Texas joins the science debate

[Guest Godless]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/education/22texas.html?th&emc=th

AUSTIN, Tex. — The latest round in a long-running battle over how evolution should be taught in Texas schools began in earnest Wednesday as the State Board of Education heard impassioned testimony from scientists and social conservatives on revising the science curriculum.

..........

Many biologists and teachers said they feared that the board would force textbook publishers to include what skeptics see as weaknesses in Darwin’s theory to sow doubt about science and support the Biblical version of creation.

“These weaknesses that they bring forward are decades old, and they have been refuted many, many times over,” Kevin Fisher, a past president of the Science Teachers Association of Texas, said after testifying. “It’s an attempt to bring false weaknesses into the classroom in an attempt to get students to reject evolution.”

In the past, the conservatives on the education board have lacked the votes to change textbooks. This year, both sides say, the final vote, in March, is likely to be close.

............

The chairman of the board, Dr. Don McLeroy, a dentist, pushed in 2003 for a more skeptical version of evolution to be presented in the state’s textbooks, but could not get a majority to vote with him. Dr. McLeroy has said he does not believe in Darwin’s theory and thinks that Earth’s appearance is a recent geologic event, thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion as scientists contend.

On the surface, the debate centers on a passage in the state’s curriculum that requires students to critique all scientific theories, exploring “the strengths and weaknesses” of each. Texas has stuck to that same standard for 20 years, having originally passed it to please religious conservatives. In practice, teachers rarely pay attention to it.

This year, however, a panel of teachers assigned to revise the curriculum proposed dropping those words, urging students instead to “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence.”

.........

Already, legislators in six states — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina — have considered legislation requiring classrooms to be open to “views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory,” according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent-design movement.

..........

But several biologists who appeared in the hearing room said the objections raised by Mr. Meyer and some board members were baseless. The majority of evidence collected over the last 150 years supports Darwin, and few dissenting opinions have survived a review by scientists.

“Every single thing they are representing as a weakness is a misrepresentation of science,” said David M. Hillis, a professor of biology at the University of Texas. “These are science skeptics. These are people with religious and political agendas."

.........

Business leaders, meanwhile, said Texas would have trouble attracting highly educated workers and their families if the state’s science programs were seen as a laughingstock among biologists.

So far, science is winning this battle. The State Board of Education held an initial vote on Thursday, and the result was in favor of removing the controversial wording (article). There's still more discussion taking place though, and a final vote will be held in March.

In the past, conservatives have lost the science debate in almost every part of the country where the issue has come up. Personally, I have no problem with students being allowed to ask tough questions about evolution, nor do I object to the valid weaknesses in Darwinism being taught. Like all scientific theories, Darwinism has its flaws. However, it has been the dominant theory for over a hundred years and modern science continues to validate it in ways that Darwin couldn't have dreamed of.

I'm particularly troubled by the fact that one of the leaders of the conservative movement here in Texas appears to be a Young-Earth Creationist (YEC), a position rejected by most ID supporters. While I respect the right of educators to hold their own personal religious views, these views should stay out of the classroom. Religious freedom is a great thing, but this shouldn't be an issue of religious freedom. Religion and science are two seperate things, and they should be treated as such.

[Islander]

I heard Elvis is alive, that Area 51 houses the remains of aliens and that the real George W. Bush died on a DIU collision a while back and we had a double in the White House all this time. These are all theories and some people are willing to go to jail and swear by it.

I wonder why one "theory" should have a prevailing (rather exclusive) place in basic education over the other. If we are to teach one we should be able to teach the other. After all, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[LittleWyvern]

The way I see it, religion and science both ask two very different questions. Science asks "How?", and such questions can be answered by the scientific method. Religion asks "Who?", which becomes outside the range of anything science can ever do by means of the scientific method. So, I really think that science should have its place in the classroom, and religion should have its place at church.

I'm currently taking a biology class at BYU, and this is generally how they do things there. Besides, what's wrong with Theistic Evolution?

[DigitalShadow]

I heard Elvis is alive, that Area 51 houses the remains of aliens and that the real George W. Bush died on a DIU collision a while back and we had a double in the White House all this time. These are all theories and some people are willing to go to jail and swear by it.

I wonder why one "theory" should have a prevailing (rather exclusive) place in basic education over the other. If we are to teach one we should be able to teach the other. After all, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

You make the point that a theory is worthless without supporting scientific evidence. That is exactly why "intelligent design" isn't taught in schools. By your logic, it seems we should be teaching our children that the theory that Elvis is still alive is just as valid as the theory that Elvis is dead beacause they are both "theories."

[Guest Godless]

I wonder why one "theory" should have a prevailing (rather exclusive) place in basic education over the other. If we are to teach one we should be able to teach the other. After all, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

How many fields of science can you think of where multiple theories are taught in an attempt to explain the same thing? Every area of science has a dominant theory. Evolution by natural selection is the dominant theory in biology. It has volumes of evidence to support it. ID theory is incredibly weak by comparison, therefore academia should feel no obligation to put it in the curriculum. The only reason why this is such a big issue is because of the religious factor. Without the unflinching support of the Religious Right, ID theory would have died a long time ago.

[EruditioSalvatus]

All I say is: bring forth the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

May we all be touched by His Noodly Appendage

[bytor2112]

How many fields of science can you think of where multiple theories are taught in an attempt to explain the same thing? Every area of science has a dominant theory. Evolution by natural selection is the dominant theory in biology. It has volumes of evidence to support it. ID theory is incredibly weak by comparison, therefore academia should feel no obligation to put it in the curriculum. The only reason why this is such a big issue is because of the religious factor. Without the unflinching support of the Religious Right, ID theory would have died a long time ago.

Who exactly are the "religious right" ? I saw a bumper sticker the other day, someone claiming to be from the religious left.......egad:eek:

[Elphaba]

Who exactly are the "religious right" ?

Look in the mirror.

Elphaba

[Islander]

How many fields of science can you think of where multiple theories are taught in an attempt to explain the same thing? Every area of science has a dominant theory. Evolution by natural selection is the dominant theory in biology. It has volumes of evidence to support it. ID theory is incredibly weak by comparison, therefore academia should feel no obligation to put it in the curriculum. The only reason why this is such a big issue is because of the religious factor. Without the unflinching support of the Religious Right, ID theory would have died a long time ago.

There are plenty of disciplines that teach a number of theories; Psychology, Law, physics. There is always an alternative hypothesis or frame of analysis to any one phenomenon. That is not the point. The issue here is that since it is just a theory (evolution), why not also present alternative theories (theological).

Do not forget that what was considered science-fiction a century ago is today's reality.

[LittleWyvern]

There are plenty of disciplines that teach a number of theories; Psychology, Law, physics. There is always an alternative hypothesis or frame of analysis to any one phenomenon. That is not the point. The issue here is that since it is just a theory (evolution), why not also present alternative theories (theological).

Simply put, religion is not scientific.

EDIT: Please note that I am not making any statement regarding the truthfulness of either.

Edited January 25, 2009 by LittleWyvern

[Islander]

Simply put, religion is not scientific.

EDIT: Please note that I am not making any statement regarding the truthfulness of either.

We study tons of garbage that is not scientific!!! We study junk that is dubiously described as "art" just for kicks. The point is, that information is presented in academic settings that as of today is still a "theory" with proponents and detractors in equal numbers and which is, as far as "scientific" is concern, suspect at best. Why not present an alternative theory as well. I have as much right as the next guy to suggest what goes into the curriculum and what does not.

Don't forget that until very recently in American history government had no place in education. I suggest we should be vigilant of governments that attempt to dictate what our children should learn or not in school.

[LittleWyvern]

We study tons of garbage that is not scientific!!! We study junk that is dubiously described as "art" just for kicks.

Can you give an example? I'm not understanding this part.

The point is, that information is presented in academic settings that as of today is still a "theory" with proponents and detractors in equal numbers and which is, as far as "scientific" is concern, suspect at best. Why not present an alternative theory as well. I have as much right as the next guy to suggest what goes into the curriculum and what does not.

I don't think you understand how the word theory is used in a scientific context, as you're using the work theory as if to devalue the theory of evolution. In science, theories have been thoroughly tested, based on inductive reasoning, and are formulated in ways that can be disproved should different information become available. The theory of evolution fits this definition, especially the 100 years of through testing it has. Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be proven or disproven by science. It is completely outside the realm of science, and therefore it is pointless to teach it in a scientific setting. After, biology is a science, and all knowledge we have of biology is learned from the scientific method.

Don't forget that until very recently in American history government had no place in education. I suggest we should be vigilant of governments that attempt to dictate what our children should learn or not in school.

Apologies, but I don't see how this relates. A study of government is academic, creationism is faith-based.

[bytor2112]

Look in the mirror.

Elphaba

Ok.......what do you see when you look in the mirror? :) So, who are the religious left?

Edited January 25, 2009 by bytor2112

[Islander]

Can you give an example? I'm not understanding this part.

I don't think you understand how the word theory is used in a scientific context, as you're using the work theory as if to devalue the theory of evolution. In science, theories have been thoroughly tested, based on inductive reasoning, and are formulated in ways that can be disproved should different information become available. The theory of evolution fits this definition, especially the 100 years of through testing it has.

Apologies, but I don't see how this relates. A study of government is academic, creationism is faith-based.

Your response borders on the patronizing but I will ignore the tone for the sake of civility.

I know precisely what a theory is and is not. I can also demonstrate that the term "theory" has been used recklessly and intentionally to solidify a completely unproven hypothesis, provide an aura of respectability to it and dissuade others from arguing to the contrary, at least initially.

The Theory of Relativity was Einstein's mathematical assumption about the way physical bodies react at or near light speed. The theory is now well established and tested. But it was called "Theory of Relativity" right from the beginning!!! And long before any experimental proof had been secured. Then just as now its status was much like Grand Unified Theories of physics today, they are ALL theories that physicists hope will, in time, connect all the forces in nature. There you have it; "theory" used to mean ideas that are by no means established much less proven.

You speak of "theory" as facts. Proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence." There is NO scientific empirical proof for evolution. By the way, this has absolutely nothing to do with being right or wrong. By the same token it has nothing to do with science either, since you can have logical conclusions in Political Sciences, social studies, linguistics, or any other discipline.

As far as the government, I was referring to education bureaucrats pushing their agenda. I think I can add my 2 cents to the debate.

Notice, I have spoken about or endorsed religion.

[LittleWyvern]

Your response borders on the patronizing but I will ignore the tone for the sake of civility.

My apologies, then, for misunderstanding your usage of the term theory.

The Theory of Relativity was Einstein's mathematical assumption about the way physical bodies react at or near light speed. The theory is now well established and tested. But it was called "Theory of Relativity" right from the beginning!!! And long before any experimental proof had been secured. Then just as now its status was much like Grand Unified Theories of physics today, they are ALL theories that physicists hope will, in time, connect all the forces in nature. There you have it; "theory" used to mean ideas that are by no means established much less proven.

You speak of "theory" as facts. Proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence." There is NO scientific empirical proof for evolution. By the way, this has absolutely nothing to do with being right or wrong. By the same token it has nothing to do with science either, since you can have logical conclusions in Political Sciences, social studies, linguistics, or any other discipline.

Science can never know anything for certain. It can only say that this is how we think the world works, based on what we have observed and tested. In other words, it can only provide approximations that get better over time, as we have more information available to us (your theory of relativity example is a good one. Nobody knew that our mass depends on how fast we're going, but before this theory developed we had no way of measuring this). So I'm not saying that evolution is fact (indeed, if the only way we could truly say we know something is a rigid proof, then only mathematics would be valid for teaching), just that it is the best explanation we have based on what we know about the world around us.

However, I still stand behind my original conclusion. Creationism is neither scientific nor a theory, so I do not believe it has a place in a scientific context.

Edited January 25, 2009 by LittleWyvern

[Elphaba]

Ok.......what do you see when you look in the mirror?

A very old cranky woman. :)

So, who are the religious left?

Look in the mirror?

Elphie

[Traveler]

As a scientist may I say something about scientific theory? Our entire number system and all our mathematics are based on number theory that includes such concepts as transitivity, trichotomy, and the binary operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.

Even though evolution is stated in science as a theory various forms of evolution is an observable fact of science. The transformation of a zygote into a baby is evolution demonstrated. Growth is evolution demonstrated. Ageing is evolution demonstrated. The primary problem with evolution for many religionists is that they believe each species were created separately by G-d from and that such creation is from nothing – evolution disproves their understanding of G-d. But the problem with such religious thinking is that when this kind of thinking is applied to the Holy Bible conflicts with fact are created. For example from the measurements of Noah’s Ark there would not be enough room to contain a mating pare of all the known species of worms. Without evolution the story of the Ark is but a fantasy.

There are problems with many scientific theories. For example – the Whole Number theory has various problems with fractions so the Real Number Theory was invented. There are problems with Real Number Theory so Complex Numbers (sometimes called imaginary numbers) was invented. Just because there are problems with Whole Number Theory does not mean that we should begin teaching children Number Theory by skipping everything else to start with Complex Number Theory.

The reason evolution is taught in science is because evolution is the best theory we have to study and perform experiments. There are no lab experiments to demonstrate Creation Theory like there are lab experiments to demonstrate evolution. Since science by definition must be demonstratable, Creation theory cannot be taught as a scientific subject.

Just as a side note – the ancient Egyptian theory of creation that all things were created from a watery abyss can be demonstrated but the demonstration is hardly a trivial task and generally too difficult for even high school level science.

The Traveler

[Palerider]

A very old cranky woman. :)

Look in the mirror?

Elphie

Did you have to look in the mirror to see that???.....

[Elphaba]

There are plenty of disciplines that teach a number of theories; Psychology, Law, physics.

This a good point.

There is always an alternative hypothesis or frame of analysis to any one phenomenon.

There is always an alternative understanding for everything--for all I know you're an alien from Sigmazoid who looks at us like an ant farm experiment.

For all I know you decided to create a new religion to see how we inferior species would respond, and so you went to Joseph and presented yourself as God. And now here you are, still toying with us, lecturing us on the "frame of analysis," whatever that is..

Obviously, anything, and everything, can have many alternative understandings; but it is foolish to discount scientific conclusions you don't like, just because you can.

That is not the point. The issue here is that since it is just a theory (evolution), why not also present alternative theories (theological).

Because theology cannot be disproved; thus, by definition, it has no place in the real sciences.

Do not forget that what was considered science-fiction a century ago is today's reality.

And we all know how many times, throughout history, scientific giants were forced to include "theology" into their scientific discoveries, even when they knew it had no place there.

Thank goodness we live in a modern world where that would never happen again.

Elphaba

Edited January 25, 2009 by Elphaba
Because I'm tired and think I'm probably babbling, but don't want to look like it.

[Elphaba]

Did you have to look in the mirror to see that???.....

Well, I already knew it, but I started to forget, so I had to look in the mirror again, just to remind myself.

You're a brat!

Elphie

[Islander]

This a good point. There is always an alternative understanding for everything--for all I know you're an alien from Sigmazoid who looks at us like an ant farm experiment.

For all I know you decided to create a new religion to see how we inferior species would respond, and so you went to Joseph and presented yourself as God. And now here you are, still toying with us, lecturing us on the "frame of analysis," whatever that is.

Elphaba

Is that the best you can come up with? I think we should let this one go then.

“When a man uses profanity or insult to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both” Unknown.

[Guest Godless]

We study tons of garbage that is not scientific!!! We study junk that is dubiously described as "art" just for kicks. The point is, that information is presented in academic settings that as of today is still a "theory" with proponents and detractors in equal numbers and which is, as far as "scientific" is concern, suspect at best. Why not present an alternative theory as well. I have as much right as the next guy to suggest what goes into the curriculum and what does not.

Actually, I think the experts in the field of biology are the ones who should have the last word on the matter. And they're overwhelmingly in favor of keeping ID out of the classroom. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a biologist who claims that Darwinism is a perfect theory. Like all theories, it has its flaws and shortcomings. But, as I've said before, it's the dominant theory and as of right now there are no strong alternatives. ID is an alternative, and a horribly weak one.

The Theory of Relativity was Einstein's mathematical assumption about the way physical bodies react at or near light speed. The theory is now well established and tested. But it was called "Theory of Relativity" right from the beginning!!! And long before any experimental proof had been secured. Then just as now its status was much like Grand Unified Theories of physics today, they are ALL theories that physicists hope will, in time, connect all the forces in nature. There you have it; "theory" used to mean ideas that are by no means established much less proven.

Physics and biology are two very different fields. Things like genetic patterns, fossil records, and simple observation of ecosystems all provide solid evidence to favor evolution. Theories in physics are somewhat harder to provide material evidence for. Yes, Darwinism is still a theory. It always will be, just like germ theory will always be a theory. Science consists of theories and theories alone. There are no absolute truths about the world we live in. There are only hypotheses and evidence to support them. The scientific community is constantly scrutinizing theories in order to determine whether or not a different answer might be necessary. A few scientists have decided that the theory of evolution needs to be reconsidered and possibly even discarded, yet they have failed to provide any evidence to support a worthy alternative.

[mightynancy]

I saw a bumper sticker the other day, someone claiming to be from the religious left.......egad

That was me.

[Elphaba]

Is that the best you can come up with?

Well, I was very tired. In retrospect, however, I think it was genius. I can totally picture you as a sigmazoid.

I think we should let this one go then.

Okay, if you insist.

“When a man uses profanity or insult to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both.” Islander, previously Unknown (emphasis mine)

I was bemused when I saw you had tucked “insult” into the quote, but admit I am a bit put out that you thought I wouldn't notice.

Apparently you felt insulted, which was never my intent. There’s a difference between writing posts where we vehemently disagree yet maintain civility, and peppering posts with insults to demean the other writer. I’ve never intentionally written anything to insult you. And I have to say, you take a lot of things the wrong way, and feel patronized, when you’re not. I noticed this in a post Little wrote you, where you responded she was patronizing you. She wasn’t. She merely said s/he did not understand your sentence you had written about the government in American schools. The fact is, it was poorly written and difficult to know what you meant. I had to re-read it a few times before I finally realized what you meant.

When someone tells you they don’t understand what you‘ve written, that’s not patronizing. It just means s/he doesn’t understand what you’ve written, period.

And just so we’re straight, I am loud and I am obnoxious, and I am assertive, and sometimes aggressive, but I never mean to purpusely insult anyone, thought I am very straightforward. So, I suppose there are times I am insulting, so that may be something I need to work on. But I never wrote anything to you that was meant to be insulting only.

Oh, and I am never, ever profane.

This is been an enjoyable distraction, but it doesn’t change the fact that creationism and/or Intelligent Design cannot be disproved; therefore, they do not meet the requirements necessary to be considered a science, or part of a scientific theory. They don’t belong in the scientific field whatsoever.

Obviously, the world of science is complicated and complex; but it is elegantly simple as well: if it cannot be disproved, it is not science.

Oh, one last thing. Thank you for the “Laugh out Loud.” That made my day!

Elphaba

Edited January 26, 2009 by Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Is that the best you can come up with?

Well, I was very tired. In retrospect, however, I think it was genius. I can totally picture you as a sigmazoid.

I think we should let this one go then.

Okay, if you insist.

“When a man uses profanity or insult to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both.” Islander. (Previously attributed to "Unknown."

I was bemused when I saw you had tucked “insult” into the quote, but admit I am a bit put out that you thought I wouldn't notice.

Apparently you felt insulted, which was never my intent. There’s a difference between writing posts where we vehemently disagree yet maintain civility, and peppering posts with insults to demean the other writer. I’ve never intentionally written anything to insult you. And I have to say, you take a lot of things the wrong way, and feel patronized, when you’re not. I noticed this in a post Little wrote you, where you responded she was patronizing you. She wasn’t. She merely said s/he did not understand your sentence you had written about the government in American schools. The fact is, it was poorly written and difficult to know what you meant. I had to re-read it a few times before I finally realized what you meant.

When someone tells you they don’t understand what you‘ve written, that’s not patronizing. It just means s/he doesn’t understand what you’ve written, period.

And just so we’re straight, I am loud and I am obnoxious, and I am assertive, and sometimes aggressive, but I never mean to insult anyone. I may respond to an insult, however, so perhaps I'm not without guilt myselft. But I can assure you I am never, ever profane.

This is been an enjoyable distraction, but it doesn’t change the fact that creationism and/or Intelligent Design cannot be disproved; therefore, they do not meet the requirements necessary to be considered a science, or part of a scientific theory. They don’t belong in the scientific field whatsoever.

Obviously, the world of science is complicated and complex; but it is elegantly simple as well: if it cannot be disproved, it is not science.

Oh, one last thing. Thank you for the “Laugh out Loud.” That made my day!

Elphaba

Edited January 26, 2009 by Elphaba