Evolution on trial again in Kansas

[Lucern]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATIO...hearings.reut/

Evolution hearings open in Kansas Thursday, May 5, 2005 Posted: 2005 GMT (0405 HKT) TOPEKA, Kansas (Reuters) -- A six-day courtroom-style debate opened Thursday in Kansas over what children should be taught in schools about the origin of life -- was it natural evolution or did God create the world? The hearings, complete with opposing attorneys and a long list of witnesses, were arranged amid efforts by some Christian groups in Kansas and nationally to reverse the domination of evolutionary theory in the nation's schools. William Harris, a medical researcher and co-founder of a Kansas group called the Intelligent Design Network, posed the core question about life's beginnings before mapping out why he and other Christians want changes in school curriculum. School science classes are teaching children that life evolved naturally and randomly, Harris said, arguing that this was in conflict with Biblical teachings that God created life. "They are offering an answer that may be in conflict with religious views," Harris said in opening the debate. "Part of our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is currently in schools. This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications." Conservative groups are trying to convince state education officials to change guidelines for how evolution theory is taught in science classes at a time when Kansas education authorities are producing new science teaching guidelines. The hearings -- organized by a committee of the Kansas Board of Education -- were taking place 80 years after the so-called "Monkey Trial" of John Scopes, a Tennessee biology teacher who was found guilty of illegally teaching evolution. There is renewed debate over evolution in more than a dozen states and a resurgence across the nation in the influence of religious conservatives, who played an important part in the reelection of Republican President Bush last year. Teachers and preachers The Kansas hearing drew a large crowd that included students, teachers and preachers. National and local scientific leaders for the most part boycotted the event. Pedro Irigonegaray, a lawyer defending evolution in the debate, said he planned to call no witnesses, though he did cross-examine witnesses, sometimes combatively. Harris acknowledged under questioning that there were many people who saw no incompatibility between religious beliefs that God created life and evolutionary teachings about how life evolved through natural processes. Outside the hearing room, outraged scientists challenged the validity of the hearings. "This is a showcase trial," said Jack Krebs, vice president for Kansas Citizens for Science. "They have hijacked science and education." Ken Schmitz, a University of Missouri/Kansas City chemistry professor attending the hearing said he worried that the attack on evolution could confuse students and endanger their ability to excel in science. "They are not going to understand this," said Schmitz. Changes to the curriculum proposed by the conservatives would not require inclusion of Biblical beliefs in science classes, also called "creationism" -- the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism could not be taught in public schools alongside evolution. But they would involve questioning the principles of evolution as explanations for the origins of life, the universe and the genetic code. As well, teachers would be encouraged to discuss with students "alternative explanations." Kansas has been struggling with the issue for years, capturing worldwide attention in 1999 when the state school board voted to downplay Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in science classes. Subsequent elections altered the membership of the board and led to renewed backing for evolution instruction in 2001. But elections last year gave conservatives a 6-4 majority and the board is now producing new science teaching guidelines.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think this is a case of confusion or general ignorance at best, disengenuity at worst. Darwin didn't invent the idea of evolution. He* came up with the theory of natural selection to explain evolution. For the better part of the last 200 years, scientists were coming up with and refining ways to explain evolution. Evolution shouldn't be on trial. As a scientific point, it's basically a given that species change over time. The scientific debate was always how, not if. I'd be more surpised if evolution was 'proven' untrue than if gravity suddenly gave way and I started floating around. Evolution is much better 'grounded', so to speak, and the turning point was the theory of natural selection posited in 1859 (and it was certainly not the last development). You'll notice, in the article, a lot of talk about life origins, which is an inappropriate way to frame this article. The sciences of evolutionary biology and paleontology can make guesses about life origins, but they actually study how species change over time. The beginning is not the focus, though it is certainly the focus of non-scientific attacks, like intelligent design. Evolution is a biological concept, so pre-biotic conditions like the origin of the universe would be a bit out of its range, right? That's an example of the confusion I'm talking about.

Scientists with relevant expertise aren't really helping if ignorance is in fact the problem: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATIO....ap/index.html


There's no need to bring religion into this, btw, because intelligent design advocates will claim it has scientific merit, and religion is a no-no in public schools anyway (and the forum lol). Creationism was banned from public school curriculums by the supreme court in 1987, and since intelligent design is essentially the same idea of another name, they're not advocating that it be taught, per se. Science is being attacked, and skepticism is well within its domain. There's no need to look outside; in fact, scientific skepticism as a mode of rational thought would be a boon to any science curriculum imo.

Besides, they're fighting for small stakes. All classes should discuss how certain we are of various things, not just freshman biology classes about this one aspect. The sooner they learn that they're not learning facts so much as ideas that have certain evidence, the better they'll be equipped in the world.

*And simultaneously elsewhere, Alfred Russel Wallace

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I'm so sick of hearing about this.

I want people like this to go the hell away.

[ 05-10-2005, 03:30 AM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

[shamrock_uk]

Agreed. I say teach 'em intelligent design and watch them all fail science. Serves them right. That theory is more full of holes than a rather large swiss cheese.

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Lucern: At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think this is a case of confusion or general ignorance at best, disengenuity at worst. Darwin didn't invent the idea of evolution. He* came up with the theory of natural selection to explain evolution. For the better part of the last 200 years, scientists were coming up with and refining ways to explain evolution. Evolution shouldn't be on trial. As a scientific point, it's basically a given that species change over time. The scientific debate was always how, not if. I'd be more surpised if evolution was 'proven' untrue than if gravity suddenly gave way and I started floating around. Evolution is much better 'grounded', so to speak, and the turning point was the theory of natural selection posited in 1859 (and it was certainly not the last development). You'll notice, in the article, a lot of talk about life origins, which is an inappropriate way to frame this article. The sciences of evolutionary biology and paleontology can make guesses about life origins, but they actually study how species change over time. The beginning is not the focus, though it is certainly the focus of non-scientific attacks, like intelligent design. Evolution is a biological concept, so pre-biotic conditions like the origin of the universe would be a bit out of its range, right? That's an example of the confusion I'm talking about.

Well, I'm willing to bet that most of these poeple don't have a clue what the ToE really says. If they do, they still prefer their own army of strawmen.

After reading alot of the Evolution/Creationism debate on the net, I'm baffled by the amount of misconceptions that's even possible to have about a simple scientific theory.

[Timber Loftis]

Cheerleaders gustapo-ed in Texas, new Scopes trials in Kansas -- enjoying life in the red states, folks? In one of the blue states, gays just got the right to marry, and another two are deciding whether or not to just dole out driver's licenses to all the wetbacks. In the blue, we're all just Free! Free! Free! So, if you get tired of life under the bible belt tyranny, march your jack boots on over and check out what socialist utopia is like. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Lucern]

After reading alot of the Evolution/Creationism debate on the net, I'm baffled by the amount of misconceptions that's even possible to have about a simple scientific theory.

There really is...but it's not a mystery when this is the kind of crap in education (ours anyway). How is this treated in other countries?


I noticed when reading some of those debates that the same misunderstandings are repeated over and over by the anti-evolution crowd, like this:

April 1, 2005: The April 1997 issue of Discover magazine had a pretty good April Fool's joke about some Neandertal musical instruments that had supposedly been discovered in Germany. It was an unlikely collection, featuring bagpipes, a tuba, a triangle and a 'xylobone', along with a cave painting of marching musicians. In September 2000 the Institute for Creation Research fell for it and featured Marvin Lubenow presenting this evidence in one of their radio programs. I pointed that out on this website about a month later, and the ICR quickly apologized and retracted the claim. However, no erroneous argument ever completely disappears from creationist literature. I've recently noticed the April Fool article cited again in an article by Brad Harrub on the Answers in Genesis website. Harrub also thinks that the Java Man skullcap belongs to a gibbon - even though AIG has admitted that this is a discredited argument that creationists shouldn't use any longer. Harrub's article was also published in AIG's 'peer-reviewed scientific journal', the Technical Journal. What is AIG's peer-review process like, if clangers like these can get through it?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

I say teach 'em intelligent design and watch them all fail science. Serves them right.

lol Shamrock, the students aren't at fault for being ignorant, yet. The education board may be...I went to a private (non religious) school that didn't teach evolution either. College freshman biology was none-too-easy because of it; I can't imagine how hard it would be if you had the idea that intelligent design was a valid scientific alternative urging to you resist everything that's taught. On a similar note, a young elementary school teacher friend of mine got in a bit of trouble for telling her 4th graders that humans are mammals. I wasn't aware that this is controversial lol.

So, if you get tired of life under the bible belt tyranny, march your jack boots on over and check out what socialist utopia is like.

LOL TL. I got my fair share of looking at sexy cheerleaders but no evolution in high school. I'll take it I'm going to grad school in Michigan though. I can't wait...except for the fact that winter starts in mid september, that is

[ 05-10-2005, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Lucern ]

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Lucern: quote: After reading alot of the Evolution/Creationism debate on the net, I'm baffled by the amount of misconceptions that's even possible to have about a simple scientific theory.

There really is...but it's not a mystery when this is the kind of crap in education (ours anyway). How is this treated in other countries?[/QUOTE]Sensibly over here. We're told evolution is a theory, there are gaps in it and its currently the theory with the most evidence to support it.

What's doubly stupid about using the intelligent design theory for their crazy religious-science is that it can more easily be used to justify many gods than the single god that they want.

quote: I say teach 'em intelligent design and watch them all fail science. Serves them right.

lol Shamrock, the students aren't at fault for being ignorant, yet. [/QUOTE]Heh, yeah, was just getting annoyed at all the regression [img]smile.gif[/img] Seems like half of America is just going backwards.

[ 05-10-2005, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Aragorn1]

Why can't they just show both sides of the arguement and let people make up thier own minds? In the UK, in state schools, we are taught about many religions , their points of veiw, and of the scientific theories on the workings of the world. Since when was school about brain-washing people into beleiving X over Y cause the received widom is that X is right and Y is wrong? Give people the whole picture and let them decide what they beleive is right or wrong.

[Stratos]

The real problem with ID in science is that it's unfalsifiable, doesn't offer any new information a scientist have any use of in his line of work and doesn't answer any scientifically interresting questions.

It's a personal belief that most scientists wisely don't add to their theories and models.

[Lucern]

Exactly Stratos.

That means that ID isn't science. Evolution encompasses the whole of this scientific debate. The debate touches on things like what role mutations, crossing over during meiosis, and the 'jumping genes' have in evolution, distorting the original pure natural selection explanation now that such information is available.

There's a silly description that I read regarding what 'including both sides' would entail. After explaining roughly all 6,000 recorded creation myths (read not as a fictional story, but a literal or figurative truth to a people), point out that none of them have a scientific basis, nor can they be the subject of falsifiable research. THEN continue with the science.

However, it might be a useful thing to concisely explain the opposition to evolution from that first day in 1859 just to put it all into perspective. Science doesn't develop in a vacuum. There was (and continues to be) almost as much resistance to Darwin's idea as there was to the idea of a heliocentric solar system. It would also be a useful thing to explain that a complete understanding and belief in evolution only conflicts with a fundamentalist reading of a creation text of a given religion. It does conflict, and that's up to the individual to resolve. Reading Daniel C. Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous Idea and watching the old black and white film about the Scopes trial would be plenty to understand the context and impact of evolution.

I would consider doing justice to the idea that fundamentally changed the framework of all modern biology to be part of a good science education, and that's not always done in US public schools where the political/social environment makes it simply not worth the trouble for teachers. Only one side of this debate will help future scientists through demanding college science courses.

Besides, since when is high school not about brain-washing and manipulation?