Those damn experts are at it again! Once again they seem compelled to express their opinion on a topic in which they have advanced degrees. It's difficult to understand why they feel such a compulsion to speak out on a subject their research has defined. But they're making themselves heard and, because of the nature of politics in Republican-controlled states, no one in power seems to care.
The issue is a simple one. Legislators in Tennessee have apparently decided that it is critical for them to reexamine what should have been settled by the Scopes Trial in Dayton, TN in 1925. They're following down the path blazed by similar-minded legislators in Louisiana and moving relentlessly into the past by moving forward with an anti-evolution, pro-creationism bill modeled on the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) of 2008.
As I recently explained, there are two striking aspects of LSEA. First, it advances a political rather than a scientific perspective. Second, it has been widely and clearly opposed by scientists, educators and religious leaders. Such unanimity was apparently enough for Tennessee legislators; they looked at LSEA and didn't see anything not to love! Why give any credence to the experts?
Like LSEA, the proposed Tennessee legislation encourages public school science teachers to present the "weaknesses" of evolutionary theory. All familiar with the political evolution/creation controversy know that language of this sort is code for encouraging teachers to present creationist material.
As I said above, the experts have come out in force -- and they're all adamantly opposed to passage. Let's start at the individual level.
Tennessee is home to eight members of the National Academy of Sciences -- and all eight of them have signed a powerful statement in opposition. The following two sentences from their statement speak for themselves:
As scientists whose research involves and is based upon evolution, we affirm -- along with the nation's leading scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences -- that evolution is a central, unifying and accepted area of science. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming; there is no scientific evidence for its supposed rivals ("creation science" and "intelligent design") and there is no scientific evidence against it.
There's also plenty of institutional expertise that has been levied against the Tennessee legislation. The American Institute of Biological Sciences has weighed in in opposition just as strongly. They stated unequivocally that the legislation is "bad for science, science education, and the future economic health of well being of Tennessee." Recognizing that the proposed bill also folded global warming into its anti-intellectual net, AIBS went on to say,
It is important to note that there is no scientific controversy about the legitimacy of evolution or global climate change. These scientific concepts have repeatedly been tested and grown stronger with each evaluation. Any controversy around these concepts is political, not scientific. Indeed, evolution is a core principle that helps to explain biology and informs the development of biology-based products and services, including pharmaceuticals, food and biotechnology.
the scientific theory of evolution should be taught to students of all grade levels as a unifying concept without distraction of non-scientific or anti-scientific influence....[T]he content of science consists of peer-reviewed, tested and confirmed results, not debates based on political or religious convictions. We are convinced that rigorous science education in Tennessee is badly served by SB 893 or HB 368, and we urge Tennessee's representatives, state senators and governor to reject this legislation.
evolution is central to biology and to the earth sciences and that it is an essential component of science classes...While scientific research continues to illuminate how evolution and climate change influence the world around us, there is no scientific debate about whether they do so, and these bills are wrong to suggest otherwise....HB 368 and SB 893 would damage the scientific preparation of Tennessee's students, harm Tennessee's national reputation, and weaken its efforts to participate in the 21st century economy.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Tennessee antievolution bill passes the House | NCSE
Tennesse Anti-evolution Statute - UMKC School of Law
Tennessee House Bill 368 - Anti-Evolution, Anti-Science? : Dean's ...
According to the second law of thermodynamics, a gas will fill up the container it is in. Physicists prove this by labeling each of the identical molecules (No. 1, No. 2, etc.) and calculating the most probable distribution of molecules. To a physicist a gas is like a deck of playing cards since each card comes automatically labeled.
To a biologist, the primary structure of a protein is like a sonnet with each letter representing an amino acid. Biologists calculate the probability of getting a sonnet by the random selection of letters and words in a period of 3 billion years. These calculations put a limit on the explanatory power of the theory of natural selection.
“Entropy” and temperature are concepts in thermodynamics. They are related to “thermodynamic probability” and the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the gas via the Boltzmann constant.
The two articles have equations connecting the entropy of a biological system to thermodynamic probability using the Boltzmann constant. A biological system does not have a temperature or entropy, just like an airplane or computer doesn’t have a temperature or entropy.
Berthajane Vandegrift
A Few Autistic Questions about Freud, Marx and Darwin
Berthajane Vandegrift
A Few Autistic Questions about Freud, Marx and Darwin
in fact, by claiming that complex organisms could only have arisen through the intervention of a god or "higher intelligence", a search for any other explation has effectively ended, since there is no longer anything left for science to explain. For this reason, intelligent design is not just non-science, but anti-science.
Faith is faith (I don't have it, but I understand it) and science is science. The main pillars of religion are convictions about spiritual life that are unfalsifiable -- God exists, God loves you, and so on. The cannier religionists understand this, and don't look for proof of God in the natural world. This doesn't make God any less important to them, or any less real -- in fact, because their faith is unfalsifiable, it is therefore that much more secure.l
I start the course by telling people that what I teach may not agree with their beliefs. However, I'm not requiring them to BELIEVE what I tell them, I'm requiring them to LEARN what I tell them. Every exam question in the course comes with an unstated prefix, "According to the best scientific evidence, ... ". So If I ask "How old is the earth", they can answer "4.58 billion years" without violating their religious beliefs. I'm not asking "How old do YOU think the earth is?". I'm asking
"How old do SCIENTISTS think the earth is?".
Science isn't absolute truth, and good scientists make no such claim. However, it's the only picture of the world that is based entirely on evidence, and it has been systematically improved over hundreds of years until some of its conclusions are rock-solid. Unfortunately for the Tennessee legislature, the evidence accumulated over the last couple of centuries has greatly strengthened his original ideas.
Gawd, how I'd hate to be the one with broom following that one.
Berthajane Vandegrift
A Few Autistic Questions about Freud, Marx and Darwin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm
Good counterpoint!
Here is the kicker...when a human looks at the program they CANNOT understand how it does what it does...it just works!
Berthajane Vandegrift
A Few Autistic Questions about Freud, Marx and Darwin
Aren't there some programmers out there who have something to say about this?
You last statement is absurd.
The Neo Darwinists insist this complex, purposeful system evolved by “random mutation and natural selection” – no intelligent purposeful intelligence was involved, they insist. Random mutation and natural selection is the only completely materialistic theory anyone has been able to suggest. Natural selection acting upon meaningless accidents. I’m skeptical, and reserve my right to consider other theories, theories that include cognition and consciousness. I’d like to extend the same right to students.
Berthajane Vandegrift
A Few Autistic Questions about Freud, Marx and Darwin
Berthajane Vandegrift
A Few Autistic Questions about Freud, Marx and Darwin
Talk about circular logic - using a quote from yourself to support your own statements certainly qualifies... LOL!!!
The same thing happened to Galileo. He was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei). The Indigo Girls say it more eloquently in their song. Anyway, Galileo received a sentence of inquisition for his heliocentric views in 1633. In 1758, over 120 years later, the ban against heliocentrism was lifted.
It is indeed dismaying to think that anti-evolution feelings may hold sway for 120 years until 2130 or so. If science education in the US continues to be politicized for the next 120 years, one wonders if science in the US will ever recover. Subra Suresh, director of the National Science Foundation, thinks the US is losing its edge in science (see http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/70941/title/Basic_research_generates_jobs_and_competitiveness).
Will America the decline of scientific education resulting from 120 years of political pandering to religious zealots turn our nation into a third-world country? Time will tell.
Ted Simon
@TedWSimon
http://tedsimon.authorsxpress.com/
http://www.tedsimon-toxicology.com
I do not favor any academic censorship. I do not believe biblical creation, but if enough people do, it should be discussed. I am also confident enough of my own beliefs that I could even show respect for alternative views. If a growing number of people are voicing skepticism of RMNS evolution, some of that skepticism could be due to the obvious intolerance of the Darwin defenders.
Berthajane Vandegrift
A Few Autistic Questions about Freud, Marx and Darwin
I don't disagree at all about academic censorship, but the general failure of science education over the past 30 years has created a climate in which knowledge obtained by use of the scientific method is viewed as equally valid to political opinion. This is wrong.
Two additional points: Darwin was a very religious man and came to his conclusions about evolution over a long period of time (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_religious_views). There are many aspects of Darwin's theory that need additional clarification in the light of systems biology. For example, how does a mutation in a single gene that operates as part of a molecular network induce variation at the phenotypic level?
Ted
And thats really what this is about, fear, fear that Evolutionary biology is true, and that human beings as a species did not begin with one man and one woman who only gave birth to SONS and somehow we're all here now, by some delusional logic.
For everyone here who is skeptical of Evolutionary Biology, *Stop asking people to nutshell Evolution to you, it will not be sufficient, Evolutionary Theory is incredibly vast in it's evidence and information.
You can go spend DECADES getting your PHD in the Science, thats how much information there is. Nobody is going to be able to nutshell that to you in a way that will make you understand. And thats the problem with legislators who are pushing this bill, they are making decisions on something they have close to no knowledge of.
What do you think "Intelligent Design" is, except a deliberately dishonest propaganda effort by people who know they are pushing false arguments on an uneducated public?
Google "The Wedge Strategy".
The sad truth is that religious education and upbringing in the US teaches faitheists that the ends justify the means - that, in order to help prop up declining congregations of dying denominations, any and all means are acceptable.
Lying for Jesus is a core value on the Evangelical Right.
It's not just biology - recorded human history says creationism is wrong.