Debate Over How to Teach Evolution and Climate Change
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-09/debate-over-how-teach-evolution-and-climate-change
A new Tennessee law would require public schools to allow teachers to teach purported weaknesses in the widely-accepted scientific theories found in textbooks.
Leigh Jay Hicks: http://www.flickr.com/photos/partyofhicks/4498080200/
Nearly 90 years after the famous Scopes monkey trial, Tennessee has once again become a battleground over teaching evolution and other science topics in the classroom. The state legislature passed a bill that would require public schools to allow teachers to challenge widely accepted theories on evolution and climate change. Opponents of the so-called "monkey bill" - after the Scopes trial - are pressuring Tennessee's governor to veto it. They say its real purpose is to elevate religion over science. Supporters of the measure argue it's all about academic freedom. Guest host Susan Page and a panel of experts talk about the debate over teaching science in the classroom.
Guests
David Fowler
president, the Family Action Council of Tennessee; former Republican state senator.
Eugenie Scott
executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
David Masci
senior researcher, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Robert Destro
professor of law; director, Interdisciplinary Program in Law & Religion Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Lawmen on April 9, 2012 @ 10:56 am wrote: “Plenty of reasonable people on both sides.”
Sorry, but when it comes to Evolution vs. Creationism, I’ve yet to hear of any “reasonable people” on the latter’s side.
It’s just not reasonable to insist on a position which not only has no empirical evidence to support it, but is refuted by the great mass of such evidence, and even by the “text book” the “theory” is based on!
Oct21 on April 9, 2012 @ 10:56 am wrote: “We have been living with creationism for a couple thousand years and know it's effects. Man made global warming is a relatively new theory that has not been given the test of time to stand on it's own.”
I’m not sure what you mean by the “effects” of Creationism.
As for global warming: well, when Miami and Bangladesh are underwater, when mass migrations of refugees trigger wars and massacres, will you accept the “theory” then?
Personally, I think it’s worth trying to avoid all that. Whatever happened to “cautious conservatives”?
Oh, that’s right, this will cost money!
Brian28635 on April 9, 2012 @ 10:59 am wrote: “Critical Thinking is nothing more than common sense, which CANNOT be taught.”
Baloney.
Critical thinking is often contrary to “common sense” (which is rare in any case).
Quantum theory and Relativity require use of critical thinking applied to the scientific data, both produce results that defy “common sense”, but are absolutely true.
mnemecek on April 9, 2012 @ 11:05 am wrote: “This is a state rights issue, . . . .”
I do wish people would stop invoking that phrase as if it were a “magic talisman” that settles all issues.
The First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, forbids the establishment of religion. Creationism is a religious tenant, therefore it cannot be taught by the government, State or Federal.
Furthermore, there is the simple issue of honesty. Evolution is science, Creationism is not.
texroja April 9, 2012 @ 11:25 am wrote: “I really enjoyed the discussion about the proposed law in Tennessee that would allow teachers to discuss flaws in some scientific theories. This book focuses on this very topic: Why Evolution is Not True It evaluates scientific support for the *historical account* of Biblical creation and examines scientific evidence for Evolution theory.”
Yeah, and based on the review posted on your link, “this book” is a text book example of why “teaching the flaws in Evolution” is nothing but sophistry. Consider this sentence:
“For example, evolution theory predicts that the first human ancestors appeared more than 5 million years ago.”
FACT: Evolution makes no such prediction. Human, and human like, fossils have been found which date back millions of years, but that’s not the product of a “theory”, just the accumulation of facts.
Judging from the rest of the review, this book is just another tired collection of anti-Evolution “chestnuts” that have been refuted time and again. Old whine in a new bottle.
And, of course, it proceeds on the basis of the hoariest chestnut of all: the false dichotomy that either Evolution is true or Biblical Creationism is, therefore any “gaps”, “flaws”, or “missing links” in the first become “proof” for the second.
Sorry, that ain’t true. Just because O.J. was found not guilty doesn’t proof Lt. Worf of the Starship Enterprise did the murders.
There is no “scientific support for the *historical account* of Biblical creation”.
And not much "biblical support" for it either.
tmcsys on April 9, 2012 @ 11:31 am wrote: “It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution”
And you demonstrate precisely why Dr. Scott opposes laws like this one, which will be used to present disagreements about how Evolution operates as “weaknesses” which “refute” Evolution.
No scientific theory is free from doubt. It’s part of what keeps Science moving. Newtonian mechanics “ruled the roost” for centuries. But there were some things it couldn’t account for (electro-magnetism, for example). In the end, it had to be replaced (really more of a “fine tuning”) by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. But did that prove there were “weaknesses” with Physics? Of course not!
Oh, and I wonder how much of the “disagreements” invoked in 1956 still exist. We’ve uncovered a ton of evidence since then! That’s another problem with the “weaknesses” argument. Yes, Evolution cannot account for everything (neither can any scientific theory), but the operative word is yet. The history of attacks on Evolution is littered with “irrefutable arguments” that were refuted within decades of being made!
donaldk@gmail.com on April 9, 2012 @ 11:40 am wrote: “. . . none of your guests could explain the appearance of the first cell, based on evolutionary theory.”
Of course not. Neither could they explain the appearance of the first automobile based on that theory. Why? Because Evolution doesn’t deal with either question!
Darwin’s book is titled On the Origin of SPECIES, not the origin of life. That is a different part of biology. Evolution starts once life begins, but it cannot (and never was intended to) explain how life began.
This is just another example of the sophistry Creationists employ. Too bad you bought into it.
And playing word games with the term “belief” is simply more sophistry. The speakers were using it in a colloquial sense.
ronster on April 9, 2012 @ 11:56 am wrote: “Are you saying that the bible does not contain most of the history of the ancient world (proven and verified)?”
Really? I must have missed (in Hebrew School) where they discussed the portions dealing with Ancient Greece, Sumeria, India, China, and the Aztecs, Incans, and Mayans.
Can you show me the Book, Chapter, and Verse, which discussed the Bering land bridge that the ancestors of Native Americans used to cross over into America?
Oh, and which version of creation (Genesis 1 or 2) has been “proven and verified”, to say nothing of the conflicting descriptions of Solomon’s Temple found in Kings and Chronicles?
Andrew Tubbiolo on April 9, 2012 @ 12:44 pm wrote: “Teaching kids s science dogma or religion dogma is a crime against ourselves. . . . . Don't turn it into a dogmatic argument on logical par with the religious nut cases.”
They didn’t, so your entire argument is false.
Sanpete on April 9, 2012 @ 1:04 pm wrote: “It's astonishing how bad people are at understanding views they strongly disagree with. . . . . It doesn't allow creationism to be taught.”
Your Comment is a prime example of misunderstanding. This bill is designed to weaken support for Evolution by touting vague and undefined “weaknesses”. It is promoted by people who want to destroy Evolution, and who champion Creationism. That is the background to the legislation which you are completely ignoring. You must learn to employ critical thinking, and look beneath the surface appearance of things.
And what “weaknesses” are the students to be taught? The collection of hoary chestnuts refuted time and again? (The complexity of the eye, “missing” links, thermodynamics vs. evolution.) These are all false arguments ultimately premised on the biggest lie of all: that whatever challenges Evolution is proof for Creationism.
Sorry, but that’s not Science, and doesn’t belong in a science course.
MDavey on April 9, 2012 @ 1:45 pm wrote: “Where science, and by extension, the teaching of science K-12 is perhaps negligent, is in acting as if the science-based worldview is the only worldview that counts.”
If that were truly what is taught in science class, I’d agree with your criticism, but it isn’t.
Yes, science teachers don’t discuss Dickens, but as you point out neither do gym teachers. They aren’t part of the subject of Science, and thus don’t belong in that class room. But just because a science teacher doesn’t discuss them, that’s not the same as discounting them. (I never read Don Quixote in French class!)
Although, there is the Shakespearean lament: “And new philosophy calls all in doubt”, which refers to the scientific revolution.
donaldk@gmail.com on April 9, 2012 @ 2:37 pm wrote: “Evolutionists leap to natural selection; creationists to a designer.”
If you are truly a physician, sir, I just pray you aren’t mine! With “reasoning” like that you must be lousy.
Or do you tell your patients they are free to believe the “demonic possession” theory of disease, and not take anti-biotics to treat the plague?!
Evolutionists don’t “leap to” natural selection. (Darwin’s original book is hundreds of pages long, and took decades to write - hardly a “leap".) They arrived at that conclusion, and continue to accept it, because of a growing mountain of evidence from numerous scientific disciplines (not just biology, but also physics, chemistry, geology, etc.) that support that conclusion.
As for the belief that “certain records point to truth” - if you mean the Biblical account of creation, then that belief is untenable. Not only is it refuted by the physical evidence (which is what Science deals with) but it is refuted by the text itself. Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other, and cannot be harmonized. All rational faiths (yes, they exist) recognize this, and reject Biblical Literalism. Fundamentalism embraces Literalism, and therefore must reject Science, fact, reason, and even the plain text it “reveres”. That is not reason or truth; it’s blind dogma!
And it has no place in a Science classroom.
gary k on April 9, 2012 @ 5:58 pm wrote: “In any controversy, the truth always lies somewhere between two extremes.”
Nonsense.
Where, between the two extremes, does the truth lie in the controversy our nation began in: independence versus monarchy?
Where, between the two extremes, does the truth lie in the Civil War: slavery versus freedom?
Where, between the two extremes, does the truth lie in the Holocaust: were the Jews vermin and Germans the “master race”, or were the Nazis a bunch of genocidal sadists?
Where, between the two extremes, does the truth lie in the Copernican controversy: is the center of our solar system somewhere in the Asteroid belt?
Sometimes, particularly in political controversies, the truth lies in the middle. But always? I think not.
johnandere on April 9, 2012 @ 7:41 pm wrote: “I'm replying to Joshua Hendrickson, but it doesn't really matter which liberal it is. I haven't read all the messages ... and I don't have to because I already know what they say. Joshua sums up the thoughts of most here. Now, I've asked this question any number of times on this board, but I am yet to get an answer - here we go again. . . .”
And the first part of that tirade demonstrates why you still don’t deserve an answer. You can’t be bothered with facts (“I haven't read all the messages ... and I don't have to because I already know what they say.”) You just lump us all into a generic distortion you call “liberal”, and assume we all think and march alike. (Freudian projection, perhaps, from a conservative?)
I’ve already disagreed with Mr. Hendrickson on a number of points, so I feel no need to respond to your equally wrong ones, especially that question.
(But I will wonder what “hidden agenda” you are trying to pursue. What “ideology” do you claim “science trumps”?)
sheen on April 9, 2012 @ 9:17 pm wrote: :Hello Joshua. You were profound.”
No, he was hyperbolic, and wrong. As are you. And both for the same reason.
Further proof that political extremes mirror each other.
Evolution does not “threaten” a belief in a god, just a belief in Biblical Literalism (or the literal truth of any other scripture). But that doctrine is false anyway, refuted by physics, chemistry, geology, cosmology, archaeology, geometry, history, and even the scriptural text itself.
And since you start from the same false premise as Joshua, your conclusions are equally false.
Sorry to be so long winded, folks, but this is a subject I am passionate about.
Religious freedom, and its protector (separation of church and state) are the most precious legacy we have received from the past, and the most precious bequest we can leave to the future. So when I see it under attack by either Theocrats (those who seek to denigrate Science, for example) or by Anti-Theists (those who seek to denigrate Religion, in all of its forms), I must write in response.
Evolution is no threat to religion in general, and religion need be no threat to Evolution. The conflict is only with a narrow segment of religion that insists, against all evidence, in taking sacred texts as literally true and inerrant throughout. The attack on Evolution is simply one aspect of the desperate attempt to maintain that false doctrine against all evidence and reason.
That, not religion in general, is what must be challenged.
Ciao.
There are hundreds of amateur physicists who believe they have disproved the theory of Special or General Relativity, or quantum mechanics; presumably their demonstrations---derided though they may be by the élite (that is, people who've learnt physics) as 'incorrect' or 'irrational' or 'making faulty assumptions' or 'not even wrong'---have a place in the curriculum as well.
Let's be bald-faced about it: very little science is actually taught in secondary school. We teach scientifically-derived facts, the history of science, some basic lab techniques...but we generally do not teach the scientific method and the ways in which scientists judge theories and their proposed flaws (hint: if it flies in the face of what most experts believe, it had better have amazingly solid proof, as did q.m., relativity, and evolution).
As such, we should teach students the basics of evolutionary theory, note that some small percentage of biologists don't hold with it, why they don't hold with it (usually: it conflicts with stuff my shepherd ancestors used to chant around the fire), and that if it turns out to be false almost all of modern biology will have to be re-done---and that will be welcomed by young scientists as their ticket up, since successfully attacking an established theory is a surefire way of gaining eminence...the key word here is 'successfully'.
The problem is that neither the students nor (usually) the teachers have the ability to correctly evaluate proposed weaknesses. Maybe the real solution is to really teach the scientific method and critical thinking, early---but that could lead to problems as well, since a good chunk of what we make children and teen-agers do doesn't really make much sense, so critical thinking can certainly cause some trouble---at home, with future employers, with government, with churches,....
Sorry to auto-reply, but I wasn't clear enough: if I thought that actual "critical thinking" were going to be taught, I might like this bill. Religious teachers could bring up the proposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory, and then dispassionately guide the students as they go to primary sources, think rationally, and disprove them.
Instead, in practice it will become a simple case of "This is so"/"Uh-UH!", with its attendant sophistication and relationship to finding truths.
Did the lame host ever ask this guest what his qualifications were? Or is it just okay to start an anti-scientific, anti-"anythingPresidentObama" organization to be 'qualified? I only got to listen awhile and he sounded just angry and ignorant, ranting that people who opposed his (essentially)"teaching religion in public school" law refused to read the law. HUH! How many right wingers demand censorship of books they (can't?) won't read, movies they refuse to see, music they never listened to etc.
Etaoin Shrdlu,
You need to read the the sentence again; the word "middle" isn't there.
I think if you had a definition of truth, it would be " whatever I choose to believe, regardless of any evidence to the contrary".
Joshua Hedrickson wrote:
"Nothing trumps ideology if, that is, the ideology in question doesn't want to be changed--such as faith-based ideology"
But what about you, Joshua? That's what I'm interested in. I asked YOU if YOU think science trumps ideology. It's a simple question.
strudel wrote:
"I’ve already disagreed with Mr. Hendrickson on a number of points, so I feel no need to respond to your equally wrong ones, especially that question."
Consider the difference between "won't respond" and "can't respond". It's a simple question, strudel!
"(But I will wonder what “hidden agenda” you are trying to pursue. What “ideology” do you claim “science trumps”?)"
My, you ARE the suspicious sort, aren't you?! Instead of trying to parse such a simple question to itty-bitty pieces, why don't you just answer it?! In your view, does science trump ideology?
gary k wrote on April 10, 2012 @ 2:42 pm: “You need to read the the sentence again; the word ‘middle’ isn't there. I think if you had a definition of truth, it would be ‘whatever I choose to believe, regardless of any evidence to the contrary’. ”
You better read my Comment again (April 10, 2012 - 4:14 am), I used the word “middle” only as a shortened version of your “somewhere between two extremes”. The middle, of course, lies between the extremes.
However, as the specific examples I employed show, truth sometimes lies with one “extreme” or the other.
American independence was better than submission to George III’s monarchy.
Ending slavery was superior to preserving it.
The Nazis were a bunch of genocidal sadists (and there is no “master race”, nor are Jews “vermin”).
And the sun is the center of our solar system, not the Earth.
Truth? Truth is quite simply whatever actually exists. The real problem is proving something is true, and that requires evidence. In the case of Evolution versus Creationism there is strong evidence supporting the former, and no evidence supporting the latter. Worse, all the available evidence refutes Creationism.
So, based on the evidence (so far) I’d say Evolution is true (or at least may be), and Creationism isn’t.
You, however, are free to pursue your chimera, between those “extremes”.
johnandere on April 10, 2012 @ 7:32 pm wrote: “Consider the difference between ‘won't respond’ and ‘can't respond’. It's a simple question, strudel!”
And as I’ve already stated, you don’t deserve an answer to your question because of the blatant dishonesty of your writing. (For example, calling me “strudel”, while writing under a different name. We all know who deliberately employs that insulting reference.)
And until you tell us what “ideology” you are talking about, I see no reason to answer your question. I am quite familiar with your sophistry, sir, and refuse to be a part of it. Answer my question and I’ll be happy to answer yours, but I won’t respond to a vague, open ended piece of empty rhetoric - especially from someone who can’t be bothered to actually read what people write, because he assumes all liberals have the same point of view. I’ve demonstrated how wrong you are about that, among other things.
strudel wrote:
"For example, calling me “strudel”, while writing under a different name. We all know who deliberately employs that insulting reference"
From March 2, 2012, echoed March 12, 2012
strudel wrote:
"Another fellow who’s chosen to rename himself for some reason. I believe it was egchbert [sic] who came up with that not very clever distortion of my name."
You mean like "Republi-Con"? Hypocrite.
Because I could not post under that ID and was forced to change. I've spoken openly about that on this board. Perhaps you were asleep like you were in contracts class - but more on that later. Whatever happened to the ecgberht ID even the webmaster, Jason, couldn't figure out. The best he could offer was "For the record, we're planning on moving to a better commenting system later this year that will allow us much better control over such issues. Apologies for the inconvenience." So I haven't "chosen" anything. Apology accepted.
*********************************************
So, now I'm not sure if you are just forgetful or maybe a "little slow on the uptake"? (I'm being kind).
And insulting?! Nonsense! It's always been my pet name for you, buddy!
"And until you tell us what “ideology” you are talking about, I see no reason to answer your question. I am quite familiar with your sophistry, sir, and refuse to be a part of it. Answer my question and I’ll be happy to answer yours, but I won’t respond to a vague, open ended piece of empty rhetoric"
Dude, it's such a simple question! It can be answered with a "yes" or a "no"! That's not "empty rhetoric". "Empty rhetoric" doesn't have a question mark at the end! It's a simple question that you CAN'T answer! No, better, you are AFRAID to answer. Do you know what you believe? Do you believe science trumps ideology? It sounds like it. Why can't you say it. OK, I will. I believe science trumps ideology. How about you, strudel? How about you Joshua?
johnandere on April 10, 2012 @ 10:30 pm wrote: “You mean like ‘Republi-Con’? Hypocrite.”
PART ONE
How does my use of the phrase “Republi-Con” (short for Republican-Conservative) relate to your posting under a different name, and your deliberate use of “strudel”? Answer: it doesn’t, but in true Republi-Con fashion, you think you can just hurl whatever mud you want, and hope it will stick. Too bad you’re a person who’s opinion is so worthless that an insult from you is like a compliment from anyone else.
Hypocrisy? I leave that to you.
“Because I could not post under that ID and was forced to change.”
Perhaps, but why change to a completely different name? When I had trouble posting (because, I suspect, someone chose to flag all my posts as offensive - someone with a conservative axe to grind), I simply changed to Etaoin Shrldu2. No one was misled, no one had any trouble identifying me. Why didn’t you do the same?
“I've spoken openly about that on this board.”
- And shocking as it may sound, I do have a life, and don’t spend all my time here. So, yes, I’ve missed the occasions on which you (allegedly) spoke about this in the past.
“Perhaps you were asleep like you were in contracts class - but more on that later.”
- No, it was “conflicts resolution” I slept through (the teacher was terrible). Contracts I was wide awake for. (Which is why I know the subject, unlike yourself. Oh, and we’re still waiting for that “more” you promised us “later”.)
Meanwhile, no apologies from me to you. You don’t deserve any.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
“ ‘Empty rhetoric’ doesn't have a question mark at the end!”
Oh please. Questions can be examples of empty rhetoric. The term “rhetoric” simply refers to the use of language. Rhetoric can be filled with meaning and importance (Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets, for example), or they can be words used in a way devoid of meaning. You deliberately throw general words around without bothering to define or clarify how you are using them, thus allowing you (Humptey Dumptey style) to change their meaning whenever it suits your purpose. That is empty rhetoric.
You can’t be bothered to read what people write, so you simply assume all liberals agree with what Joshua Hedrickson wrote. In short, you aren’t interested in what an individual’s actual views are, just your “generic liberal” (and how you define the term “liberal”). You then hurl your question at that non-existent being. I’ve already expressed my disagreement with Joshua’s views, proving I’m not a “generic liberal”, so the empty rhetoric which serves as the premise for your “question” is invalid.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
I will answer your question if, and only if, you tell us precisely what “ideology” you have in mind, and what you consider to be “science. In short, define your terms - anything else is simply more empty rhetoric.
As for what I believe? I believe fact and reason (whether employed in science or other disciplines) trumps empty rhetoric and opinions devoid of either, and contrary to both. (Which is what you tend to offer, and often all you offer.)
Hey, here’s an idea! Why not modify your question to deal with the specific topic being discussed? Do you believe physical facts, and reason, supporting Evolution (and refuting Creationism) trump the ideology which is all Creationism has on its side? I do.
(And why don’t I ask about global warming? Because I haven’t formed an opinion one way or the other about that! I’m awaiting further, and stronger, evidence.)
Oh strudel! You remind me of this verse from Matthew:
"do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words"!
Most of what you post is blather, so I will not respond to most of it. But just to clear things up in your little brain, your use of the term Republi-Con parallels my little "strudel" name for you. Got it?
Sorry if you think there are "rules" as to how you think alternate IDs should be created. I've made it clear in multiple threads on this board IN WHICH YOU WERE A PARTICIPANT that ecgberht and I are the same.
As for "knowing the subject of contracts", in two separate threads I've shown that you do not understand the concepts in uni-lateral contracts. I'm sure you continue to maintain that the contract is binding on both parties once the offeree responds. That's false. A uni-lateral contract is NEVER binding on the offerree. Never. Never. Never! As Yogi Berra would say, "you could look it up". Got it?
Second post is complete garbage.
From the third, "I will answer your question if, and only if, you tell us precisely what “ideology” you have in mind,"
Why? What difference does it make? Is it your contention that science trumps ideology sometimes but not others? It does when it is convenient for you, but not when it is not convenient?
It is a SIMPLE question that you CANNOT or are AFRAID to answer!
You stall (which is all this nonsense you post is - a stalling tactic) by insisting I "define my terms". Swell, here we go.
As for the definition of science, let's go with this:
"knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method " (emphasis on the "scientific method" part).
ideology:
"the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program " or more simply, "ideas characteristic of a person, group, or political party "
Now ... does science trump idiology?
In beginning was the math, and the math was with God, and God was the math. He was in beginning with God. All things (4.2% is all we see hold connect with'mass') though him came into being, and without him came into being not even one which has come into being. In him life was, and the life was the light of men. And the light in the darkness appears, and the darkness it apprehended not. 95.8% pneuma is between every particle. Genesis 1:1 first event; then notice a lot of ands(figures of speach) the next nine major events preceded with LET.
Pancake Rankin's screed pretty well sums up why "Biblical Scholars" have a bad name. If you can't even get your head around theology, all you can do with biblical studies is engage in scholastic arguments about how many angels can dance on your counterfactuals. In other words, science in the classic sense is just a matter of opinion. Which is pretty much the argument that creation science makes. See the double standard ? For what it is ? Simply put, the "religious right" holds no monopoly on superstition. Which is how, I suppose, how one makes the leap of faith from cutting the old man's grass to child soldiering. Nuts.