Stephen Meyer (creationist) makes official recommendation to Texas Ed. Board

[Slimething]

Front loaded evolution is the belief that all of the genetic information was contained in the earliest organisms and that what we see as evolution is nothing more than the genes turning on and off at a given moment. As I said above random mutations shoot that theory down.

Gene mapping would also put that idiocy to rest. Unless, of course, god made the missing genetic material undetectable to us humans.

Lets just scrap biology alltogether, and physics class too, since it is built around these ideas as well.

Please add chemistry to that list. For me?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Oh. Their. God.

I found this transcript of a speech McElroy gave at a College Station church in 2005 on the TFN website.
http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mcleroylecture

 

[Questioninggeller]

Cynthia Dunbar and Don McLeroy using creationist sources

Look where two Texas Board of Education members get their sources on evolution demonstrated during the hearing:

...
In the course of 6 hours of testimony, witnesses constantly asked what these "weaknesses" were, and got no clarity. Finally, at an ungodly hour, Cynthia Dunbar (the one who thinks public schools are evil and that President Obama is a s3kr1t Mussulman) gave her explanation. In the course of doing so, she perpetuated blatant falsehoods about a Nobel Prize-winning doctor.
...
So Dunbar wants Arber's response, eh? Taking her advice, I did Google him. One thing I learned is that he did not publish anything in September, but an article by Jerry Bergman was published about him in that month's issue of Acts & Facts, the newsletter of the young earth creationist Institute for Creation Research.
...
Dr. Arber also wrote back, with thanks for alerting him to the problem. He included a statement he had sent to ICR refuting the article and Dunbar's interpretation of it, adding that I was "welcome to make use of this statement in relevant situations." He also pointed out a common problem in dealing with creationists: "I slowly learn to write my papers by taking care to reduce the chance of misinterpretation, but this is not easy." Given creationists' propensity for misrepresentation and quotemining, it is indeed difficult to prevent such misinterpretation.
...

Full story: "How the Texas Board of Ed. misrepresented a Nobel Prize winner"

OK, source #1: Institute for Creation Research

and Don McLeroy

...
McLeroy: What about teeth? McLeroy refers to "the latest article on the topic, 'Tooth Evolution Theory Lacks Bite.'" You mean this article from Creation Safaris? C'mon, at least make us work at this, Don.
...

Full story: Liveblogging the interminable Meyer

OK, source #2: Creation Safaris

So you have two people, including the chair of the board, getting information about evolution for lying creationist sources.

Also you can hear Stephen in the same breath deny he's a creationist and deny common descent. Why give Meyer a platform? He's not even a scientist, he's a historian of science! Can we see if Michael Shermer wants to testify to balance this out?

PS The audio of the hearing will be posted online.

More on Cynthia Dunbar:

Education official refuses to retract Obama terror claim
Associated Press/Houston Chronicle
Nov. 3, 2008, 6:44PM

State Board of Education member Cynthia Dunbar isn't backing down from her claim that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is plotting with terrorists to attack the U.S.
...

Source

 

[CriticalThanking]

Breaking news from TFN:

Just hours ago, the State Board of Education (SBOE) voted 8-7 to reject efforts by creationists to reinsert into draft curriculum standards sweeping language -- "strengths and weaknesses" -- used to undermine sound science education. If this vote stands, a key weapon creationists have used to attack evolution will be swept from the standards.

But creationists on the board managed to sneak through other changes that complicate important parts of the standards. One change would have students question a core concept of evolutionary biology, common descent. It was a stunning display of arrogance, with the board's far-right faction pretending to know more about science than the teachers and scientists who crafted the standards draft.

I am going to see if I can find detail on the common descent language.

CT

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

- edit
{oops, should have read more carefully, link posted was to 10 months ago}

- 2nd edit, the comments on this DMN article from Wed. are quite heartening actually.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...st/stories/012209dnmetevolution.15b9b71f.html

 

[Corsair 115]

Lets just scrap biology alltogether, and physics class too, since it is built around these ideas as well.

Astronomy will probably have to go too; after all, it's got that nasty Big Bang theory, and it claims the universe is about 13.7 billion years old.

 

[Hawk one]

Bravo to Stephen Meyer. Atheism has been sneaked into the classroom for close to a century now and it's time to put an end to it.

Since the theory of evolution doesn't have anything to do with atheism (a lie that creationists have spouted for well over a century now), what relevance does this comment have to the OP?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Arrrggh! The Stupid!

If any of you D-FW folks are able to, listen to KSKY 660am. The host on there has been droning on for 25 minutes about teaching Creationism and how the SBOE outlawed it.

Apparently he is unaware that Edwards v. Aguillard makes teaching Creationism unconstitutional and that the current debate is about "teaching the controversy".

Idiot!!!!

 

[alfaniner]

In a strange way, I suppose we should all thank True Skeptic. He/she is showing us all the next front in the creationist war against science, complete with the newest wave of rhetorical arguments and relabeling ("scientific creationism" --> "intelligent design" --> "front-loaded evolution").

And the first time this will be plainly obvious is when they produce books with the term "intellifront-loaded evolutiongent design " all over the place.

 

[Questioninggeller]

"Weaknesses" removed from Texas science standards

The National Center for Science Education reports:

"Weaknesses" removed from Texas science standards
January 23rd, 2009 Texas General 2009 press
PRESS RELEASE

In a close vote on Friday, the Texas State Board of Education approved revised science standards which removed controversial language mandating that students be taught the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories.

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) applauds this move, since the references to "weaknesses" in the old standards have been used to introduce creationist attacks on evolution in textbooks and classrooms.
...
Unfortunately, the Board took a sizable step backward, says Dr. Scott. Last-minute amendments to the Earth and Space Science standards and the Biology standards could allow creationists to smuggle their views back into the classroom.

Steve Newton, a geologist and public information project director at NCSE, expressed concern about an amendment offered by Chairman Don McLeroy, an avowed creationist. "This amendment inserts creationist catchphrases like 'sudden appearance' into the heart of the biology standards, and misrepresents the state of modern geology. The board should consult with the geologists who work the oilfields of Texas, and then remove this inaccurate amendment."
...
During debate, several board members were upset they weren't given time to review these amendments and to seek expert opinion.
...
In a 2005 report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Texas was one of 15 states to earn an "F" for its science standards; it received a "1" (out of a possible 3) for its evolution education. (See www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=352&pubsubid=1132#1132.)

http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/01/weaknesses-removed-from-texas-science-standards-004231

 

[GodMark2]

And the first time this will be plainly obvious is when they produce books with the term "intellifront-loaded evolutiongent design " all over the place.

Shouldn't that be "cdesign propfront-loaded evolitionistsonentsists"?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Since the theory of evolution doesn't have anything to do with atheism (a lie that creationists have spouted for well over a century now), what relevance does this comment have to the OP?

Nothing. It is simply a creationist strawman argument. Rather than argue actual science, the true-believer creationists keep pushing the Darwin -> evolution -> atheism (& communism) -> immorality -> destruction of civilization line of argumentation.

If anyone had any doubts that TS was a creationist hack, as soon as he/she posted this nonsense it should have made things pretty clear.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The National Center for Science Education reports:

http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/01/weaknesses-removed-from-texas-science-standards-004231

Ah well, two steps forward - one step back. Keep on fightin'!

ETA: I think I'll be writing a check to NCSE very soon. And to the Texas Freedom Network.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Explore Evolution

Explore Evolution, the book by Stephen Meyer and Scott Minnich (two of the three creationists who made recommendations to the Texas Board), was just reviewed:

Explore Evolution as creationist nostalgia
January 24th, 2009

Even as the Discovery Institute's Stephen C. Meyer was trying to convince the Texas state board of education of his scientific bona fides, the antievolution textbook he coauthored was receiving a scathing review in a top scientific journal. Reviewing Explore Evolution for Evolution & Development (2009; 11 [1]: 124-125), Brian D. Metscher of the University of Vienna described it as "159 glossy pages of color-illustrated creationist nostalgia," adding, "All the old favorites are here — fossils saying no, all the Icons, flightless Ubx flies, irreducible flagella, even that irritating homology-is-circular thing. There are no new arguments, no improved understanding of evolution, just a remastered scrapbook of the old ideas patched together in a high-gloss package pre-adapted to survive the post-Dover legal environment. The whole effort would be merely pathetic if it did not actually represent a serious and insidious threat to education."
...
As a specialist in evolutionary developmental biology, Metscher took particular exception to Explore Evolution's misrepresentations of his field, writing, "More or less everything we call 'evo-devo' is meant to augment evolutionary theory to include factors other than the coding genome, and so these authors cite evo-devo works by real scientists as 'critiques' of 'neo-Darwinism.'" In one particularly egregious case he discussed, a claim in Explore Evolution about the evolution of the four-chambered heart "is supported by citing a single article ... which does not mention heart development, but does discuss developmental (non-neo-Darwinian) sources of evolutionary novelty. The next paragraph refers to it as a 'critique of neo-Darwinism.' And this after giving an explicit warning against the logical fallacy of equivocation." He also complained of the book's "outright abuse" when it comes to its citation of the scientific literature.

Metscher's review thus confirms John Timmer's assessment of Explore Evolution: "anyone using this as a source of information about science in the classroom will leave their students with a picture of modern biology that is essentially unrelated to the way that science is actually practiced within the biological science community." Citing Nick Matzke's 2006 discussion in Reports of the NCSE of the impending debut of Explore Evolution, Metscher expressed concern that "Together with new state education bills allowing local groups to push this stuff into classrooms, it will help dilute and weaken the already thin preparation students receive for dealing with a world full of information they need to be able to think about." Louisiana, where the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education recently adopted a policy about what types of supplementary classroom materials will, and will not, be allowable under the Louisiana Science Education Act, is the most salient case in point.

Source

 

[Questioninggeller]

After the last minute of McLeroy slipping a change in the day of the vote, now Texas students will:

7B:

Describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common descent to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of the fossil record.

Anyone who knows basics about evolution knows that sentence is nonsense. But McLeroy and the other creationists won again.

Scientists: Board proposals undermine evolution teaching
Houston Chronicle
By GARY SCHARRER AUSTIN BUREAU
Jan. 23, 2009, 10:02PM

AUSTIN — Texas schools won’t have to teach the weaknesses of evolution theories anymore, but the State Board of Education ushered in other proposed changes Friday that some scientists say still undermine evolution instruction and subject the state to ridicule.

The new proposals came just one day after the board — in a move celebrated by many scientists — narrowly agreed to delete a provision in current curriculum standards that requires teachers to instruct students in weaknesses and strengths of evolution theory.

The “strengths and weaknesses” standard has been a staple in the curriculum for about 20 years.

On Friday, however, the board looked again at the issue and decided students should have to evaluate a variety of fossil types and assess the arguments against universal common descent, which serves as a main principle of evolution — that all organisms have a common ancestor.

The board’s effort to undermine “universal common descent” in public schools will make the state’s science standards “an object of ridicule,” said Steve Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science.

“It’s really unscientific. It promotes creationism. It says that students will be required to learn arguments against common descent or ancestral connections,” Schafersman said. “The only alternative to common descent is creationism in their minds.”

Scientists vowed to fight the plan before the board takes final action in March. New science curriculum standards will influence new science textbooks for the state’s 4.7 million public school children beginning in the 2010-11 school year.

One board member who pushed for the change said that fossil records create scientific evidence against universal common descent — and students should be allowed to study the possibility.
...
She scoffed at claims that social conservatives on the 15-member board were just trying to find another way to expose students to creationism — the belief that life, Earth and the universe were created by a supreme being.

“This isn’t about religion. I don’t know how many times we have to say it before people accept it,” she said. “It’s about science. We want to stick to the science.”

Also added to the proposed standards by board Chairman Don McLeroy, R-Bryan, is an amendment that directs science teachers and students to “describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.”

Proposed change ‘absurd’

They are asking students to explain something that does not exist, said David Hillis, a biology professor at the University of Texas at Austin and MacArthur Foundation “genius award” winner.

“This new proposed language is absurd. It shows very clearly why the board should not be rewriting the science standards, especially when they introduce new language that has not even been reviewed by a single science expert,” Hillis said.
...
“We view this as one step back, two steps forward,” said John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Seattle that disputes the theory of evolution....
...

Source

 

[Sherman Bay]

It should be easy for the instructors. On the day when "describe the ... insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record” is on the agenda, the teacher says, "There isn't any. Next question?"