Biology standards. That standard states: "analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record."

McLeroy claims that evolution can't explain stasis or sudden appearance. Must I observe that stabilizing selection is kinda well-documented?

McLeroy would've brought his evidence had he known he had he'd face this again: "I have the Time magazine cover."

"It's not complicated! I disagree with these experts."

"Yes, it's hard to stand up to these brilliant, wonderful people."

All the standard would require, apparently, is "looking at a chart." WTF?

"The fossil record still has problems," he insists.

Dunbar says this is redundant with the new 3(A). This will help develop "the most critical thinkers."

Cargill responds to Allen's worry about a conflict between 7(A) and 7(B). 7(A) states that the fossil record provides evidence of common ancestry. Cargill gets scared by "anatomical, molecular, and developmental" in 7(A). She's got 10,000 fossils, mostly clams and snails, and they all look the same, even though "I've been told they're millions of years old."

Bradley notes that half the experts oppose, have support, dropping 7(B).

Knight supports the motion.

Craig thinks 3(A) covers this ground, and agrees that the amendment.

Agosto decries the demonization he's gotten outside the Board, and will vote for the amendment.

Mercer worries that we won't address "the sudden appearance of species."

Berlanga says that when you need legal advice, you go to a lawyer, when you're sick, you get a doctor, and with this, we need to listen to the scientists. Cites the Kansas process, though she claims that went to court. She's thinking of Kitzmiller, I think.

Mercer again, who wants to have "sudden appearance" in there. "There is a sudden appearance, that's a fact." Claims that striking it means "we're not gonna talk about it," even though these just set minimum."

McLeroy: "Who am I, a dentist, … to question…?" OK… Claims this is an appeal to authority, but it's an appeal to expertise. "Science doesn't operate on consensus." Quotemines Gould, again, now from Wonderful Life, p. 253, 279.

Now he goes after 21st Century Science Coalition, claims it's false that science relies on evolution. Insists "there is reasonable doubt." He thinks it should be "genetics" instead of evolution. Evolution is "about ideology." Genetics is the foundation of modern biology, he insists. Genetics goes to "a Christian monk." Evolution "goes back to a man who [something] philosophical speculation." He says, "the data does not support evolution."

Motion passes, 8-7.

More like this

Dunbar jumped in line, and is trying to reinsert a new 7(B), slightly varied from the one just stricken. "analyze and evaluate the sufficiency of scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil record." Allen likes it…
Ecto crash cost me a liveblog. Leo offered BS amendments which don't do much ultimate harm, but do hurt treatment of evolution. Each part of biology 7 gets "analyze and evaluate" at the beginning of the standard. This makes some sections ungrammatical or irrelevant. McLeroy passed an amendment…
It's the Discovery Institute's Rob Crowther, of course! I'm in Texas right now, gearing up for the second round of science standards hearings. I'll be testifying 2nd tomorrow, right after what looks to be a very impressive news conference. Anyway, Crowther, Disco. DJ, is upset that people…
An amendment by Cargill is being passed around. It changes ESS standards. Will it change the age of the earth? Oh, I'm so anxious I could plotz. Amendment is on the page listing "(4) Earth in space and time." She says it adds qualifiers. Seeks "humility and tentativeness." She wants to insert "…