In Texas and Louisiana, Dinosaurs Steer Science Education

In a not-so-veiled attempt to inject summa dat ole time religion into science classes, Louisiana legislators passed a bill that allows educators to "supplement school science textbooks with other materials when teaching."  It doesn't take a genius to figure out what "other materials" these lawmakers want added to the science curriculum.  Certainly nothing related to, y'know, science.  Just last week the so-called "Louisiana Science Education Act" ended up on the desk of Republican Governor Bobby Jindal who signed it in a hummingbird second.  Religious fundies rejoiced.  From ardyess's diary on Kos:  LSEA is being touted as providing the "critical thinking" so desperately required by students in Louisiana’s public school science classes for their success in life.  However, this bill was basically written by none other that Seattle’s Discover Institute, the home base of Intelligent Design.  And as most of us are aware, courts in Dover, Pennsylvania, and Cobb County, Georgia, have in cases decided against the Discovery Institute, ruling that Intelligent Design is basically akin to teaching biblical creationism.  So Governor Bobby Jindal, a biology major of all things during his time at Brown University, just couldn’t let the opportunity pass by to begin turning the state of Louisiana into a religious theocracy.

Meanwhile in my home state of Texas (that other bastion of advanced learning), the Board of Edukashun is holding hearings on some proposed revisions to its own science curriculum.  A review committee comprised of science teachers and academics have asked the board to scrap the state's antiquated rule that requires educators to waste precious classroom time acknowledging different "scientific" theories - like, um, Intelligent Design - and a panel drafting standards for biology has introduced additional language that would keep supernatural and religion-based theories out of those classes.  Needless to say, Bible thumpers are revolting.  (Aren't they always?)  One fundie parent complained that her children's biology teacher wouldn't allow the questioning of Darwin's theory. "I think our kids will completely be denied to have a voice and ask a question regarding the strengths and weaknesses of any theory, particularly evolution. I'm just standing up for our kids."  This is a common talking point for creationist zealots.  As honest seekers of truth, they just want the opportunity to question evolution. No harm in that, is there?  They have no interest in promoting their Biblical view of a 6000-year-old earth.  Or Noah's Ark filled with dinosaurs.  Or Balaam's talking ass.  Or Johah cooling his heels inside the belly of a whale.  (Pardonne-moi, Biblical scholars. Inside the belly of a Big Fish. Like that makes a shitload of difference.)  There were some reasoned opinions presented to the board.  From the Houston Press:  Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland gave a poised lecture - keeping with the three-minute rule - on the merits of evolution before the board.  "Strengths and weaknesses is a way to sneak creationism through the back door," Scott said.  (You could almost hear a few board members making a mental note, "Great idea! Remember to make a map of every back door at every public school in Texas. Then, find sneaky-bandit costume.")  One board member asked Scott if she supported teaching any examples of challenges to scientific theories in the classroom.  "Sure," Scott said. "Just like you can teach examples of political chicanery."

Ouch.  Kitty got claws.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the inhabitants of Babel rushed out to their gas-guzzling SUVs and headed home to watch America's Most Wanted and The O'Reilly Factor.  A vote on the proposed revisions is scheduled for tomorrow.

Comments

[Patrick]

I'm from Texas too. It is embarrassing for our state government to give credence to creationism. However, isn't this the kind of stuff you've come to expect from (conservative) Texas?

[Amy]

Why are evolutionists always afraid to open the floor to questions? If they are so certain of your theory why? Doesn't debate help people learn about the many theories? Evolution is a theory. The big bang is a theory. Discussion is good unless you won't allow it and then it seems like you are hiding something or you afraid something will be found out. Like all the holes in the evolution theory. At least some kids are thinking and asking questions. Oh wait you want them all to be little zombies. You don't want progressive thinkers. You just want them to think what you tell them. Just like the "religious nuts". You guys don't even get that you are "religious nuts" too. You are just your own god. With your own agenda.

[Carla]

As most people know, when scientists say "theory," it has a different meaning than when a layperson says the word. In scientific usage, evolution is a "theory" exactly the same as gravity is a "theory."

http://www.freethinkerscs.com/?q=node/11

Amy, there's nothing wrong with children asking question. But it's not a good use of class time for students to question something that's accepted as fact by scientific community. Sure, kids could even challenge things like the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. But it wouldn't be productive.

[Rick]

RW Xstians prefer Intelligent Design over Hard Science because it's easier for them to understand.

[Amy]

Not easier to understand. I understand that the laws of science say that things go from order to chaos not chaos to order. So evolution breaks its on laws right off the bat. I understand that all sorts of animals and fish that were thought extinct for millions of years are now being found. I understand that not all fossils of man in all of its different stages of evolution have been found. I understand that fossils are dated by the age of the rock in which it was found and the age of the rock is determined by the age of the fossil. I understand that evolutionists have no answers for how dinosaur foot prints and mans foot prints have been found together in the same time period. I understand that we don't understand or know everything so you shouldn't act like you do. For our entire world to come to being because of the right mixture of chemicals at the right time having gotten heated to the right amount and this premordial "soup" some how created me and you and everything else we now know. Well, I guess it would have to be a miracle. And God just might like a little credit for it. And free thinkers prefer "hard science" because they want nothing to be greater than themselves.

[Bee Girl]

*sigh*

[Amy]

oh yeah, and gravity isn't a theory. It is a law. That is because it has been proven where as evolution has not been proven. That is why it is called a theory. In the same way that creationism hasn't been proven and is therefore a theory as well.

[Philip]

Evolution and gravity are both theories. The reason that gravity is also a law is because it has been proven to be be true. A theory is an explanation of facts. In science, facts do not have to be proven to be true. They are "observed" to be true. We know, for example, that the sun is made of hydrogen. We know this through an observation of facts, even though we can't prove it. For obvious reasons.

Same thing with evolution. It is a fact drawn from observations. You don't hear students (or their religious parents) wanting to debate the FACT that the sun is made from hydrogen. The only reason evolution draws debate from right-wing Christians is because it's a FACT that doesn't jive with their particular interpretation of the Bible.

[Amy]

The only type of evolution that has been observed is evolution within the species. I don't know of anyone that would debate that fact. It is the idea that humans have evolved from single cell organisms that came together miraculously evolving until now is what I have a problem with. And wouldn't we continue to evolve if that were the case. You know to get better and better to be more adaptable to our now poisoned environment. I don't see that happening. I just see us deteriorating right before our very eyes.

[Philip]

What you're describing is adaptation, not evolution. And I didn't say that anyone had observed evolution - that's a common Creationist talking point. I said that evolution is a Scientific Fact drawn from observations. Can you prove that the sun is composed of hydrogen? No. Is it a scientific fact? Yes. It's impossible to debate science with s religious person who doesn't understand scienctific processes and is just looking for reasons to validate the bible. The bible a book. If you want to believe its fairy stories, feel free. I'll put my faith in REAL scientists, not Intelligent Designers who are universally dismissed by rational human beings. I can tell by your other posts in this thread that you feel the need to have the last word - so by all means, blather away. But I won't respond to you again because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Amy]

You are very angry. Lighten up. We are supposed to debate on this site right. You can't just get angry and start cursing. It gives a sense that you are insecure in your position and instead of enjoying the banter you just get frustrated. Man up dude. Have a little fun! You are right about one thing though, you believe what you believe by faith just as I believe what I believe by faith. Have a great day angry Philip. Do you kiss your mom with that mouth? :) LOL

[Walt]

The difference between Evolution and Creationism/Creation Science is the relationship between the available facts and data and the theory.

Evolution/Natural Selection is not taught just cause teachers like it or its got a cool name, its taught as Science because the THEORY OF EVOLUTION best explains the facts.

Creationism makes no attempt to a explain the facts, it attempts to say the facts cannot be right or that since the Theory of Evolution is not absolutely provable then any competing theory should be given equal credence.

Creationists are entitled to their beliefs and opinions.

But they are not entitled to their own FACTS. When they put forward an explanation of the FACTS that is anywhere near to as good as the Theory of Evolution, then their competing theory can be taught as Science.

The Theory of Evolution examines and attempts to explain the facts. Creationism does not.

[Amy]

Creationism has some very good explanations of the facts but no one wants to examine them. Many think that the creationism theory is just God spoke the world into creation in 6 days the end. But there are many theories within the umbrella of Creationism. Many of which bring both evolution and creationism a little bit closer together. Such as the day age theory. There is so much more to it than anyone gives any credit.

[ChristianLibrul]

Do theofascists hate science because it's too hard? Do they really believe the earth is only 6000 years old, or do they just want us to believe it?

[mark]

"Why are evolutionists always afraid to open the floor to questions? If they are so certain of your theory why? Doesn't debate help people learn about the many theories? Evolution is a theory. [and so on]"

What we're "afraid of" is that the precious little time available will be taken up by presenting bogus arguments against evolution--arguments that have been refuted long ago yet are constantly brought up, like zombies. That will leave even less time to learn the science. We are also "afraid of" students being presented with a misleading view of what science is and how it works, leading to a decreased ability to deal with the problems of our modern age.

Furthermore, Creationism has no theory, and Creationist arguments consist primarily of arguments against evolution. Evolution is a fact. Evolution has happened, and continues to occur. Evolutionary theory explains how this has happened, and how present biodiversity may be explained.

[Postman]

As a Texas expat in New York, it seems to me that the only news I ever hear from back home is bad news.
Oh, Education and Intelligence... we hardly knew ye.

[ProgressiveTexan]

What I would say is that having an "umbrella of creationism" makes many talking points about creationism hard to swallow. How many thoughts, or should I say theories within creationism exist? Was the universe created within 6 days? Ask Catholic creationist and a Mormon creationist and you may get two answers. Get your thoughts, I mean theories organized and planned and you may gain some credence.

[brent taylor]

well dam dude you act like everyone that who wants religion taught in schools is a religious neo-nazi. mabey two opinions could be a perfectly reasonably way to teach kids, show both sides to these people so they can make a well informed decision based on what they have learned from a real source like school. Hell it would be better then going on sites like this and only finding someone on the far side of the debate that really only wanna cut down the other side rather then possibly come to an even middle ground. im not saying im for either side, but both sides should still be known since, and i know this is hard for you to admit, neither is obvious. you cant just say my side should be taught over the other cause i think im right. let both be known, thats democracy in motion

[Mike]

There is a fundamental flaw with teaching either creationism or (un)intelligent design as science and it is this. Science is about what can be proven or disproven. Does gravity exist? Yes. How does it work? That part needs some work, but we know what it is and the mechanics if not the mechanism. There's the idea of gravitons, etc, and those are theories, and they have the potential to be proven or disproven.

Creationism and (un)intelligent design state flat out, at the beginning, that this is how it worked, and it was done by things we can't test or prove or do anything to. Whether you believe it or not does not matter. It is by definition not science. Science is testing, observation, and creating an idea from that. The only business ID or creationism has in a science classroom is as a perfect illustartion of something that IS NOT science

[Max P.]

Well said, Mike.

[Doubting Thomas]

What's wrong with two competing theories? I think our children deserve that.

I'd like alchemy taught alongside Chemistry. Magic alongside physics. Palmistry, tarot and the reading of tea leaves instead of statistics.

Sure, maybe I can't prove that these 'alternative sciences' are real... But the important thing is that the actual real sciences are just too complicated for me to understand. And to be honest, my small mind feels safer when I tear down those who have spent their lives and considerable intellect to understand them.

PS. God is an American. And Jesus rode on a triceratops and fought people from the middle east. Peace out.

[Amy]

Progressive Texan, you could ask 6 or 7 creationists how it happened and you would probably get 6-7 ideas that were similar but varied somewhat. I believe this is true with evolutionists since we don't know for sure how it happened. You say you want our thoughts organized and I want you to know there are some excellent books on the subject. (Yes, we can read and write believe it or not) Check it out, it's interesting. Maybe middle ground can be found some day. Mike, some theories agree with most or parts of evolution but that something (intelligent designer) greater than we know set it into motion.

[Doubting Thomas]

Give up on evolution, Amy. It's a lost cause. Overwhelming, mutually supporting empirical evidence independently verified by scientists of different cultures. Seriously, it's over.

But you can help me get magic back into the classrooms where it should be.

Gandalf watch over you all.

[Ermine]

Amy, Amy, Amy..

You're wrong on every point you brought up. Every. Single. One. Why do I think that pointing it out to you won't change your mind at all? A scientist would change his mind if you could show him where s/he was wrong. I'll bet that you won't. That's the big, important difference right there.

This is going to be a long post I'm afraid. It's easy to spout out ten lies in a minute, but it takes time to explain why each one of them is false, then explain what the Theory of Evolution really is. Let's look at some of what you wrote and see how much of it I can show to be false in just a few minute's time, using the simple, ubiquitous search engines that you could have used as easily as I can.:

"I understand that the laws of science say that things go from order to chaos not chaos to order. So evolution breaks its on[sic] laws right off the bat."

Care to point out exactly which 'laws' you mean?

What about snowflakes and other crystals? What about a baby becoming a human being from a single cell? Hasn't that happened to every single one of us?

Oh look, chaos becoming more ordered, all by itself! We see it happening all around us every day, but you think that there are 'laws of science' that say that it can't ever happen? Do you have any idea how much energy the sun pumps into the life processes on our planet? Now, all of us creatures add to the general entropy of the universe by creating heat, but due to the FAR GREATER amounts of energy the sun puts into the system, we're able to build what you call 'order' in our own bodies. No laws are being even bent, much less broken. You have been mislead, PLEASE get some real education before making your ignorance so glaringly obvious. There's nothing wrong with ignorance, but -willful- ignorance is another thing entirely.

"I understand that all sorts of animals and fish that were thought extinct for millions of years are now being found."

So? I mean really - So what? How do you think that's a problem for the Theory of Evolution? The only reason 'living fossils' are interesting is that we -thought- they were extinct, and hadn't seen any fossils of them for a long period of geologic time. Whoopie, one turned up. It makes absolutely no difference to the Theory of Evolution. If a species is well-adapted for its niche in an unchanging environment, it may not have many obvious changes for a very long time. If we haven't been able to do a lot of looking in that particular environment, (Like deep in the ocean, for instance), creatures can go quite a long time without being spotted. Alligators are often called 'living fossils' too, because they haven't changed much in tens of millions of years. They're common though, so we've found plenty of fossil crocodilians from all through their species' lifetime. That's the only difference between them and the 'living fossils' like the coelecanth.

You want to disprove the Theory of Evolution with fossils? Find a fossil of a rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata. Find a modern mammal in Devonian-era rocks. Find a bird before the time of the dinosaurs. Find a fossil horse with wings, or a 6-limbed 'dragon'. Those are simple finds that would blow the roof off the ToE, whereas finding a 'living fossil' doesn't cause any problems for the theory at all. It just means we couldn't find any fossils of something between prehistoric times and now, even though the species has survived all that time. Fossils are RARE. If it's not a common species, there's even less chance of one of them being fossilized, and then that fossil has to be -found- by someone.

"I understand that not all fossils of man in all of its different stages of evolution have been found."

ALL fossils of man in ALL of its different stages? You don't know much about fossils, do you? Once again, fossils are RARE. It takes very special circumstances for something to become a fossil. Even so, we have ROOMS full of bones and skeletons of early man, literally *thousands* of skeletons! To even imagine that we could find a fossil of every single intermediate only tells me again that you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Also, it only takes a few fossils to show that the lineage has changed over time. We've got more than enough to make that obvious to anyone willing to see with eyes unclouded. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, you're just parroting talking points that you got from creationist propaganda, aren't you? I'll bet that you can't come up with a single 'weakness' to the Theory of Evolution that isn't already completely debunked right here on this indexed list of creationist claims, can you?

"I understand that fossils are dated by the age of the rock in which it was found and the age of the rock is determined by the age of the fossil."

And your 'understanding' is completely WRONG. AGAIN. Will you admit it? Not likely! Please. Read a book! Learn about the many and varied ways that the layers of rock and the fossils in them can, are, and have been dated, all of which agree on the same basic dates.

"I understand that evolutionists have no answers for how dinosaur foot prints and mans foot prints have been found together in the same time period."

But 'evolutionists' DO have an answer for those footprints. It's a very simple answer, too: HOAX. There are NO cases of human footprints found in the same strata as dinosaur footprints.

"I understand that we don't understand or know everything so you shouldn't act like you do."

Ah yes, we don't know EVERYthing, so we don't know ANYthing. Bzzzzzt! We know a lot more than you do, as you too could know if you'd just educate yourself and stop listening to the know-nothings you're getting your vacuous talking points from.

"For our entire world to come to being because of the right mixture of chemicals at the right time having gotten heated to the right amount and this premordial[sic] "soup" some how created me and you and everything else we now know."

The ToE involves the evolution of living things, beginning at the point that there was a living, reproducing lifeform. The formation of the earth is physics and cosmology, not evolution. The origin of life is Abiogenesis, not evolution. Scientific theories are powerful BECAUSE they are limited. They only deal with specific matters, but for those matters specifically they are the best explanation of all the available evidence. The fact that we're not yet completely sure how life began is not in any way a problem for the ToE, it's not a part of the theory at all. You -really- should know this, if you think you know enough about the ToE to point out its 'weaknesses'.

"And free thinkers prefer "hard science" because they want nothing to be greater than themselves."

Wrong again! Why am I not surprised? We prefer science because it WORKS. Have you any idea how many billions of lives have been saved, bettered, and greatly extended because of that 'hard science' you knock? Yes, science IS hard, but unlike superstition, it -works-, and it can be -proven- to work, hence the incredible technologies you take completely for granted every day. Even YOU trust in science more than you -believe- in God. (Or do you pray instead of seeing a doctor when you get sick? Do you check the weather report before going on a picnic, or just pray and hope? Do you ever get flu shots?)

"The only type of evolution that has been observed is evolution within the species. I don't know of anyone that would debate that fact."

I would! There are quite a lot of things that you don't know, aren't there? (and did you just admit that we HAVE observed evolution within the species? If so, what's to stop those changes from piling up until it's no longer the same species?) Are you saying that we've never observed the process of a species splitting apart into two or more? You'd be wrong (Again!) if you are. See here for more details.

Or are you saying that you think we should be able to observe something making an even larger evolutionary leap, like a fish turning into a frog? Nowhere in the ToE is there any suggestion that any individual creature 'changes' into something else. Evolution involves change in the frequency of specific genes in a population, not in individuals. You DO realize that evolution is made up of many small changes over a -very- long time, don't you? However, every single step in that longer process has been observed individually, in the wild and in the laboratory. The changes happen. Can you point out any mechanism that would prevent the numerous small changes from building up to a large cumulative change over time? (I'll give you a hint - No one yet has come up with such a mechanism, but feel free to try!) Trying to say that the small changes that we observe couldn't possibly lead to large change over time is like saying that you can walk across the street, but you couldn't *possibly* walk from New York to Los Angeles. There's nothing stopping you but time, and we've had literally BILLIONS of years of time.

Do you think that we can't learn things even if we don't observe them happening? How do you think murderers are convicted when there are no witnesses to their crime? 'No one saw it, so it didn't happen!' It doesn't work that way. ESPECIALLY with the powerful tools that modern science has developed, we're able to put together all the evidence of evolution we need without having to ever watch a species for a million years to see it evolve.

"wouldn't we continue to evolve if that were the case. You know to get better and better to be more adaptable to our now poisoned environment. I don't see that happening. I just see us deteriorating right before our very eyes."

YOU don't see it happening. You know why? Because you're afraid to look! How many real science papers on human evolution have you read? Have you even -heard- of PubMed, much less run a search there to see how many peer-reviewed science papers there might be on any and all of the subjects that you've just paraded your ignorance of? YOUR ignorance doesn't disprove any portion of the Theory of Evolution.

One point that shows your ignorance of real evolutionary theory is the idea that evolution causes things to 'get better and better, to be more adaptable'. The ToE doesn't expect things to be constantly improving. It expects things to be constantly -changing-, adapting themselves (as a species, not as individuals) to the environment it is in right then, with no thought whatsoever for any eventual goal. The eyes of blind cave fish have atrophied away, but they are BETTER adapted to their niche because of it. We are currently so cushioned by our technological advances that we're not seeing nearly as much of the winnowing effect of natural selection that other species see, but we ARE still evolving. Do you expect to see visible change in a single lifetime?

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is based on the idea that every single creature is different from its parents, and all of those tiny individual mutations that are good (or at least, not too bad) for the species build up over time until the species (or some population of it) are different enough from the original species that the two can no longer successfully interbreed. The changes continue to pile up over time until the new species is radically different from the original species. That's it!

We ARE able to see constant evolution in our own species, such as the spread of the gene(s) that allow us to digest lactose throughout our lives and not just in infancy, or more recently, the spread of the gene(s) for resistance to HIV. The more people that disease kills, the more people with the gene(s) for resistance we'll see in our population. Those are only small things, individual genes, but that's -exactly- what you'd expect to see according to the ToE.

How exactly does creationism or intelligent design explain the historical and current spread of the mutations that allow lactose digestion into adulthood? It doesn't! But the ToE does, and whaddya know, the results match up exactly with the predictions of evolutionary theory. Oh look, here's a link to peer-reviewed science on that very matter!

Where are your links to real science, Amy? I don't see any at all. Where is your -positive- evidence for ID or creation, as opposed to all this poking at the ToE? To get rid of the Theory of Evolution, you're going to have to offer another theory that better explains the mountains of evidence we have for the ToE today. This is EXACTLY why pro-science people don't want to see this 'strengths and weaknesses' crap end up in our science classes. Teachers don't have enough time as it is to teach more than the basics of the theory. The so-called 'weaknesses' can and are discussed freely in college-level classes, but we're talking about grade and high school here. They need to learn the basics and the things that we're SURE on, rather than allowing deluded creationist teachers and school boards to waste the students' time with repeatedly-debunked creationist talking points.

Sorry for the length of my reply, but REAL science takes up a little more time than 'GodDidIt!'. Can you offer any in rebuttal?

Ermine!

[Ermine]

Grrr. Bloody blog stripped out every one of my links. let's see what I can do about that..

Really, every single point you raised is answered at http://talkorigins.org . You don't even have to do much searching, they've got every one of your claims on their 'index of creationist claims' at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ .

Your claims that we've never seen evolution above the species level is dealt with in vast and extremely thorough detail at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ . There's also not one but two pages full of links to peer-reviewed science papers detailing observed speciation events in plant and animal species around the world.

There is also a page full of links detailing our hominid ancestors and how many fossils we really -do- have at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Honestly though, I'd highly recommend that you read the 'introduction to evolutionary biology' and 'what is evolution' pages first. Read what the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution -really- are, then look up each and every one of the so-called 'weaknesses' you've presented, and see why every one of them is not the weakness that you think it is.

If you want any of the other links that got pulled out of my original article, you have only to ask. I can piece together a bulleted list for you with a little time to look them up again. It really wasn't hard to find dozens of links with just a few searches.

Ermine!