Stage set for evolution/creationism textbook battle

[Wolverine]

Story (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2194967)

AUSTIN -- Texas will be under the microscope this week in the fight over teaching evolution in public schools as the State Board of Education votes on adopting biology textbooks that have been at the center of the debate.

The board meets Thursday and Friday and is set to consider proposed changes submitted by 11 publishers. The board's decisions -- which could determine which textbooks publishers offer to dozens of states -- will end a review process that has been marked by months of heated debate over the theory of evolution.

Religious activists and proponents of alternative science urged publishers to revise some of the 10th-grade books and want the board to reject others, saying they contain factual errors regarding the theory of evolution. Mainstream scientists assert that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a cornerstone of modern research and technology.

Board members can only vote to reject books based on factual errors or failure to follow state curriculum as mandated by the Legislature.

"There's a bait and switch going on here because the critics want the textbooks to question whether evolution occurred. And of course they don't because scientists don't question whether evolution occurred," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the California-based National Center for Science Education.

Among those questioning the textbooks are about 60 biologists from around the country who signed a "statement of dissent" about teaching evolution and said both sides of the issue should be taught. Several religious leaders also testified against teaching evolution.

This is going to be interesting.

[tedly]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Story (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2194967)

Among those questioning the textbooks are about 60 biologists from around the country who signed a "statement of dissent" about teaching evolution and said both sides of the issue should be taught. Several religious leaders also testified against teaching evolution.



"Who are those guys?" -Sundance Kid

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by tedly
Who are those guys?

I too am curious to know. Going to do some digging...

[Tony]

Behold, the wonders of public education.

[Zep]

I will NOT be surprised if these "60 biologists" are actually creationist "scientists" from the Creation Science Foundation of Los Angeles, or similar and related kook organisations.

That is, the same old woo-woo creationist faces as have turned up many times before.

Keep an eye out for Ken Ham, A. A. Snelling, Carl Weiland, Duane Gish.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Zep
I will NOT be surprised if these "60 biologists" are actually creationist "scientists" from the Creation Science Foundation of Los Angeles, or similar and related kook organisations.

Yep.

I wasn't able to find a specific list (although by all means feel free to trump my google skills), but did locate this release (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=News&command=view&id=1555) from one of the main advocates from the creationism/ID side of the fence, which claims 250 scientists around the world have signed this "statement of dissent":

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Forty names of purported scientists from Texas are listed at the bottom of the page.

[corplinx]

Its really simple. In science class we teach science.

Certainly there has to be a somewhat rational creationist out there that can at least concede that.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by corplinx
rational creationist

LOL. :D

I'm surprised the forum didn't explode from placing those two terms together.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by corplinx
Its really simple. In science class we teach science.

Certainly there has to be a somewhat rational creationist out there that can at least concede that.

There is such a person, the Rev. Roger Paynter, and he spoke at the Texas Board of Education hearing (from this link (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2003/TX/644_testimony_on_texas_textbooks_9_12_2003.asp))
The Reverend Roger Paynter of Austin's First Baptist Church testified, "It is my deep conviction that creation flows from the hand of a creator God. But that is a statement of faith and not something that I or anyone else can prove in a scientific experiment. To lead children to believe otherwise is a disservice to them."

May his God bless him.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Yep.

I wasn't able to find a specific list (although by all means feel free to trump my google skills), but did locate this release (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=News&command=view&id=1555) from one of the main advocates from the creationism/ID side of the fence, which claims 250 scientists around the world have signed this "statement of dissent":



Forty names of purported scientists from Texas are listed at the bottom of the page.

That includes all scientists, including physicists. And in the article, they list Fritz Schaefer, who is a theoretical chemist from Georgia, so they are stretching to find any support they can.

And the list is also well out of date, because Walkup hasn't been at Texas Tech for at least 7 years (quit academia to go to medical school).

250 scientists from around the world have signed this "statement of dissent." 40 scientists from Texas. How many scientists are there in Texas? More than 400? If so, that means it is at most 10%. Not much of a movement.

For every "Nobel nominee Fritz Schaefer", I can give you probably 200 living actual Nobel Lauriates who disagree with him. In fact, didn't the Nobel Lauriates send a statement to the Supreme Court on this issue?

Funny, why didn't the press release mention the National Academy of Sciences stance? You want to throw names around? The Academy has a very clear statement about its position on evolution.

I've heard Schaefer give a talk about god. It was one big non-sequitor.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
That includes all scientists, including physicists. And in the article, they list Fritz Schaefer, who is a theoretical chemist from Georgia, so they are stretching to find any support they can.

And the list is also well out of date, because Walkup hasn't been at Texas Tech for at least 7 years (quit academia to go to medical school).

Thanks for the contribution. Imagine my surprise. ;)

[Schizobunny]

I am in eighth grade and I know very well that I do not want to be taught something like creationism in my school, because if we waste so much time on things without evidence(i.e. creationism) we will never get to the facts(i.e. evolution).

[Ed]

Originally posted by pgwenthold



For every "Nobel nominee Fritz Schaefer",

Last time I looked, there are no "nominees" for a Nobel in the sense that there is a run off election. I think that names are put forward by pretty much anyone and the committee looks at them and everyone else in order to make a choice.

[tedly]

A very interesting author. Niel Postman, of "Amusing Ourselves to Death" and "The End of Childhood" says some where (and I won't be able to find the quote for a while) that we should teach creation science in the classroom.

But teach it as science.

Science requires, at a minimum, that our system of knowledge be internally non-contradictory. So you have to read at least to Genesis II to find that the inerrant scientific reference isn't. Ten Minutes into class I and you'd have them trying to pull it out of Science.

Through the sound barrier and all the controls reverse.

[Tony]

Originally posted by tedly
A very interesting author. Niel Postman, of "Amusing Ourselves to Death" and "The End of Childhood" says some where (and I won't be able to find the quote for a while) that we should teach creation science in the classroom.

But teach it as science.

Science requires, at a minimum, that our system of knowledge be internally non-contradictory. So you have to read at least to Genesis II to find that the inerrant scientific reference isn't. Ten Minutes into class I and you'd have them trying to pull it out of Science.

Through the sound barrier and all the controls reverse.


Interesting...Teach it as science so it can be debunked.

[3-toed-sloth]

I teach biology, and this is just plain stupid. It is sad that America is one of the few countries where this kind of blatant lunacy still goes on.

Clearly if we are going to teach the Christian version of things, we should also include the Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian, and all of the ancient Roman, Greek, Incan, and Egyptians version of things.

One time somebody asked me if I taught creation in my class, I was polite and told him that I didn't.

I wanted to tall him that I teach biology not mythology.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
For every "Nobel nominee Fritz Schaefer", I can give you probably 200 living actual Nobel Lauriates who disagree with him. In fact, didn't the Nobel Lauriates send a statement to the Supreme Court on this issue?

That's exactly what happened in Edwards v. Aguillard.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Ed


Last time I looked, there are no "nominees" for a Nobel in the sense that there is a run off election. I think that names are put forward by pretty much anyone and the committee looks at them and everyone else in order to make a choice.

Well, the names submitted are technically the "nominees." OTOH, the list of nominees is not publically released, so this is pretty heavy PR. And as you say, anyone can be nominated.

I'm sure Schaefer has been nominated. Heck, he may actually win it someday, for work in theoretical chemistry, not biology or biochem.

OTOH, his best days have passed him up. In the early days of computational chem, Schaefer was at the forefront. However, with the popularization of Gaussian9X, he has been left behind, still doing the types of stuff that was popular when calculations were not routinely done on a desktop PC.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


That's exactly what happened in Edwards v. Aguillard.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

Excellent. Thank you.

So I'll give them their "Nobel Nominee Fritz Schaefer" and offer Nobel Prize winners:

Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.

They don't want to get into an appeal to authority battle, because they are going to lose big time.

[ShowMe]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.textbooks.ap/index.html


Texas has approved the books, even though some of the board members wanted to vote on the books one by one.

Occasionally one runs into a quote that makes one realize exactly how out-of-touch with reality the religious zealots can be. Case in point:

People don't realize the threat of scientific dogmatism, he said. They're not looking for the truth.


Mr. McLeroy, not only have these scientists looked for the truth...they've found it. And have put it up in big, bright, shiny letters (with spotlights and exclamation points) for anyone willing to crack open a textbook and read it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony
Behold, the wonders of public education.

That's right Tony, no one in private or home education is taught Creationism.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That's right Tony, no one in private or home education is taught Creationism.

Woosh!!

Hear that? Thats the sound of something going over your head.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Dragon


There is such a person, the Rev. Roger Paynter, and he spoke at the Texas Board of Education hearing (from this link (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2003/TX/644_testimony_on_texas_textbooks_9_12_2003.asp))


May his God bless him.

Why can't more xtians be like this guy, since
perhaps striving to be like Christ is beyond the call of duty?

[shecky]

Originally posted by Tony

Woosh!!

Hear that? Thats the sound of something going over your head.

Nasty, nasty, nasty... :hit:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


Woosh!!

Hear that? Thats the sound of something going over your head.

Hang on, are you saying you think public education is better than private? That would be atypical for you.

[deBergerac]

Originally posted by shecky


Why can't more xtians be like this guy, since
perhaps striving to be like Christ is beyond the call of duty?

Most Christians I know (including myself) are like this guy but they/we are not the ones making all the noice.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by ShowMe
Texas has approved the books, even though some of the board members wanted to vote on the books one by one.

I breathed a sigh of relief, until about 30 seconds ago when I found this press release (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031107/sff038_1.html):

Textbook Reformers See Last-Minute Victory in Texas Decision

The Texas State Board of Education voted today to adopt proposed biology textbooks for use in state schools after being promised by the Commissioner of the Texas Education Agency that all remaining factual errors in the textbooks will have to be addressed by publishers before the textbooks can be placed in the hands of students.

The Commissioner initially made the pledge at Thursday's board meeting, and then reiterated it strongly before the final vote on Friday. A number of Board members at Friday's meeting indicated that remaining factual errors will now have to be fixed. Board member Don McLeroy praised the Commissioner's pledge, noting that such remaining errors as the claim that human embryos have "gill slits" will need to be addressed by publishers before their books can be distributed to students.

"This is real progress in the cause of science education reform," said Bruce Chapman, Discovery Institute President. "We were already happy that a number of embarrassing errors that overstate the evidence for evolutionary theory were being fixed -- for example, two textbook publishers have proposed removing Haeckel's faked embryo diagrams from the 1800s."

Now, is this just trying to spin the story to make it appear that the fundies achieved a minor victory? Who determines what the "remaining factual errors" are, and how exactly will they be "addressed?"

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Hang on, are you saying you think public education is better than private? That would be atypical for you.


Damn!! You still dont get it, do you need me to spell it out for you?

[Bentspoon]

Quote from Tony:

"Damn!! You still dont get it, do you need me to spell it out for you?"

It reminds me of some of my fights with my ex-wife.

I guess I still don't get it because she never did tell me.

Bent

[epepke]

Originally posted by tedly
A very interesting author. Niel Postman, of "Amusing Ourselves to Death" and "The End of Childhood" says some where (and I won't be able to find the quote for a while) that we should teach creation science in the classroom.

But teach it as science.

This is an appealing notion, and I have had many fantasies about it. The problem, however, is that the public school system almost never teaches science. What it teaches are The Sciences, i.e. the body of information that has come out from science. Almost never will you encounter in a public school the actual teaching of the scientific method, and then, it's usually by maverick teachers. Mostly, it's just dry facts and assertions, with a lot of history thrown in to mollify the humanities types.

[Schizobunny]

Originally posted by Tony



Interesting...Teach it as science so it can be debunked.

You do realize it would just backfire and more people would believe in creationism.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony



Damn!! You still dont get it, do you need me to spell it out for you?

It might help.

[Yahweh]

So, how are we supposed to go about teaching creationism in a way that doesnt sound like "there is some invisible being that manipulates the physical world".

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
And in the article, they list Fritz Schaefer, who is a theoretical chemist from Georgia, so they are stretching to find any support they can.

Aside from this scientist speaking completely out of his field of expertise, what is his field of expertise? And what in the Hell is "theoretical chemistry"?

[fishbob]

So, how are we supposed to go about teaching creationism in a way that doesnt sound like "there is some invisible being that manipulates the physical world". That is exactly how it should be taught. Some people think that some invisible being is manipulating the physical world because . . . , well, just because. So there.

Point out all the supporting evidence for creationism - which should take no more than about a minute and half. Point out just a few of the inaccuracies that the creationists put forward as evidence. This could take a couple of weeks.

Then move on to something useful.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Yahweh


Aside from this scientist speaking completely out of his field of expertise, what is his field of expertise?


Theoretical chemistry



And what in the Hell is "theoretical chemistry"?

Theoretical chemistry is the field of the study and development of theoretical methods used to predict molecular (i.e. chemical) properties and reactivity. Usually focuses on structure and corresponding properties of molecules, or on predicting the details of chemical reactivity (characterizing what happens when two particles interact with each other, including issues of product distribution and energy proportioning)

[scarlet_35]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Excellent. Thank you.

So I'll give them their "Nobel Nominee Fritz Schaefer" and offer Nobel Prize winners:



They don't want to get into an appeal to authority battle, because they are going to lose big time.

a little off the topic here but in that list of names is "Barbara McClintock" and that just happened to be my maiden name, its kind of neat how familiar things pop out at you. I'm sure she's of no relations to me. still it was cool :)

Ok continue :p