PDA

View Full Version : Creationist bill in Oklahoma



harlequin
2006-Jan-10, 10:58 PM
Creationist bill in Oklahoma (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2005-06HB/HB2107_int.rtf).

Wolverine
2006-Jan-10, 11:29 PM
"Academic Freedom Act?"

E. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

Riiiiight. :rolleyes:

That's gotta be why they've cited Edwards v. Aguillard (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html).

Monique
2006-Jan-10, 11:36 PM
"Academic Freedom Act?"

E. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

Riiiiight. :rolleyes:

That's gotta be why they've cited Edwards v. Aguillard (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html).
Ahhhh if is written so, shall be done so :)

Gillianren
2006-Jan-11, 12:53 AM
Anyone want to summarize the bill so I don't have to download it? (I don't know why I'm asking this. It's just going to make me mad.)

Andromeda321
2006-Jan-11, 01:05 AM
Basically Oklahoma wants to say a teacher can teach all "scientific theories" without being penalized etc because all are equally valid. I guess the other theories are currently being prosecuted is the argument. :evil:

Gillianren
2006-Jan-11, 03:04 AM
Basically Oklahoma wants to say a teacher can teach all "scientific theories" without being penalized etc because all are equally valid. I guess the other theories are currently being prosecuted is the argument. :evil:

Well, yes, I'd like all scientific theories to be taught as well. However, since ID isn't, I hardly see where it would apply!

Swift
2006-Jan-11, 03:12 AM
Here's the guts.

A. Every public school teacher in the State of Oklahoma, shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning.
B. No public school teacher in the State of Oklahoma shall be terminated, disciplined, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning.
C. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student, in any public school shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific views.
D. The rights and privileges contained in the Academic Freedom Act apply when topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological or chemical origins of life. Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or encouraging any change in the state curriculum standards for public schools.
E. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
SECTION 1. This act shall become effective September 1, 2006.

I'm not sure I get it either, but I find this bit in section C a little scary..
Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student, in any public school shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific views.
I wonder if that means if you have a student who believes that all science is garbage and the Divine Pasta created everything, that they can't fail the science class?

I also suspect that the next bit is to define ID as science.

Wolverine
2006-Jan-11, 03:21 AM
I'm surprised there's no detailed mention yet on NSCE or the Panda's Thumb.

It appears similar legislation has been submitted in other states (where it appears to have largely failed).

Wolverine
2006-Jan-11, 03:22 AM
I also suspect that the next bit is to define ID as science.

Yep. I suspect they're attempting to follow in the footsteps of their northern neighbors.

Kristophe
2006-Jan-11, 04:07 AM
Frankly, they may as well release a book called "The Bibble", define it in legislation to be a scientific text, and just stop beating around the book. All of this pussy-footing around is just going to cost everyone a lot of money in the long run.

harlequin
2006-Jan-11, 04:11 AM
Well, yes, I'd like all scientific theories to be taught as well. However, since ID isn't, I hardly see where it would apply!


Of course they will dent that ID is not scientific. But the bill is no doubt a creationist bill. The whole point is to try to allow creationism in by preventing descrimination against that "viewpoint." And of course evolution is singled out to be subjected to criticism. Funny that the theory of chemical bonding is not singled out.

Gillianren
2006-Jan-11, 04:55 AM
I'm not sure I get it either, but I find this bit in section C a little scary..
Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student, in any public school shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific views.
I wonder if that means if you have a student who believes that all science is garbage and the Divine Pasta created everything, that they can't fail the science class?

I also suspect that the next bit is to define ID as science.

As long as they pass the test, I suppose. Which does kind of make sense--you can't fail for what you believe, so long as you actually do the work. Since I don't see any way to regulate what people believe, I'm actually okay with it. Except for the whole thing about ID almost certainly getting shoehorned in as part of the curriculum, which I do agree is what's probably going to be next.

HenrikOlsen
2006-Jan-11, 05:50 AM
Well, the problem is that if the tests asks about the age of the earth, and the child's position is YEC, then the child will be penalised for answering in accordance to its beliefs unless it can pass by answering 6000 years.

Dark Jaguar
2006-Jan-11, 06:46 AM
I feel such shame for this state of mine reading this... All this after the Tulsa Zoo got it's act together over that creation display debacle...

Problem is, I don't know where to start first if I want to complain to someone...

Gillianren
2006-Jan-11, 07:35 AM
Well, the problem is that if the tests asks about the age of the earth, and the child's position is YEC, then the child will be penalised for answering in accordance to its beliefs unless it can pass by answering 6000 years.

If they understand the course material, the thing said. This, to me, means that they should be required to answer the test according to the answers the teacher expects. I mean, I may disagree with a point of history on a history test, but if I answer it in any way but the way I'm supposed to, the teacher should still be within their rights to mark me wrong. (Unless it's an essay question, and I can do a really good job of supporting my position.)

Now, it's entirely possible that the creators of the bill intended it your way. Still, I think a pretty convincing argument can be made for mine, don't you?

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-11, 08:25 AM
Two thoughts about the bill writers: Either they were too clever for their own good or they're looking for a court challenge so they can pontificate and get screen time. That is:

(1) They may have written it under the mistaken assumption that ID is science and hanged themselves . . .

or

(2)They realize that the second somebody tries to push ID in public school it will be challenged, and it will be noted that the bill doesn't apply since ID isn't science. Then we'll hear more from the Discovery Institute, local politicians and so on.

As written, it doesn't allow ID in public school and it doesn't stop an instructor from doing his job.

swansont
2006-Jan-11, 12:15 PM
Here's the guts.

I'm not sure I get it either, but I find this bit in section C a little scary..
Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student, in any public school shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific views.
I wonder if that means if you have a student who believes that all science is garbage and the Divine Pasta created everything, that they can't fail the science class?

I also suspect that the next bit is to define ID as science.

That's not how I read it. A student may decide that science is bogus, and they can't be persecuted for that. Their grade, however, has to depend on whether they learn the course material. I'd feel better if it said that the students will be evaluated based on their understanding of course materials...

If they stick to teaching science, it can actually be a step in the right direction. It is abundantly clear that most creationists simply do not understand the theory they are attacking. So if the students are actually taught properly, it undercuts the ability to make strawmen.

Wolverine
2006-Jan-13, 04:15 AM
The NSCE finally posted a short blurb (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/OK/670_antievolution_legislation_on_t_1_12_2006.asp) on it, but it's not terribly descriptive. (Then again, it probably doesn't need to be.)

And now there are similar legislative introductions in Indiana (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/IN/700_antievolution_legislation_in_i_1_11_2006.asp), Missouri (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/MO/365_antievolution_legislation_in_m_1_11_2006.asp) and Utah (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/UT/83_antievolution_legislation_in_u_1_12_2006.asp).

beskeptical
2006-Jan-13, 08:22 AM
Such idealism here interpreting this to not include ID. If not for the religious community claiming their science is being discriminated against, what other purpose is there for such legislation?

I'll say it again, the majority of non-science folks who listen to the ID argument do not understand why ID is not science. They are buying, hook line and sinker that scientists are excluding legitimate science because it might agree with the Bible. They are hearing the science community say ID isn't science, but not understanding what that means, they believe the ID argument.

This bill says that loud and clear. It also echoes the arguments I have heard many in the ID and creation community selling. That is if they don't "believe" in evolution they are punished with failing grades. They want the discussion to be about competing beliefs not about competing theories.

We've already lost the battle here. Let's not lose the war. When you get into a discussion about ID, change it to IC, irreducible complexity. Then debunk IC for the fallible hypothesis it is. Send your letters to the editors and to the authors and speakers who are arguing ID telling them to change the subject to IC.

I'm going to harp on this "talking point" over and over in this and the other forums I frequent. You all are going to get tired of reading my posts. That's OK. But listen closely to the response you hear after evolution-ID debates. Every time you hear the mantra, "why not allow a different opinion or idea into a science class", think of what I've said.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-13, 08:39 AM
Such idealism here interpreting this to not include ID. If not for the religious community claiming their science is being discriminated against, what other purpose is there for such legislation?


Did you see my post?

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=650770&postcount=16

The bill writers may very well think the bill includes ID. They would be wrong because the bill is about "presenting science." If it makes it into law and if they start trying to teach ID in public schools it will hit the courts. It is certainly correct to try to educate people about what ID and IC are (and are not), but that doesn't change the fact that the bill, as written, does not allow ID.

HenrikOlsen
2006-Jan-13, 08:51 AM
We've already lost the battle here. Let's not lose the war. When you get into a discussion about ID, change it to IC, irreducible complexity. Then debunk IC for the fallible hypothesis it is. Send your letters to the editors and to the authors and speakers who are arguing ID telling them to change the subject to IC.

I'm going to harp on this "talking point" over and over in this and the other forums I frequent. You all are going to get tired of reading my posts. That's OK. But listen closely to the response you hear after evolution-ID debates. Every time you hear the mantra, "why not allow a different opinion or idea into a science class", think of what I've said.
I'm thinking, what I hear you say is that you want the debate to be about the competing theories rather than about whether ID is a religion.
That means you've lost the battle to keep ID out of classrooms, since there's no laws preventing science teached from teaching conflicting science, which you implicitly accepted it to be.
The reason why the battle is fought where it is, is that this means it is fought where we are legally strongest, even if we have trouble ecxplaining that to common people.

beskeptical
2006-Jan-13, 09:10 AM
Did you see my post?

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=650770&postcount=16

The bill writers may very well think the bill includes ID. They would be wrong because the bill is about "presenting science." If it makes it into law and if they start trying to teach ID in public schools it will hit the courts. It is certainly correct to try to educate people about what ID and IC are (and are not), but that doesn't change the fact that the bill, as written, does not allow ID.I see the world a certain way, but if someone else doesn't see it that way would my view matter? No. You know ID isn't science, I know ID isn't science, but if the court or jurors don't know that then the law can read whatever they think it reads.

The judge in the Dover case was troubled by the religious motives of the plaintiffs almost more than the ID isn't science problem.

Scalia in that dissenting opinion in the Edwards v. Aguillard case cited by Wolfy starts his opinion off not with the legislation content at issue, but rather like, as long as the legislators didn't have religious motivation to write the bill, then the bill was OK. I couldn't get past that part this late at night. Hopefully someone else here will read that dissent and translate it for us.

And though we tread with caution around the religion and the political here, our new Judge to be, Alito is going to be interpreting a lot of legislation in the same vein as Scalia. IE as long as religion isn't the motive any opinion about what is science is not the court's concern.

Either way, the focus with legislation like this will need to be clarifying why ID isn't science. And that means discussing IC. To explain that science doesn't investigate 'intelligent' designers is over the head of a great many non-scientists. Just as I couldn't read Scalia's legalese without a good nite's sleep and only picked out a few sentences I did understand, so will people who don't understand the concept that science doesn't investigate certain untestable things only pick out a few things from the discussion. They hear suppression of dissent, they don't hear why. We have to explain the why with a whole lot more clarity. Or ignore why and just cut to the chase. IC isn't there.

Edited to add: The bill doesn't stop any good science teacher, the trouble is it doesn't stop the bad ones either.

Jakenorrish
2006-Jan-13, 09:48 AM
I hope for the good of one of the world's great countries futures, that this bill fails. It is opening the door for the sheer folly of ID being taught with no scientific evidence to back it up in the science class. Your children will be taken back a few hundred years in terms of their education.

I'm grateful that in the UK, whilst we have the odd nut, we don't have the same co-ordinated fundimentalist far right to throw these spanners into the works of our day to day lives.

I do believe however that in the long term, science will win through. I think that its impossible to ignore facts, so please, PLEASE don't give in to them, fight for the kids!

beskeptical
2006-Jan-13, 09:53 AM
There is no question this will all blow over. Scientific advances are not going to be rejected despite not believing in the science that led to the advances. So eventually these fools will figure it out. It's just annoying in the mean time.

We should be happy at least they aren't still burning scientists at the stake.

ToSeek
2006-Jan-13, 03:51 PM
There has at least been a positive evolution in what can and can't be taught, legally:

- From the 20's to the 60's, evolution couldn't be taught at all in some states
- From the 60's to the 90's, it could be taught but so could "creation science"
- From the 90's until about a month ago, "creation science" could be taught but only if you called it "intelligent design" and never mentioned God or the Bible

I'm sure the evolution will continue, but at least it's going in the right direction.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Jan-13, 05:38 PM
That's not how I read it. A student may decide that science is bogus, and they can't be persecuted for that. Their grade, however, has to depend on whether they learn the course material. I'd feel better if it said that the students will be evaluated based on their understanding of course materials...

If they stick to teaching science, it can actually be a step in the right direction. It is abundantly clear that most creationists simply do not understand the theory they are attacking. So if the students are actually taught properly, it undercuts the ability to make strawmen.At first, I was thinking like you, but upon reflection I have to agree with Swift. Suppose one of the questions in a geology test is "How old is the Earth?" It seems that the proposed new bill would force the teacher to rephrase his question as something like "According to mainstream geological theories, how old is the Earth?", so that it wouldn't infringe on the rights of students who believe in YEC geology.
That's preposterous. Teachers should have the right to expect students to give the mainstream reply by default.
This bill looks like the "Just a theory" stickers under a new guise.

beskeptical
2006-Jan-13, 09:10 PM
I'm thinking, what I hear you say is that you want the debate to be about the competing theories rather than about whether ID is a religion.
That means you've lost the battle to keep ID out of classrooms, since there's no laws preventing science teached from teaching conflicting science, which you implicitly accepted it to be.
The reason why the battle is fought where it is, is that this means it is fought where we are legally strongest, even if we have trouble ecxplaining that to common people.IC is not a theory. It is the premise upon which the theory of ID rests. Take away the ID screen and you have a little man not a wizard.

Do you think most people get it when we say ID is not science or do you think they believe there is a conspiracy to keep legitimate science out of the evolution debate?

swansont
2006-Jan-14, 01:39 PM
At first, I was thinking like you, but upon reflection I have to agree with Swift. Suppose one of the questions in a geology test is "How old is the Earth?" It seems that the proposed new bill would force the teacher to rephrase his question as something like "According to mainstream geological theories, how old is the Earth?", so that it wouldn't infringe on the rights of students who believe in YEC geology.
That's preposterous. Teachers should have the right to expect students to give the mainstream reply by default.
This bill looks like the "Just a theory" stickers under a new guise.

How I read it was that you'd have to give the answer that was taught in class. So, as long as the mainstream geology answer was taught in class, then you can't get credit for a YEC answer. Which is really the way it is now anyway, everywhere. You can be a flat-earther, but you are only going to get credit for your answer about the shape of the earth if you give the answers according to what was taught in class. One would hope that something like "oblate spheroid" is what's being taught.

Swift's apprehension is well-taken, though, and I don't disagree with that. What I said is predicated on teaching actual science, and it looks like it could be subverted. But then one has the leverage to demand that actual science be taught, and have the rule of law on your side, since it demands "scientific information" and we've already had a ruling that ID isn't science.

beskeptical
2006-Jan-14, 11:05 PM
Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student, in any public school shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific views.Looks like you have to learn the course material but not believe it.

George
2006-Jan-15, 04:21 AM
I don't know much of law, but I've noticed many times the terms are well defined to avoid confusion. Here in Texas, for instance, even a motor vehicle is clearly defined in the Tex. Motor Veh. Code. Why don't they define science for the same reason? Otherwise, Swift's argument could be all too valid.

I like the IC approach to dealing with ID, beskeptical. They have a foundation of sand that is not all that strong or irreducibly complex.

beskeptical
2006-Jan-15, 06:40 AM
If more states pass unnecessary laws like this one, maybe the reason ID isn't science will become more clear in court proceedings. On the other hand, the reason it isn't clear now is people are filtering out what they hear to have it fit with what they'd like to believe, that science does not refute their other beliefs. The result will be juries that are swayed by tap dancers in science clothing.

Just change the discussion to IC and show how it has been ruled out by overwhelming genetic evidence.

IDers are still ignoring genetic research, BTW. They pretend to discuss it by claiming one needs an improbable amount of time to get the right mutations, or that you cannot get an organ such as an eye one mutation at a time. They're always bringing up the argument that you can't do anything with 1/2 of a wing.

Trouble with that is, one, there are all sorts of transitional organs in animals today. Eyes for example exist from single light sensitive cells to fully developed insect and animal eyes. Even insect eyes and animal eyes have developmental genes in common.

Two, genetic research has shown exactly how you do get from an arm to a wing with very few changes. It's all in how the DNA is organized. Wings, antennae, arms, and legs all share a considerable amount of their DNA. How do the IDers explain animals with 6 digits? That certainly happens with single mutations. Single mutations give you webbed fingers too I believe. Those are some pretty drastic changes from single or at least simple mutations, that occur all at once, that can easily be found in nature.

And, three, genes are found everywhere that are the same from lifeform to lifeform. The yeast DNA is often used to look at human DNA function because there are many genes that are the same between them.

You don't hear that addressed by the ID crowd. If they took the time to look at all the science instead of trying to just look at things that might support their already established beliefs, this whole thing would go away. That's why I say, given time, it will all go away. The genetic science revolution is certainly not going back in the bag no matter how hard these fools try.

George
2006-Jan-15, 03:22 PM
If more states pass unnecessary laws like this one, maybe the reason ID isn't science will become more clear in court proceedings. Or will they combine science with philosophy to get their way with some open school boards? Worse, will they get away with redefining science to allow ID? Hopefully not.



On the other hand, the reason it isn't clear now is people are filtering out what they hear to have it fit with what they'd like to believe, that science does not refute their other beliefs.
Ah, now you are at the heart of it all; people believe what they want to believe. Fortunately, real science has a method to separate fact from fantasy, as long as measurability is applicable.


The result will be juries that are swayed by tap dancers in science clothing. Yes. [That's better than wolves in sheep's clothing. ;)]


Just change the discussion to IC and show how it has been ruled out by overwhelming genetic evidence.
I'd like to see a quick and simple bullet list that shoots down IC and ID, producing IEeee. ;) Simple one-liners with examples.


You don't hear that addressed by the ID crowd. If they took the time to look at all the science instead of trying to just look at things that might support their already established beliefs, this whole thing would go away. That's why I say, given time, it will all go away. Don't forget their creationism - it's evolving. Oh the irony. :)

beskeptical
2006-Jan-15, 08:51 PM
I'd like to see a quick and simple bullet list that shoots down IC and ID, producing IEeee. ;) Simple one-liners with examples.

Scientist's talking points on ID, with key points in caps, take your pick as there is redundancy in them:

Evolution is supported by OVERWHELMING evidence.

IT IS A MYTH THAT EVOLUTION IS STILL A QUESTIONABLE THEORY, that was before breakthroughs in genetic science confirmed it.

NEW discoveries in GENETIC RESEARCH have shown us how evolution works.

Intelligent Design is based on two claims that SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HAS RULED OUT:
That you can't get from one lifeform to another by single genetic changes...GENETIC RESEARCH SHOWS THAT YOU CAN.

and, That there hasn't been enough time or the odds are too improbable that random mutations alone could give us all the lifeforms we have today...but again, GENETIC RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THEY HAVE.

Intelligent Design says that life is made up of whole parts that had to have been made all at once, (irreducible complexity) and evolution cannot explain that. BUT GENETIC RESEARCH DOES EXPLAIN HOW EVOLUTION DOES IT and shows there is no irreducible complexity.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it is a RELIGIOUS THEORY, but if it were a scientific theory, the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST IT.

The SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST ID or, in other words, against the idea that lifeforms could not have arisen by random processes.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it is a RELIGIOUS THEORY, but the REASON TO LEAVE IT OUT of the science class is the LACK OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT, not that it isn't science.

OF COURSE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS DISCUSSED IN SCIENCE CLASSES. Intelligent Design just doesn't have any scientific evidence to support it despite what the believers of it claim.



The key points I get annoyed not hearing emphasized enough when I hear the science vs ID debates is, that science does allow all the evidence, pro and con and that the evidence for ID is negligible. And, that there is a mountain of new evidence supporting evolution in new genetic research. Those points, if made, are not presented as the main points. Instead, the science debater is usually more interested in the "ID isn't science" point.

It seems many of us are victims of our own knowledge. We'd rather argue the true point, that ID isn't science. It even kills us to overlook that and say ID isn't in science classes because there is no evidence for it. We seem to be unable to ignore the true point for the moment, even at the expense of not getting either point across about why ID shouldn't be in a science class.

But the lay public doesn't understand the finer point of science not investigating designers. The lay public needs the dumbed down version that there is plenty of evidence for evolution and the misconception that it is a questionable theory was before genetic science breakthroughs completely confirmed it. And they need to know the supposed controversial evidence has been considered by science but it doesn't hold up to closer review.



The irony indeed. :)

George
2006-Jan-16, 02:25 AM
Thanks. Very nice.

Allow me to add support to your bullets. Hopefully, you will add some yourself. Please correct any errors on my part.

IT IS A MYTH THAT EVOLUTION IS STILL A QUESTIONABLE THEORY, that was before breakthroughs in genetic science confirmed it.

----NEW discoveries in GENETIC RESEARCH have shown us how evolution works.

---- Microevolution and Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1)are established. Nonfunctional vestigial charcteristics exist today (e.g. Whale limbs, python hip, etc.)


Intelligent Design is based on two claims that SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HAS RULED OUT:
That you can't get from one lifeform to another by single genetic changes...GENETIC RESEARCH SHOWS THAT YOU CAN.
---- [see macroevolution above?]



and, That there hasn't been enough time or the odds are too improbable that random mutations alone could give us all the lifeforms we have today...but again, GENETIC RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THEY HAVE.
---- [e.g. viruses?]

Intelligent Design says that life is made up of whole parts that had to have been made all at once, (irreducible complexity) and evolution cannot explain that. BUT GENETIC RESEARCH DOES EXPLAIN HOW EVOLUTION DOES IT and shows there is no irreducible complexity.
--- Various examples (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html).

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it is a RELIGIOUS THEORY, but if it were a scientific theory, the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST IT.
[I doubt religion consideres it a religious theory, it doesn't fit there either.]


The SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST ID or, in other words, against the idea that lifeforms could not have arisen by random processes.
--- ? [I am ignorant here.]

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it is a RELIGIOUS THEORY, but the REASON TO LEAVE IT OUT of the science class is the LACK OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT, not that it isn't science.
---- The Scientific Model defines today's science. Measureable predictions are necessary elements of a theory. [Science is not just another word for knowledge or ideas of physical reality.]

OF COURSE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS DISCUSSED IN SCIENCE CLASSES. Intelligent Design just doesn't have any scientific evidence to support it despite what the believers of it claim.
--- [same support as above.]


The key points I get annoyed not hearing emphasized enough when I hear the science vs ID debates is, that science does allow all the evidence, pro and con and that the evidence for ID is negligible. And, that there is a mountain of new evidence supporting evolution in new genetic research. Those points, if made, are not presented as the main points. Instead, the science debater is usually more interested in the "ID isn't science" point. Yes, but I can understand the need to keep ID out entirely from the realm of science, rather than allow it in the door but put it in a corner for its apparent impotence. I suppose both should be argued, which may be your view, too.


It seems many of us are victims of our own knowledge. We'd rather argue the true point, that ID isn't science. It even kills us to overlook that and say ID isn't in science classes because there is no evidence for it. We seem to be unable to ignore the true point for the moment, even at the expense of not getting either point across about why ID shouldn't be in a science class.

But the lay public doesn't understand the finer point of science not investigating designers. The lay public needs the dumbed down version that there is plenty of evidence for evolution and the misconception that it is a questionable theory was before genetic science breakthroughs completely confirmed it. And they need to know the supposed controversial evidence has been considered by science but it doesn't hold up to closer review. These folks probably will ask for bullets instead. :)

beskeptical
2006-Jan-16, 08:00 AM
Thanks. Very nice.

Allow me to add support to your bullets. Hopefully, you will add some yourself. Please correct any errors on my part.



and, That there hasn't been enough time or the odds are too improbable that random mutations alone could give us all the lifeforms we have today...but again, GENETIC RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THEY HAVE.
---- [e.g. viruses?]Actually, it's the research that revealed how DNA is redundant, and how it is organized so that different parts of organs are controlled by different genes. For example one or more genes tell the organism where a part will go, one or more control the covering, one or more control the number, one or more control the length and so on. So you don't have one gene that makes an eye. You have many genes. Change one of them and the eye might be very different, but it wouldn't necessarily just not grow or only have a tiny change. That's how you get 6 fully developed digits with single mutations. The gene that changes controls numbers of digits while all the other genes involved remain fully functional. And the redundancy allows mutations to accumulate without being expressed until multiple changes have occurred.


Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it is a RELIGIOUS THEORY, but if it were a scientific theory, the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST IT.
[I doubt religion consideres it a religious theory, it doesn't fit there either.]If you have a better single word description for what category besides 'not science' that ID belongs in I'm open to suggestions.


The SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST ID or, in other words, against the idea that lifeforms could not have arisen by random processes.
--- ? [I am ignorant here.]Are you looking for a reference or an explanation? ID makes claims like random processes could not have worked as they are too improbable. They use faulty reasoning to support such claims.


Yes, but I can understand the need to keep ID out entirely from the realm of science, rather than allow it in the door but put it in a corner for its apparent impotence. I suppose both should be argued, which may be your view, too.It's my view but I think your statement here shows how hard it is for the geek in us all to let that go in favor of being more persuasive. What good is it to explain the finer points while failing to communicate the main message?

Stop worrying about the purity of science and worry a bit more about the effectiveness of the people who are pouring in the impurities.

Your bullets are excellent, BTW.

George
2006-Jan-16, 04:13 PM
Actually, it's the research that revealed how DNA is redundant, and how it is organized so that different parts of organs are controlled by different genes. For example one or more genes tell the organism where a part will go, one or more control the covering, one or more control the number, one or more control the length and so on. So you don't have one gene that makes an eye. You have many genes. Change one of them and the eye might be very different, but it wouldn't necessarily just not grow or only have a tiny change. That's how you get 6 fully developed digits with single mutations. The gene that changes controls numbers of digits while all the other genes involved remain fully functional. And the redundancy allows mutations to accumulate without being expressed until multiple changes have occurred.
Interesting. I appreciate the education; for I skipped all biology courses.

My wish would be to get all this in a simple, but potent, format such as
this (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=148135&postcount=1).

Last night, at a church class, I saw a Ken Ham video for the first time. Ug! He is quick on the trigger, though I found problems in his approach. He did not have enough scientific content to take much aim, but more is to come in subsequent classes. With a belt of bullets, I believe I can bust his bellowing before believers begin to brazenly brag on his boisterous biblical battlefield engagements. Or at least in my own bazar mind I can. :)


If you have a better single word description for what category besides 'not science' that ID belongs in I'm open to suggestions.
You are probably more correct with religious theory, but wise religion won't have it either. How 'bout a PSAA, pseudo scientific anomalous artifact. Albeit, I still like your tap dancers in science clothing. Or, how 'bout "tap dancers in Tyveks"? :)


It's my view but I think your statement here shows how hard it is for the geek in us all to let that go in favor of being more persuasive. What good is it to explain the finer points while failing to communicate the main message?
But isn't the main message obvious to all by now? Even most Christians do not discount evolution. [Ken Ham used this fact to cause concern for his followers.] Yet, most people do not realize the constraints inherent in modern science. This weakness is allowing ID ground with public officials. Evolution is too respected to be overcome with this year's ID'ism. It needs cracks in the system to drive their wedge. Officials understanding the tenets of science will cement those cracks, I suppose.


Stop worrying about the purity of science and worry a bit more about the effectiveness of the people who are pouring in the impurities. Both are important. Albeit, I don't see it so much a purity issue as a credibility issue; for ID is not credible in scientific terms. Understanding this should prevent the next rounds of attack from who knows where. If this happens, science will have it's fortress walls in place. Then, opponents will have to argue against the scientific method to get past the wall, I think.


Your bullets are excellent, BTW.
Thanks, but as shinny as they are, they are still too small a calibre for the shoot-out I could get into. ;) Advancing your work here to about a .30 calibre would be nice. :) Thanks for the help so far.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Jan-16, 04:28 PM
You are probably more correct with religious theory, but wise religion won't have it either. How 'bout a PSAA, pseudo scientific anomalous artifact. Albeit, I still like your tap dancers in science clothing. Or, how 'bout "tap dancers in Tyveks"? :)You could call it philosophy, or theology. Or, better yet, just say it's "not science".

beskeptical
2006-Jan-16, 08:23 PM
Philosophy theory? Theology theory?

It's possible. I'll think on it.

beskeptical
2006-Jan-16, 08:31 PM
George, just keep in mind Ken Ham and people like him have their fingers in their ears. Talk as if your message was really for the other people listening.

Ham: "One plus one is three."
Reply: "One plus one is two. See, I have one here and I put one more here, and now I count them and I count one, two."
Ham: "One plus one is three."

This has become a very common technique with a lot of people, be they sales people like scam artist, Kevin Trudeau being interviewed on the news or Dr. Behe being questioned about his position on ID.

George
2006-Jan-17, 02:36 AM
I understand. Thanks.

LurchGS
2006-Jan-17, 02:49 AM
Philosophy theory? Theology theory?

It's possible. I'll think on it.


no no - the word theory MUST be excluded. It's not a theory. At the very best it's a hypothesis.

I'd settle for 'philosophical idea' or 'religious concept' (when I'd really rather say something like 'total cow flop')

George
2006-Jan-17, 03:37 AM
Is it not pseudoscience, wrought by religious hammers?

LurchGS
2006-Jan-17, 03:42 AM
Is it not pseudoscience, wrought by religious hammers?

certainly - just ask Von Daineken (sp?). But the problem is that the word contains the real word: science. To many, pseudo in front of science just means that it's science that Joe Establishment wants quashed.

Don't weasle about it. The idea is garbage. Pure and simple.

beskeptical
2006-Jan-17, 06:50 AM
I like religious concept in lieu of theory. I'll try to start using that in my tirades.

It ties it to religious, (rightly so), whereas philosophy lets them keep their pretense of not being back door creationism.

harlequin
2006-Jan-19, 08:38 PM
There is now a second creationist bill in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. The NCSE has the story (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/OK/912_a_second_antievolution_bill_in_1_19_2006.asp).

Expect more antievolution bills in Oklahoma in the near-future.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-19, 09:27 PM
There is now a second creationist bill in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. The NCSE has the story (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/OK/912_a_second_antievolution_bill_in_1_19_2006.asp).

Expect more antievolution bills in Oklahoma in the near-future.

Unlike the other one, this one really does say something about ID:

"In any public school instruction concerning the theories of the origin of man and the earth which includes the theory commonly known as evolution, a board of education of a school district may include, as a portion of such instruction, the theory of intelligent design. Upon approval of the board of education, a teacher in the school district may use supporting evidence deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of intelligent design. When providing supporting evidence on the theory of intelligent design, a teacher in a public school shall not stress any particular denominational, sectarian, or religious doctrine or belief."

Ugh. I think this bill would be squashed pretty quickly in court. The religious bent is painfully obvious. I like the bit about "supporting evidence." What supporting evidence? There is no objective evidence for ID, it is all about supposed arguments against evolution.

beskeptical
2006-Jan-19, 11:47 PM
They just don't get it. Someone needs to point out the lack of supporting evidence unless a teacher is poorly informed when presenting the material.

I wonder how a law like that would hold up against a law requiring science teachers to meet certain educational standards?

At least the colleges and universities are weighing in about acceptable prereq. materials.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Jan-20, 12:01 AM
Now, that bill sounds like an attack on science...

The Saint
2006-Jan-21, 10:52 AM
"We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports the story of gradual adaptive change, all the while knowing that it does not" (Niles Eldridge).

Disinfo Agent
2006-Jan-21, 05:04 PM
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" Theodosius Dobzhansky.

harlequin
2006-Jan-22, 06:54 PM
SB 1462 (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2005-06SB/SB1462_int.rtf) is yet another antiscience bill. The point of such laws are to make it easier for local districts to use state money on unapproved texts. Can you say Pandas and People? Or worse...

Maksutov
2006-Jan-23, 02:06 AM
New state song.


Brand new state!
Brand new state,
gotta shut the mind's gate!

Gonna give you ID, and fundamentalist persuaders,
Pastors' views on biology,
Origins and creators!
Sermons on the prairie where the ICRs loom,
Plen'y of hot air and plen'y of eschatological doom,
Plen'y of room except for evolutionists every season!
Plen'y of ID books so our kids can't start to reason.

OHHHHHHH-Oklahoma,
Where the laws come sweepin' out the science
And the wavin' thumpers can sure ignore stumpers
When the state treats facts with sheer defiance!

OHHHHHHH-Oklahoma,
Ev'ry night me and my children's mum
Sit alone and plan, to support a ban,
Of real science in the curriculum.

We know we're irreducibly complex
And on those who disagree we put a hex!
And when we say
Yeeow! Ayipioeeay!
We're glossolalian'
You're doin' fine,
Oklahoma!
Oklahoma O.K.

OHHHHHH-Oklahoma,
Where the laws come sweepin' out the science
And the wavin' thumpers can sure ignore stumpers
When the state treats facts with sheer defiance!

OHHHHHHH-Oklahoma,
Ev'ry night me and my children's mum
Sit alone and plan, to support a ban
Of real science in the curriculum.

We know we're irreducibly complex
And on those who disagree we put a hex!
And when we say
Yeeow! Ayipioeeay!
We're glossolalian'
You're doin' fine,
Oklahoma!
Oklahoma
O.K.L.A...uh...uh...(uh, how do you spell the name of our state?...You don't know either? Never mind...)
Oklahoma!
Yeeow!

harlequin
2006-Jan-25, 01:37 AM
Third creationist bill (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/OK/702_a_third_antievolution_bill_in__1_24_2006.asp) (fourth if the bill allowing textbooks not approved by the state textbook committee is counted).


An Act relating to schools; authorizing teachers to present certain information and allow classroom discussions in science courses; providing certain protections for teachers who present certain information; prohibiting certain construction; providing for codification; and providing an effective date.







BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 11-116 of Title 70, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. Every teacher in a public school in this state shall be authorized to present information and allow classroom discussions that provide for views that may pertain to the full range of scientific views in any science course.
B. No public school teacher in this state shall be terminated, disciplined, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information authorized pursuant to subsection A of this section.
C. Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or encouraging any change in the state curriculum standards for public schools.
D. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
SECTION 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2006.

N C More
2006-Jan-25, 01:48 AM
Do they even realize what they'll end up with if they pursue this idea of "creationist science"? Their "science" curriculum will resemble the reasoning behind this fellow's idea that dinosaurs never existed! (http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaur.htm)

I guess they'll all soon be singing Mak's song!

edited once

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-25, 01:51 AM
Third creationist bill (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/OK/702_a_third_antievolution_bill_in__1_24_2006.asp) (fourth if the bill allowing textbooks not approved by the state textbook committee is counted).

As said there:


Unlike HB 2107, however, SB 1959 is silent about "academic freedom," Edwards v. Aguillard, and "topics ... that may generate controversy, such as biological or chemical origins of life."

So it looks like they pulled the bits that suggested the bill's Creationist origin. What is objectionable in this bill?

beskeptical
2006-Jan-25, 09:18 AM
....So it looks like they pulled the bits that suggested the bill's Creationist origin. What is objectionable in this bill?How about the fact that it isn't needed?

If ID were science, you could certainly bring it up in science class. If ID had any supporting evidence or if evolution really wasn't overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, you could bring it up in science classes.

Bills like this are being introduced because

First, they lost the battle to teach Creationism.
Second, they lost the battle to teach ID.
And now, the new tactic is to pass a law that doesn't mention ID or Creationism, but makes it so every individual teacher that wants to let God in the classroom, and every individual teacher that doesn't understand the material well enough to realize ID doesn't belong and evolution isn't in doubt will have to be addressed one at a time. And in communities filled with Bible believers, there won't be as easy a route for recourse if parents who object want legal remedies.

The kids will just have to get their big awakening when they get to college. Or, if they don't go to college, they can live out their blissful lives knowing, "we didn't evolve from no monkeys."

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-25, 09:47 AM
....So it looks like they pulled the bits that suggested the bill's Creationist origin. What is objectionable in this bill?How about the fact that it isn't needed?

I understand your position, but it really isn't the answer to the what I was trying to ask. I probably wasn't clear enough, let me rephrase: What, in the text of this bill, is objectionable from a legal or constitutional point of view?

I think we have to be very careful here. Either the bill writers don't know what they are doing and are promoting bills like this in the mistaken belief that ID is science, or they know full well what kind of reaction they'll get and are hoping for it. We are being put in the dangerous position of possibly arguing against a bill that appears (at least to me) to affirm that science should be taught in the classroom. I may not like the reasons they are pushing this bill, but how can I promote science and argue against a bill that says it promotes science? And if I (and others) do that, you just know the Discovery Institute is going to play it up, saying some nonsense along the lines of it being an admission that we don't really want science to be taught.

beskeptical
2006-Jan-25, 11:58 AM
If the world was ideal Van, either we wouldn't need the Bill or if it were passed everyone would be on the same page as far as ID not being science.

But the fact the legislators feel the need to pass the Bill tells me they indeed do not understand that ID isn't science. The result will be yet one more "mole" to wack to use the BA's analogy.

harlequin
2006-Feb-10, 01:09 AM
Petition for Oklahoman against the creationist bills (http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/petition.html)

beskeptical
2006-Feb-10, 09:06 AM
Sounds like only Oklahomans should be signing. Is that correct?

harlequin
2006-Feb-14, 03:20 AM
Sounds like only Oklahomans should be signing. Is that correct?

Yeah.

Representatives will only care about the views of Oklahoma citizens anyways.

harlequin
2006-Feb-14, 03:30 AM
For the umpteeth time we got some anti-science [can we say it?] in Oklahoma's state legislature:

HCR 1043 (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2005-06HB/HCR1043_int.rtf). This is a resolution (not a bill) and thus will not have force of law (only intimidation). This one is based on the Santorum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment) language orginally crafted by Phillip Johnson.

Meanwhile the so-called "Academic Freedom Act" mentioned in the first post of this thread has passed the House Common Education Committee on an 8-5 vote. Also HB 2526 (discussed in this thread) has been withdrawn in favor of the "Academic Freedom Act".

harlequin
2006-Mar-03, 02:14 PM
Just when you thought the BA had a chance to stop being angry at idiots:

The Academic "Freedom" Act has passed the Oklahoma House by a 77-10 vote. (http://www.demookie.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=23958)

The governor is a Democrat and the Senate has a Democratic majority so there is hopes that it will be stopped in a Senate committee or vetoed. But given how many Democrats caved-in during an election year, this one has a chance to go all the way.

Bobunf
2006-Mar-03, 04:34 PM
Iíve never been comfortable with the kind of no-holds-barred public debates being considered here. I donít think fast enough on my feet; and usually think of how to answer about ten minutes late.

More than 30 years ago, I worked for a politician who explained how it worked when testifying before legislative committees: the first rule was to answer questions instantly. What you said was almost less important than how quickly you said it. The impression thatís given of someone who doesnít respond quickly is that they donít know, or have something to hide, and are trying to make something up. Not answering instantly breeds distrust and feeds any blood lust thatís around.

From bitter experience, I can say that this is definitely not my cup of tea.

But there are lots of other, perhaps more important, political arenas. Try to understand your average uncommitted state legislator. He is probably not stupid, although there are exceptions. Many are very intelligent and very insightful. Most are not very concerned with popular opinion on most issues, where most people have weakly held opinions, which will not influence their behavior.

But, most legislators will be concerned with people who feel strongly about a particular issue, who write letters, vote, give money, volunteer, contact the media, speak at meetings, influence voluntary organizations, and do other things on the basis of that issue alone. Most are concerned with organizations that take an interested stand on the issue.

Work on actions that will actually influence this typical uncommitted state legislator.

Bob

Bobunf
2006-Mar-03, 05:08 PM
Complaining on this board won't be very effective. Here is one way to be politically effective with respect to this issue in your state:

WRITE YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS

First, find out who they are for the district in which you live. This information is available all over the place, but you can always call your state legislature for names and addresses. Although writing to a non-committed legislator is more desirable, writing to a legislator has come out in favor of your position will help solidify his position (and, maybe, the position of others). Writing a legislator who favor ID legislation may give him (or others) some pause.

The amount of mail on a particular piece of legislation frequently helps determine the legislator's approach to an issue. One well written letter will often prove more weighty than a formal petition with many signatures. E-mail letters are less likely to be given weight than snail mail. E-mail chain letters and petitions are a complete waste of time.

Writing to a legislator is not like posting on an internet forum: Include your real name, address, and telephone number; be absolutely sure all spelling and grammar are perfect, especially including the name and address of the legislator. If you misspell the guy’s name, you might as well put the letter in the wastebasket yourself and save the stamp.

State your case clearly and succinctly, without threats. Don’t even think of talking down to him—he, the staffer or volunteer who reads your letter may know more about the subject than you. Your letter could be read by a Ph.D. in Biochemistry. But keep it simple, the reader may be kid or a senior citizen who knows nothing about biology. Urge your legislator to vote the way you wish, identified by bill number, and present the reasons and rationales for doing so. Try to hold your letter to one page. Sign neatly and legibly. Neatness counts, a lot.

Writing letters to legislators is easy, satisfying, and effective. Tell others in person, on the telephone, in correspondence, through internet postings, and via posted flyers, whom to send letters to and how to do so--once you've sent yours. Don't include a sample letter. I think, multiple identical letters are less than half as effective as the same number of different letters expressing a similar point of view.

Writing the govenor isn't a bad idea either.

Your can be sure right-wing fundamentalist work hard at doing this. Get on the bandwagon.

Bob

harlequin
2006-Apr-07, 03:35 AM
All creationist bills are now dead (http://mattdowling.blogspot.com/2006/04/house-bill-2107-academic-freedom-act.html) -- creationist amendments are still possible though.

beskeptical
2006-Apr-07, 07:48 AM
The moles are in their holes for the moment. ;)

George
2006-Apr-07, 12:25 PM
All creationist bills are now dead (http://mattdowling.blogspot.com/2006/04/house-bill-2107-academic-freedom-act.html) -- creationist amendments are still possible though.
Good news and that Matt Dowling ant bad. :)

farmerjumperdon
2006-Apr-07, 12:54 PM
That's a scary amount of information on ants. Just another example that there's as many niches for experts as there are for life itself.