• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stage set for evolution/creationism textbook battle

Wolverine

Centered and One
Wolverine
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
1,722
Location
Seattle, WA
Story

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.
Click to expand...

This is going to be interesting.
 
Wolverine said:
Story

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.
Click to expand...

"Who are those guys?" -Sundance Kid
 
Behold, the wonders of public education.
 
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.
 
Zep said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 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.”
Click to expand...

Forty names of purported scientists from Texas are listed at the bottom of the page.
 
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.
 
corplinx said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is such a person, the Rev. Roger Paynter, and he spoke at the Texas Board of Education hearing (from this link)
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."
Click to expand...

May his God bless him.
 
Wolverine said:


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 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pgwenthold said:
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).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the contribution. Imagine my surprise. ;)
 
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).
 
pgwenthold said:



For every "Nobel nominee Fritz Schaefer",
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
tedly said:
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.
Click to expand...


Interesting...Teach it as science so it can be debunked.
 
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.
 
Ed said:


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:


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

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.
Click to expand...

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


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom