[_ Old Earth _] NCSE Laments TBOE Recent Decisions

[Crying Rock]

A setback for science education in Texas

At its March 25-27, 2009, meeting, the Texas state board of education voted to adopt a flawed set of state science standards, which will dictate what is taught in science classes in elementary and secondary schools, as well as provide the material for state tests and textbooks, for the next decade. Although creationists on the board were unsuccessful in inserting the controversial "strengths and weaknesses" language from the old set of standards, they proposed a flurry of synonyms  such as "sufficiency or insufficiency" and "supportive and not supportive"  and eventually prevailed with a requirement that students examine "all sides of scientific evidence." Additionally, the board voted to add or amend various standards in a way that encourages the presentation of creationist claims about the complexity of the cell, the completeness of the fossil record, and the age of the universe.

http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/04/setback ... xas-004710

Has anyone been keeping up with the "turmoil" in Austin?

A quick synopsis:

1. Texas has had a "know the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories" clause in it’s science TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) since 1998.

2. A pro-Evolution coalition has recently been lobbying to remove this clause as it pertains to ToE.

3. The pro-Evolution coalition was successful, sort of. The "know the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories" clause was removed from science TEKS.

4. However, the following language was adopted:

Old- "concept of an expanding universe that originated about 14 billion years ago".

New- "current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe".

Old- teach “strength and weaknesses†of all scientific theories.

New- “…in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student…"

New- Students are now specifically required to evaluate the evidence regarding major evolutionary topics such as common ancestry, natural selection and mutations.

New- Two new standards in the high school biology evolution section of the TEKS requiring students to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the fossil record and the complexity of the cell.

New- A new high school biology standard dealing with origin of life research and chemical evolution that calls on students to "analyze and evaluate†the scientific evidence regarding formation of DNA molecules.

Sources-

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/03/te ... .html#more

http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/04/setback ... xas-004710


I'm interested in knowing the differing opinions concerning TBOE's recent decisions. Also, I'm open to correction if I have misrepresented anything in my synopsis of TBOE's recent decisions.


Cheers,

Rock

 

[John]

and eventually prevailed with a requirement that students examine "all sides of scientific evidence."

W00T! its about time!

Mark one up for the good guys!

 

[Barbarian]

I don't think they're going to like how this plays out in the classroom. The issue of the complexity of the cell will allow science teachers to undercut ID's claims.

Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.

 

[Crying Rock]

I don't think they're going to like how this plays out in the classroom. The issue of the complexity of the cell will allow science teachers to undercut ID's claims.

Does anyone respond to this guy's posts ["The Barbarian"]? As a newbie, I'm still trying to understand the overall current of this forum. This particular statement seems so devoid of reason that it makes me question investing my time in this forum.

No disrespect intended. We all have our beliefs.

I'm just trying to get a feel for the current here. :gah

 

[Barbarian]

Does anyone respond to this guy's posts ["The Barbarian"]? As a newbie, I'm still trying to understand the overall current of this forum. This particular statement seems so devoid of reason that it makes me question investing my time in this forum.

That's probably because you don't know much about cells. Let me ask, what would be the very first thing you'd need for a cell to exist. And would you expect it to be more complex than later things, or more simple, if it had to develop naturally?

No disrespect intended. We all have our beliefs.

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. But not to their own reality. Tell me what you think, and we'll go from there.

I'm just trying to get a feel for the current here.

If you're more than just a drive-by poster, you've got a lot of new stuff to see. Let me know if you're serious. I have more than a passing interest in the issue, having become a teacher after I retired. And one of my friends was involved in the committee that was debating the changes.

 

[Crying Rock]

The issue of the complexity of the cell will allow science teachers to undercut ID's claims.

Please explain this statement. I'm listening.

Rock

 

[Barbarian]

Start by answering the questions. Or if you don't know enough about it to say, tell us that, and then we'll go on.

BTW, the current proposed TEKS dropped the language that might have been used to teach religious doctines like ID. The issue is whether some substandard districts might construe the wording to allow ID to be taught.

Given the disaster ID incurred in Dover, that would last about as long as someone blew the whistle, but it's good that it was removed anyway.

And it won't last. Governor Fruitcake is highly unpopular, and Kaye Bailey Hutchison is going to remove him next GOP primary. And she's highly pro-education. There should be a housecleaning on the committee thereafter.

 

[Crying Rock]

Start by answering the questions.

Excuse me? You made the claim:

The issue of the complexity of the cell will allow science teachers to undercut ID's claims.

And you want me to answer questions? It works this way: he who makes the claim has the responsibility of substantiating his claim. I'm listening.

 

[Crying Rock]

Texas Hold 'Em- Calling Evolutionist Julie Berwald’s Bluffs

An article by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/ju ... .html#more

Some interesting excerpts:

"...It's really hard to come up with scientifically based weaknesses to evolution." The intelligent-design supporters exploded in protest. The chairman banged his gavel repeatedly. "I will not have that kind of outburst in this room. If it happens again, I'll clear the room and we'll only have the testifiers in here. I'll do it!.."

"...This was Berwald's first bluff. The problem is that Berwald, whose attention during her testimony was apparently fixed on the Board and not the audience, is completely wrong about was actually responsible for the outburst. What she heard was in fact no “protest,†but the evolution lobby cooing in support of her statement. I was sitting (totally quietly) at the back of the room observing what happened and clearly saw that the evolution lobby (which was congregated in a section directly to my right) was loudly praising her testimonyâ€â€it was no outburst from the “intelligent-design supporters.†To verify my memory, I checked with one of the professional biologists who testified in favor of teaching weaknesses in evolution, who was sitting near the evolution lobby. He confirmed that the outburst came from “all the green shirted evolutionists†who were sitting all around him (the evolution lobby wore green shirts as a little PR stunt)..."

"...She neglected to mention the part of her testimony where she asserted that “evolution plays a fundamental role in understanding all biological processes … further, very little in biology is testable except in the light of evolution.†This bluff was difficult to take seriously, because even if you’re an evolutionist, it should be pretty obvious that it’s easy to do a lot of biology research without considerations of evolution..."

"...Terri Leo (board member): “We heard testimony that it’s very hard to find evidence that doesn’t support Darwin’s theory, and … We have also heard the comment that very little in biology is testable except for in the light of evolution. Do you feel that evolution is necessary for all of your research? …â€Â

"...Dr. Bohlin: “I’d be willing to say that virtually 90, 95% of all molecular and cell biology, which is where my Ph.D. is in, does not require evolution whatsoever. The research I did on a complex in the electron transport chain in mitochondria, didn’t require evolutionary background to do that research and to do that project. I think that when you go into areas of evolutionary biology when we’re looking for how things change over time, there’s a lot of what we could call evolution. Natural selection and mutat[ion]â€â€those things are necessary and those processes need to be understood. But when we’re trying to discover how things work, what is the genome about, how does the genome function, what’s this junk DNA stuff, we don’t need the evolutionary hypothesis to investigate that. We might look to see how it impacts evolution, evolutionary theory, the data and the information we receive. But you don’t need evolution to do the research...â€Â

"...Dobzhansky spoke for himself. … If you look at scientific textbooks and ask the question, if the theory of evolution were not in that textbook, what material would not make sense? And I would say that very little, if any, would not make sense. In fact, I think that anybody who learned the material apart from Darwin in those textbooks could go on to be successful scientists, veterinarians, and medical doctors. The theory of evolution contributes very little to an understanding of basic science and scientific research. The researchers I have known over the timeâ€â€it’s hard to get them into a discussion about evolution because they are more interested in dealing with the molecular mechanisms that are going on in nature in living cells. So I would say that there is very little that you cannot fully understand apart from the theory of evolution..."

Opinions? :gah

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian asks a question)

Excuse me? You made the claim:

Yes, and if you'll follow along, I'll show you why it's true. The IDers flounder on the question of complexity of the cell, because it shows that the most fundamental (pun intended) part of the cell is incredibly simple. The cell membrane is a very simple bilayer of simple molecules that spontaneously form into vesicles in water. One can certainly conceive of a better cell membrane, but this one works well enough, and being the first element in the living cell (because a cell membrane is the one absolutely essential element) it was understandably quite simple. Later refinements were increasingly complex, but the membrane could only be modified by evolution, not replaced. For obvious reasons. These facts make no sense at all from the viewpoint of a mere designer, but are perfectly consistent with evolution and a Creator.

Note the simple bilayer of phospholipids. Unable to replace the membrane, natural selection could only add on various molecules to make the membrane more selectively permeable.

Barbarian:
The issue of the complexity of the cell will allow science teachers to undercut ID's claims.

And you want me to answer questions?

Yes. It's called the "Socratic method." Most effective way, actually.

It works this way: he who makes the claim has the responsibility of substantiating his claim. I'm listening.

See above. If a science teacher had to explain ID, he would have to point out the numerous flaws in that belief, flaws which are not found in scientific theories.

 

[Barbarian]

Dr. Bohlin: “I’d be willing to say that virtually 90, 95% of all molecular and cell biology, which is where my Ph.D. is in, does not require evolution whatsoever. The research I did on a complex in the electron transport chain in mitochondria, didn’t require evolutionary background to do that research and to do that project.

The irony here, is that the electon transport chain in mitochondria is bacterial in nature. That's not surprising; mitochondria have their own, bacterial DNA, reproduce separately from the cell, and are, from all available evidence, endosymbiotic bacteria.

The transport mechanism in mitochondria, BTW, was worked out in part by people using evolutionary theory:

J Biol Chem. 1981 May 25;256(10):5197-203. Links
Site of synthesis of the mitochondrial cytochromes in hepatocyte cultures.Wilson G, Hodges R, Hare JF.

I'm astonished that Bohlin isn't aware of it. His own work is based in evolutionary theory.

I’d be willing to say that virtually 90, 95% of all molecular and cell biology

Did you know that 83% of all statistics are just made up on the spot?

 

[Crying Rock]

[quote="The Barbarian":uem95qjb]Start by answering the questions.

Excuse me? You made the claim:

The issue of the complexity of the cell will allow science teachers to undercut ID's claims.

And you want me to answer questions? It works this way: he who makes the claim has the responsibility of substantiating his claim. I'm listening.[/quote:uem95qjb]

the most fundamental (pun intended) part of the cell is incredibly simple. The cell membrane is a very simple bilayer of simple molecules that spontaneously form into vesicles in water.

Let me ask some background questions on your claim, so I fully understand your argument: As a Christian, do you believe God created matter, time, space, energy, etc…?

If a science teacher had to explain ID, he would have to point out the numerous flaws in that belief, flaws which are not found in scientific theories.

So you’re claiming that there are flaws to ID that are not scientifically founded? If so, what are those flaws? And why would they be discussed in a science class?

Rock

 

[Barbarian]

So you’re claiming that there are flaws to ID that are not scientifically founded?

Since they are religious beliefs, not inferences from evidence, yes. There are some possible predictions of ID, but so far, all of them turned out to be false.

If so, what are those flaws?

One testable prediction is that the cell's earliest components should be very complex. But the opposite is true.

And why would they be discussed in a science class?

Probably shouldn't be, as they are really based in an unorthodox religious sect. But if it's in the curriculum, science teachers could certainly point to such obvious failures.

 

[John]

One testable prediction is that the cell's earliest components should be very complex. But the opposite is true.

Unless we consider things such as the flagellum...

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
One testable prediction is that the cell's earliest components should be very complex. But the opposite is true.

Unless we consider things such as the flagellum..

Flagella came quite a bit later. And the evidence shows they evolved from simpler things. Again, exactly the opposite of what you'd expect with a designer. The earliest cell components; very simple. Over time, increased complexity. Exactly what you'd expect from a Creator who used evolution.

 

[John]

Flagella came quite a bit later. And the evidence shows they evolved from simpler things. Again, exactly the opposite of what you'd expect with a designer. The earliest cell components; very simple. Over time, increased complexity. Exactly what you'd expect from a Creator who used evolution.

Why would it be the opposite? Its only the opposite if you impose preconceived evolutionary ideals on the evidence. Remember creationist use the same evidence you do.

Like I've said many a time the evidence is circumstantial and subject to interpretation.

 

[Barbarian]

Why would it be the opposite?

Because you would expect all of the cell to be equally complex, and if it evolved, you would expect the earliest structures to be simpler. And simpler is what we see.

Its only the opposite if you impose preconceived evolutionary ideals on the evidence. Remember creationist use the same evidence you do.

I don't think so. They generally don't mention that one.

Like I've said many a time the evidence is circumstantial and subject to interpretation.

Nevertheless, the evidence is consistent with evolution, but not with a designer.

 

[John]

It is only consistent with evolution if you impose it. You have no way of showing that X evolved into Y

 

[Barbarian]

Occasionally, we happen to be watching when it happens. So it's not merely evidence; it's direct observation.

 

[John]

variations yes, but isn't that faith that mere variations can change say a whale into a cow even over billions of years?