Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 5:09 AM
391 online now:
Dredge, Faith, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 386 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,448 Year: 10,054/21,208 Month: 3,141/2,674 Week: 557/961 Day: 19/151 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
16171819Next
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1088 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 211 of 283 (650569)
02-01-2012 4:15 AM


One got through Senate!
This Bill was just passed by the Indiana Senate. Look closely at the original version. Although it was the amended version which passed, the wording of the original Bill gives the game away.

On January 31, 2012, the Indiana Senate voted 28-22 in favor of Senate Bill 89. As originally submitted, SB 89 provided, "The governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation." On January 30, 2012, however, it was amended in the Senate to provide instead, "The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology."
From http://ncse.com/...ana-creationism-bill-passes-senate-007182

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Pressie, posted 02-01-2012 4:49 AM Trixie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1577
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 212 of 283 (650570)
02-01-2012 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Trixie
02-01-2012 4:15 AM


Re: One got through Senate!
On January 30, 2012, however, it was amended in the Senate to provide instead, "The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life.
So they can also discuss Panspermia. The FSM will also bless them! Nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution at all. They can still only teach the ToE in Biology!
The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology."
Hope this law forces schools to give the FSM equal time on the origin of life with all the other religions in religious studies!

Edited by Pressie, : Added sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Trixie, posted 02-01-2012 4:15 AM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Trixie, posted 02-01-2012 4:57 AM Pressie has responded

    
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1088 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 213 of 283 (650571)
02-01-2012 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Pressie
02-01-2012 4:49 AM


Re: One got through Senate!
I suppose if they teach this in a comparative religion class that's fine although they're not really comparing religions, they're comparing origins within various religions. I note that they call these variations "theories", again showing a complete misunderstanding of the term "theory". Actually, that might be a deliberate ploy to conflate theory in everyday language and theory as it's used in science. I'm concerned about the term "creation science" though. Will they use this to shoehorn the lot into science class?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Pressie, posted 02-01-2012 4:49 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Pressie, posted 02-01-2012 5:17 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1577
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 214 of 283 (650574)
02-01-2012 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Trixie
02-01-2012 4:57 AM


Re: One got through Senate!
I suppose if they teach this in a comparative religion class that's fine although they're not really comparing religions, they're comparing origins within various religions.
That's fine in religious classes. It will open the eyes of some kids to realise that their parents religions are not special, but just one of many. As long as they give the FSM equal time.
I note that they call these variations "theories", again showing a complete misunderstanding of the term "theory".
Yes, I know, but they've been doing it since they started creation "science". Nothing new.
Actually, that might be a deliberate ploy to conflate theory in everyday language and theory as it's used in science.
Yes, it is. Nothing new. It's been happening for decades now. Remember, after their original creation "science" didn't work, they opened up a new term, called "Intelligent Design". It worked for the unintelligent, but didn't fool the intelligent, nor the courts.
I'm concerned about the term "creation science" though. Will they use this to shoehorn the lot into science class?
They've been trying it for decades now. It works on some people, but scientists and courts (where people have to tell the truth under oath or face a sentence in penetentiary) are not that easily confused.
I suppose if they teach this in a comparative religion class that's fine although they're not really comparing religions, they're comparing origins within various religions.
That's great. That's the time for kids to ask for evidence for their respective religions. When I was at school, only the Christian religion was allowed in religious classes. No evidence asked, no evidence provided. Only sermons. I only found out that other religions existed, later.
I note that they call these variations "theories", again showing a complete misunderstanding of the term "theory". Actually, that might be a deliberate ploy to conflate theory in everyday language and theory as it's used in science.
They've done it that way since creation "science" started. I think it was the early eighties. It's thirty years later, it still hasn't worked. A lot of people do have intelligence and are not that easily fooled.
I'm concerned about the term "creation science" though. Will they use this to shoehorn the lot into science class?
They'll keep on trying to do it , forever. If it doesn't work for them, they tried and will try different names, again. History repeats itself. They'll never stop.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Trixie, posted 02-01-2012 4:57 AM Trixie has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15561
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 215 of 283 (650581)
02-01-2012 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 6:13 PM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
Early on in this thread I posted that I didn't really have any major problems with the bill. I don't think it's a good idea, but the bill is fairly clear on the most important issues. The bill does explicitly state that children should be taught about "scientific controversies," and that this would include the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of a theory.

Where the danger lies is that some teachers or boards of education might interpret the bill as allowing teachers to teach their own personal views about what they think is controversial within science, instead of about real controversies within science. There's no controversy within science about chemical evolution (about which we know little) or biological evolution (about which we know a great deal). That natural processes that I suppose could be referred to as chemical evolution are responsible for the origin of life is very widely accepted within science. And that evolution is responsible for diversity of life on the planet throughout most of its history is also very widely accepted within science.

And this is where the bill goes wrong, by singling out "the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution," because concerning what proponents of the bill want to bring to the classroom there are no controversies within science. Evolution is a political, social and religious controversy, not a scientific controversy.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 6:13 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 12:12 PM Percy has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 216 of 283 (650597)
02-01-2012 11:03 AM


The bill states:

shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution. Such educational authorities in this state shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution.

This means that science teachers are now free to rip ID and creation "science" a new one.

Occam's razor cuts both ways.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1611 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 217 of 283 (650608)
02-01-2012 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dr Adequate
01-31-2012 6:11 PM


Re: SHOW ME
The act of killing someone by hitting them in the head with a blunt instrument doesn't state whether it's murder, manslaughter, or a legitimate act of self-defense. This is why we try to find out what the actual motives were with reference to things other than the mere fact of the blow to the head.

Its definitely not Kosher or Halal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-31-2012 6:11 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2012 2:45 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1611 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 218 of 283 (650618)
02-01-2012 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Percy
02-01-2012 9:03 AM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
I agree with you. This bill will probably have to be revised with some of the wordage changed a bit, really it doesn't accomplish anything, nor do I think it would affect much of anything.

To me this bill simply gives more power to the local policy makers, the local school boards and educators, instead of a large central government meddling with every facet of everyone lives down to elementary school education, and as a small government conservative, I really do not see the issue.

like many policies designed to give more power to smaller groups there is the possibility that some less than desired effects will take place (like some YEC teachers teaching some goofy shit), but that is up to the localities, and maybe the state. The passage of this bill does not mean that in places like St. Louis or Kansas City, or Columbia, MO will teach creationism in their classrooms. It could mean that people in Vienna, MO may, but then Vienna is 99% white, and 80% baptist (normal, Southern, and landmark), and if they want to be ignorant they are going to be ignorant, but trying to control them is not the way to go about it.

the slippery slope mindset that schools all across Missouri are going to teach creationism is what is silly to me, that the application of this bill is some vast conspiracy to deny people their constitutional rights is even sillier.

this is a bill for rural people in poor tiny communities, who want to govern themselves, and set their own curriculum. This thing is all political, this bill aint shit, it is not a statewide curriculum change, and it sure aint no big deal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 02-01-2012 9:03 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2012 3:01 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 229 by Percy, posted 02-01-2012 8:54 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1611 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 219 of 283 (650619)
02-01-2012 12:15 PM


general reply to the bombsquad
Taq writes:

You would be very, very wrong. Only papers with original findings can be published in peer reviewed journals. The NIH and other grant funding organizations only fund grants that are looking for new discoveries.


ORLY?
Here is one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2330042/
Takes previous work and builds on it. Working in baby steps, doing something that ďhas already been doneĒ and building on it a bit. And it is from a researcher at the NIH. Go figure, but hey Iím very very wrong according to your genius on this subject.

coyote writes:

And we're going to get that from creationists?


Sure.
coyote writes:

Creationists are anti-science. They have to be as science not only fails to confirm their beliefs, but flatly contradicts many of them.
Rather than change their beliefs, creationists are out to cripple those parts of science they disagree with and to "wedge" their beliefs back into the school systems by increasingly dishonest means.


I would not consider you a poster who is a fan of blanket statements and generalizations. Especially one conservative to another, when I am sure you receive your fair share of generalizations around here for being conservative. Creationists may be against evolution but that doesnít make them anti-science, I am surprised you do not understand the difference.
And you think they are going to provide "an objective review of scientific strengths and weaknesses?" What a laugh!

Dang what is with all your assumptions today? I think the bill could provide an objective review in the science classroom, as per the bill as is written, I am not even talking about creationists with regard to this bill.

Dr Adequate writes:

Did you forget what you were trying to argue for? Go back and try again.


Well shit. Why not straw man me like everyone else and tell me what I am arguing? Rofl.

Granny Magda writes:

If you think a coot looks like a duck then you shouldn't be teaching science to kids.


I donít, though you shouldnít preach the US constitution if you aint one of us, and aint here

Trixie writes:

I'm not trying to tell Missouri what they can and can't teach, I'm pointing out that it's the US Constitution that tells them what they can and can't teach. If they don't want to be governed by the Constitution I suppose they could always make enquiries about leaving the Union, but if they want to be a part of the Union, they have to accept the rules of the Union. They don't get to pick and choose which bits they'll comply with and which bits they'll ignore.

Just like I donít tell you how to be a subject of your Queen, I wonít hear anything from you people about our constitution. Mind your own business.


Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2012 12:36 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 221 by Blue Jay, posted 02-01-2012 1:59 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 222 by Taq, posted 02-01-2012 2:07 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 223 by Trixie, posted 02-01-2012 2:23 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 225 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2012 2:46 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply
 Message 227 by Granny Magda, posted 02-01-2012 4:26 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 228 by bluegenes, posted 02-01-2012 5:10 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 220 of 283 (650621)
02-01-2012 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Artemis Entreri
02-01-2012 12:15 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
coyote writes:

Creationists are anti-science. They have to be as science not only fails to confirm their beliefs, but flatly contradicts many of them.
Rather than change their beliefs, creationists are out to cripple those parts of science they disagree with and to "wedge" their beliefs back into the school systems by increasingly dishonest means.


I would not consider you a poster who is a fan of blanket statements and generalizations. Especially one conservative to another, when I am sure you receive your fair share of generalizations around here for being conservative. Creationists may be against evolution but that doesnít make them anti-science, I am surprised you do not understand the difference.

Sometimes generalizations are accurate.

How can you believe that creationists are supporting science with all the goofy stuff they make up? And with all of the science they ignore, misrepresent, and flat out lie about because of their religious beliefs? And with the attacks they make on the scientific method itself? Attacking the scientific method, as they do, strikes at the heart of science.

Just look at the absolute nonsense on the creationist websites and try to tell me they support science.

Look at the Wedge document from the Dishonesty Institute. One of it's statements is, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." I can only interpret that as forcing the removal of the scientific and naturalistic approach used by science and replacing it with a theistic approach. ("You vill do science our way and you vill like it! Das is alles! Hallelujah!")

And you think they are going to provide "an objective review of scientific strengths and weaknesses?" What a laugh!

Dang what is with all your assumptions today? I think the bill could provide an objective review in the science classroom, as per the bill as is written, I am not even talking about creationists with regard to this bill.

You might not be talking about creationists with regard to this bill, but they are the ones pushing the bill for religious, not secular, reasons. They are following a very well-known pattern. You don't really think they care about improving science, do you?

If they cared about improving science there are a lot of things they could do, but what you see is the opposite--trying to arrange things so their myths and other religious beliefs are given equal footing with empirical science.

And they figure they can get away with it through peer pressure from the community on teachers. I suspect that any teacher who teaches science as opposed to belief wouldn't last long. And I suspect that is the main intent of this bill.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 12:15 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:17 PM Coyote has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 221 of 283 (650633)
02-01-2012 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Artemis Entreri
02-01-2012 12:15 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
Hi, Artemis.

I haven't been part of a bombsquad for a while, so here's my 2 cents:

Artemis Entreri writes:

Taq writes:

Only papers with original findings can be published in peer reviewed journals.

ORLY?
Here is one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2330042/
Takes previous work and builds on it.

Is it your position that all discoveries that build on previous discoveries count as "doing what has already been done"? So, for example, once we've sequenced the genome of one species, sequencing the genomes of other species would just be redundant? After all, who needs a wasp genome when we've already got a fly genome?

Is this really comparable, in your mind, to giving relatively untrained school teachers the prerogative to scrutinize what has already been scrutinized by multiple generations of better-trained scientists?

I was recently an adjunct instructor of an introductory biology course, which involved teaching lectures about evolution, paleontology, genetics, ecology, taxonomy, geography, climatology and basic logic. However, my professional credentials only really make me an expert in ecology. So, how do I teach those other topics objectively? Should I teach what professional geneticists have put forward based on decades of genetics research? Or should I assume that the two genetics courses I took and a generous helping of ad hoc armchair reasoning give me the prerogative to reject all that and consider teaching something else?

The biggest part of objectivity is recognizing your own limitations. Even double-duty teacher/researchers are actual experts in a much narrower field of study than the subject matter they are required to teach as part of their job. Therefore, objectivity requires teachers to acknowledge that they are generally not in a position to make the sorts of decisions that Intelligent Designists want to empower them to make with this new slurry of bills.

[/2 cents]


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 12:15 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:43 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6079
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 222 of 283 (650636)
02-01-2012 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Artemis Entreri
02-01-2012 12:15 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
ORLY?
Here is one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2330042/
Takes previous work and builds on it.

The "builds on it" is the original work.

From the abstract:

"We find a similar pattern of asymmetry in expression compared to males in that there were more genes differentially expressed between hybrids and X. muelleri compared to hybrids and X. laevis. We also found a dramatic increase in the number of misexpressed genes with hybrid females having about 20 times more genes misexpressed in ovaries compared to testes of hybrid males and therefore the match between phenotype and expression pattern is not supported."

Those are original findings. That is new knowledge. It was not done by 3rd graders or a 3rd grade teacher. It was done by scientists. This work was also done within the frame work of the theory of evolution:

"We discuss these intriguing findings in the context of reproductive isolation and suggest that divergence in female expression may be involved in sterility of hybrid males due to the inherent sensitivity of spermatogenesis as defined by the faster male evolution hypothesis for Haldane's rule."

Students need to understand the theory of evolution in order to do research like this. They do NOT need to understand religious objections to the theory in order to do this research. Evolution is NOT a controversial theory in science being that it has already passed 150 years worth of objective scrutiny.

So again, what is the secular purpose of this bill? Do we really need to rely on 3rd graders to test the theory of evolution for us? What work could 3rd graders possibly do that hasn't already been done? Why not teach them the truth, that the theory of evolution is one of the most well supported and useful theories in science?

Go figure, but hey Iím very very wrong according to your genius on this subject.

The original work is in the abstract. It's not that hard to find. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

ABE:

Here is an excerpt from the methods section of the paper:

quote:
Individual adults were euthanized with MS-222 and 50 mg of ovary was dissected and homogenized in RNA extraction solution using a hand held pestle. RNA was recovered using GeneHunter and Ambion RiboPure total RNA kits. Samples of RNA were checked for purity by examination of the 28S and 18S ribosomal RNA bands from denaturing gel electrophoresis, by 260/280 ratios from scans with a Nanodrop ND 1000 spectrophotometer, and by readouts of the Agilent Bioanalyzer. Total RNA samples were prepared and hybridized to Affymetrix Xenopus laevis GeneChip Genome Arrays at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Microarray Array Core Facility following standard Affymetrix protocols. Affymetrix Microarray Analysis Suite (MAS) v.5.0 was used to scan and process each microarray chip. The signals of quality control and poly(A) transcripts revealed that hybridizations were of high quality in all chips. Quality control probe sets (i.e., spike in and housekeeping genes) were removed in subsequent statistical analyses. Hybridizing RNA from a heterospecific species to a microarray designed for a related species can have a dramatic impact on the signal recovered from microarrays [43-46]. To control for this effect, we used an electronic mask generated from hybridizing genomic DNA from X. laevis and X. muelleri onto the X. laevis microarray [2]. This mask which screens out probes that have significant sequence divergence in X. muelleri provides 11,485 probesets/genes for further analysis.

Do you really think that 3rd graders are going to be doing gene expression assays like the one described above? Really? Just to make the other molecular biologist readers cringe, can you imagine the RNase contamination in a 3rd grade science class? Are 3rd graders going to run the sequence analysis to look for DNA divergence?

How, exactly, is 3rd grade an appropriate place to decide whether a theory is supported or not, especially one that has already passed 150 years of testing by hundreds of thousands of qualified scientists?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 12:15 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1088 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(3)
Message 223 of 283 (650637)
02-01-2012 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Artemis Entreri
02-01-2012 12:15 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
Artemis Entreri writes:

Just like I donít tell you how to be a subject of your Queen, I wonít hear anything from you people about our constitution. Mind your own business.

There isn't really an appropriate response to this boorishness. However I will not be butting out of this thread, since as a scientist I have every right to comment on attacks on science wherever they occur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 12:15 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15777
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 224 of 283 (650640)
02-01-2012 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Artemis Entreri
02-01-2012 11:39 AM


Re: SHOW ME
Its definitely not Kosher or Halal.

Did you reply to my post by drawing random words out of a hat?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 11:39 AM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15777
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(4)
Message 225 of 283 (650641)
02-01-2012 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Artemis Entreri
02-01-2012 12:15 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
Well shit. Why not straw man me like everyone else and tell me what I am arguing? Rofl.

It seems unnecessary when you can be wrong without my assistance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 12:15 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
16171819Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017