Arkansas House Bill 2548 is a composite of anti-evolutionary sources
News 2001/03/23: HB2548 fails in House vote. 51 votes were needed for
approval; the bill received 45 "yes" votes, 36 "no" votes, and 19 abstentions.
The bill could still be reintroduced by Rep. Holt in the remaining three weeks
of the legislative session, so be sure to let the representatives know your
position on this bill.
2001/03/26: Rep. Stovall "served notice" that reconsideration of the vote
which failed to pass HB2548 would occur within the time allotted. Translation:
The vote on 03/23 was not the final word. Make sure to let the legislators know
your opinion on this issue. See the contact information
section of this page.
2001/03/27: Rep. Jim Holt was reported to be preparing to re-introduce HB2548
to the Arkansas House. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Holt was
reported to say that Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution" was a source for his
bill.
2001/03/30: Rep. Holt has scheduled HB2548 for consideration again on
2001/04/02 at 1 PM. First, a vote to expunge the earlier vote (2001/03/23) by
which the bill failed, and then (if that vote succeeds) a vote to send the bill
back to committee. It was reported by Seth Blomeley that Holt intended to
largely re-write HB2548 to say that textbooks should be reviewed for accuracy.
Contents
A Modest Suggestion
One issue is avoided by HB2548 entirely: What about claims that something is
false that are themselves false or fraudulent? I will suggest the following
concept for inclusion as an amendment to HB2548. Some legal eagle can put it
into legal-speak.
Section 1 (e)(1)(A): No person shall, under the provisions of this law,
falsely label valid evidence or properly defined theories as false or
fraudulent.
Section 1 (e)(1)(B): State agencies, city, county, school districts, or
political subdivisions shall be guided by the consensus of experts in the
field specified by any putative instance of an item to be included under
Section 1 (d)(3) of this law, for the purpose of determining whether each such
item shall be considered enforceable under Section 1 (d)(3) of this law.
Section 1 (e)(1)(C): Because of the tentative nature of the scientific
process discussed in Section 1 (d)(1) and (2), periodic re-evaluation of items
enforced under Section 1 (d)(3) shall occur such that any claims of false or
fraudulent items may be retracted as they themselves become false
Remember, the above items are NOT part of HB2548, but they or something like
them should be. Tell your representative.
A bill proposed in 2001 in the Arkansas legislature by Representative Jim
Holt would make it illegal for the state or any of its agencies to use state
funds to purchase materials that contain false or fraudulent claims. A list of
such claims is provided in the text of House Bill 2548 (HB2548). What makes this
so interesting is that much of the text of those examples is either quoted
verbatim from anti-evolutionary sources or is a close paraphrase of such
materials. The sources include a cartoon booklet published by Jack Chick. Many
of the "examples" selected are themselves either false or misleading.
The full text of HB2548 is available online here.
The status of HB2548 is available online here.
Below are items from Arkansas HB2548, links or references to the apparent
source of the quote or paraphrase (where identified), critical summaries of the
topic, and links to sources of information either specifically addressing the
claim or discussing the general topic.
- Section 1 (a): "No state agency, city, county, school district, or
political subdivisions shall use any public funds to provide instruction or
purchase books, documents or other written material which it knows or should
have known contain descriptions, conclusions, or pictures designed to promote
the false evidences setforth[sic] in subsection (d) of this section."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined (possibly original)
- Critical Summary: The bill's text assumes that knowledge is
static and absolute, as the reference to enumerated "false evidences"
implies. The use of "evidences" is indicative of a background in
apologetics, where it is commonly seen, and not in the sciences, where it is
exceedingly rare. Assessment: The bill sets up its author as an absolutely
reliable source of true knowledge, which examination of the claims shows to
be false.
- Section 1 (b): "State agencies, public school districts, museums,
zoos, and all political subdivisions of the state shall only provide
information that is as accurate as possible."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined (possibly original)
- Critical Summary: The list of affected entities reveals a bias in
application of the law, and indicates its anti-evolutionary motivation.
Assessment: The bill's text is biased in application and redundant in its
direction to provide the most accurate information possible.
- Section 1 (c)(1): "During classroom instruction conducted by state
agencies, museums, zoos, public schools, and political subdivisions of the
state, when any statement in instructional material is identified by the
instructor to be a false evidence under subsection (d), the instructor shall
instruct the class to make a marginal notation that the statement is a false
evidence under this act."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined (possibly original)
- Critical Summary: The instructor is given extraordinary power
here to make determinations of fact, with no provision for review or
criticism. Assessment: The bill's text gives no guidance for how
determinations of fact will be made, and no provision for review of possibly
erroneous decisions made by instructors.
- Section 1 (c)(2): "During classroom instruction conducted by state
agencies, museums, zoos, public schools, and political subdivisions of the
state, when any statement in instructional material is identified by the
instructor to be a theory, the instructor shall instruct the class to make a
marginal notation that the statement is a theory."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined (possibly original)
- Critical Summary: This item suffers from the same biased
application as noted before, and the same uncritical reliance on the
discretion of individual instructors to make determinations of fact as they
relate to this bill. Assessment: The bill is biased as would be expected of
a specifically anti-evolutionary rule. The bill's text gives no guidance for
how determinations of fact will be made, and no provision for review of
possibly erroneous decisions made by instructors.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(A): "Example[sic] of such theories include,
but shall not be limited to: (A) The theory of the age of the earth;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined
- Critical Summary: This is the first of several examples which the
bill seeks to contradistinguish from "fact". The age of the Earth has been
determined to be about 4.5 billion years; this is not disputed within the
scientific community. Unable to rebut this finding, anti-evolutionists then
seek to minimize the damage by applying the label of "theory" to these
results. Theory, it should be noted, does not mean "hunch" or "guess" in
scientific usage. Assessment: The bill seeks to achieve by legislative fiat
the labelling of certain specific empirical findings as "theory" with the
implication that such labels indicate low confidence in the empirical data
which supports the theoretical concept. This polemical content is profoundly
anti-scientific in effect.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(B): "The theory of the origin of life;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined
- Critical Summary: Abiogenesis is a discipline which includes a
multiplicity of theories. Significant empirical research has been
accomplished over the last few decades, which anti-evolutionists find
difficult to critique, and so they are reduced to a campaign of obfuscation
and deprecation aimed at these theories and the data underlying them.
Assessment: This bill serves the anti-evolutionary agenda by implying that
the label of "theory" means that students should have low confidence in the
concepts and the empirical data which supports those concepts. This
polemical content is profoundly anti-scientific in effect.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(C): "The theory that homology in vertebrate limbs
is evidence for common ancestry;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jonathan Wells'
"Icons of Evolution"
- Critical Summary: Anti-evolutionists seize upon uncertainties in
knowledge to minimize or distract from the empirical data. Assessment: This
bill serves the anti-evolutionary agenda by implying that the label of
"theory" means that students should have low confidence in the concepts and
the empirical data which supports those concepts. This polemical content is
profoundly anti-scientific in effect.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(D): "The theory that the "geologic column"
accurately represents different time periods on earth. The "geologic column"
does not exist anywhere on the earth, except in textbooks;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Sources: The Record of the
Rocks, Appendix A, Dr.
Hovind's Creation Seminar Online Part 4 What is in the Textbooks?, Dr.
Hovind's Creation Seminar Online Part 4 What is in the Textbooks?
- Critical Summary: The accuracy of the empirical basis of the
"geologic column" is daily re-confirmed by its use in the petroleum industry
to actually produce tangible results. Since the existence of a given layer
in the geologic column depends on a location being submerged during the
corresponding time period, and the layer not subsequently being eroded away,
it is not surprising that any given location would have only a limited
number of layers. Thus, the the column as a whole is constructed from data
from many locations. Nevertheless, there are locations which contain layers
representative of all major periods in the last 500 million years.
Furthermore, radiodating confirms the validity of the column. Assessment:
The bill makes claims which are false to fact. This bill serves the
anti-evolutionary agenda by implying that the label of "theory" means that
students should have low confidence in the concepts and the empirical data
which supports those concepts. This polemical content is profoundly
anti-scientific in effect.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(E): "The theory that fossils
represents[sic] missing links between life forms. It can not be proven
that any fossil had any offspring."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined (Plenty of
anti-evolutionary sites deny transitional fossil sequences, but the specific
claim about offspring appears to be a rarity.)
- Critical Summary: Evolutionary biology concerns the heritable
changes in populations of organisms, so the reproductive status of any
particular individual is irrelevant. The empirical data of paleontology
shows that fine-grained transitional sequences linking species and genera do
exist. The objection about offspring is ambiguous, for the fossil record
does include examples of organisms giving birth and seeds in seed pods.
Whether a particular organism's offspring became the basis for a successful
derived descendent group is not the issue. Assessment: The bill asserts a
claim which, under at least one interpretation, is false to fact. This bill
serves the anti-evolutionary agenda by implying that the label of "theory"
means that students should have low confidence in the concepts and the
empirical data which supports those concepts. This polemical content is
profoundly anti-scientific in effect.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(F)(i): "Carbon, Radioisotope Dating; (i) Shells
from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Sources: Doesn't carbon dating or
Potassium Argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old?, The Problem
with Carbon 14 and other dating methods.
- Critical Summary: Carbon 14 (C14) radioisotope dating was
developed to test organic material which took its carbon from the
terrestrial carbon reservoir. The snails referenced in the bill's
text are marine and are now known to obtain their carbon from sources
already depleted in C14. Assessment: The bill's text misleads by implying
that scientists cannot reliably date materials via C14 and other
radioisotope methods, when in fact no such conclusion has been shown to hold
true. This bill serves the anti-evolutionary agenda by implying that the
label of "theory" means that students should have low confidence in the
concepts and the empirical data which supports those concepts. This
polemical content is profoundly anti-scientific in effect.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(F)(ii): "One part of the Vollosovitch Mammoth
carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000 years;"
-
- Anti-evolutionary source: Creation Science
Evangelism
- Critical Summary: The bill's text credulously relies upon a claim
by Kent Hovind that certain C14 dates were taken from a single specimen of
mammoth and yielded discordant results. In fact, an examination of the
original paper cited by Hovind reveals that there was no single specimen
identified as "the Vollosovitch mammoth" from which multiple dates were
obtained, and that the specimens which did yield the dates given by Hovind
were collected by different people at different locations at different
times. Assessment: The bill presents information about the primary
literature that is false to fact, and misleads by implying that C14 and
other radioisotope dating methods cannot be reliably employed. This bill
serves the anti-evolutionary agenda by implying that the label of "theory"
means that students should have low confidence in the concepts and the
empirical data which supports those concepts. This polemical content is
profoundly anti-scientific in effect.
- Top Online Resource: Dr.
Dino's Fractured Fairy Tales of Science
- Critical
Resource List.
- It should be noted that Kent Hovind was notified in correspondence
with Skip Evans that this example was invalid. Hovind promised to check
his source and correct the information on his web pages. No such change to
Hovind's web page has occurred as of 2001/03/28. Thus, Hovind is a
possible source for a false or fraudulent claim put into a bill which aims
to outlaw false or fraudulent claims, and Hovind testified to the Arkansas
legislature in support of the bill including that false or fraudulent
claim after having been informed of its falsity.
- Section 1 (c)(3)(G): "Potassium Argon Dating. Basalt from Mount
Kilauea Iki, Hawaii in 1959 gave a K-AR age of 8,500,000 years old."
-
- Anti-evolutionary source: Creation Science
Evangelism
- Critical Summary: Lava flows which incorporate older rock
increases the age derived from Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating. Scientists are
fully aware of the assumptions of K-Ar dating methods, and have tested the
technique against materials of known date (such as the burial of Pompeii in
an eruption of Vesuvius). Assessment: The bill fails to note the extensive
empirical testing which K-Ar dating has undergone and fails to clarify how
the supposed counter-example could even possibly be considered to put that
body of work in doubt. The bill's text misleads by implying that scientists
cannot reliably date materials via K-Ar and other radioisotope methods, when
in fact no such conclusion has been shown to hold true. This bill serves the
anti-evolutionary agenda by implying that the label of "theory" means that
students should have low confidence in the concepts and the empirical data
which supports those concepts. This polemical content is profoundly
anti-scientific in effect.
- Section 1 (d)(1): "The General Assembly finds that: (1) Science is
a special way of knowing and understanding the physical world that uses the
"scientific method" to conduct rigorous investigations into processes that are
observable and repeatable;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined
- Critical Summary: The bill's text, in the two sentences of this
item and the following item, attempts to define the philosophical basis of
science. This definition follows anti-evolutionary sources closely, and is
remarkably similar to language proposed in legislation in New Mexico. It
also has the property of being, itself, false. One can easily find examples
of scientific research that do not comport with the definition given here.
Further, the characterization of science as employing some form of naive
falsificationism is a significant distortion of the more complex reality of
scientific research. Assessment: The bill presents a view of science which
is false to fact. Its effect, if implemented, can only be to obfuscate and
confuse students attempting to learn what science is.
- Section 1 (d)(2): "Science is a discipline that employs skeptical
peer review and experiments attempting to falsify ongoing and prior scientific
work to ensure the validity and integrity of results;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined
- Critical Summary: Elements of this item are true: science does
operate via intersubjective criticism, and results are tested over time,
which has the effect of weeding out invalid work and retaining valid work.
However, the restriction of scientific process to naive falsificationism is
a significant distortion of the complexity of the scientific process, and is
false to fact concerning how science actually operates. The philosophical
debate over the characteristics of science has been heated ever since Bacon
and Descartes. It is certain that HB2548 has not produced the denouement of
this intellectual imbroglio, and certainly not within the space of two
sentences of exceedingly dubious merit. Assessment: The bill's
characterization of science is suitable only for fanciful cartoon filler.
Adopting it as law would be profoundly anti-scientific.
- Section 1 (d)(3): "Many ideas and evidences of prior scientific
work once believed to be true have been proven false or even fraudulent in
many cases, including, but not limited to the following:"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined
- Critical Summary: This item provides exceedingly broad scope to
obstructionists of all sorts, not merely anti-evolutionists. The mere
mention of a concept which has been superseded by more complete or accurate
concepts would, under a fair reading of this item, be sufficient to bar the
book or materials from consideration for purchase by the state. No provision
is made for cases where instruction is furthered by introducing a false
concept and leading the student through the process of determining how
people came to discover that it was false. Either this bill would be
inconsistently applied, or virtually no pedagogical material at the
secondary school level could possibly be found to be suitable for purchase
under this stricture. Assessment: The bill provides an opportunity for
mischievous effects as obstructionists are empowered to shut down the
purchase of materials found unsuitable separately to each narrow agenda. The
anti-evolutionary agenda of this bill is made clear by the enumerated
instances which follow.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(A)(i-ii): "Haeckel's Embryos; (ii) Proven false in
1874 by Professor Wilhelm His, Sr. Ernst Haeckel was convicted of fraud for
this in 1874. Human embryos never have gills"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jonathan Wells'
"Icons of Evolution"
- Critical Summary: A number of points need to be made. The
empirical evidence of embryology supports evolutionary biology, and this is
in no way dependent upon Ernst Haeckel's illustrations. No anti-evolutionist
has ever produced the slightest substantiation for the claim that Haeckel
was tried for fraud by the Jena university court, much less that he was
convicted. There are similar structures in vertebrate embryos whose
developmental fate varies depending upon the taxon: in fish, these develop
into gills; in mammals, portions become the hyoid apparatus and tympanum of
the ear. Assessment: The bill relies upon unsubstantiated hearsay, ignores
valid empirical work, and knocks down a strawman version of evolutionary
argument concerning embryological evidence.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(B)(i-ii): "(B)(i) The Miller - Urey Experiment:
(ii) Scientists have never proven that this test represents the atmosphere at
any time on earth."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Dr.
Hovind's Creation Seminar Online Part 4 What is in the Textbooks?, Dr.
Hovind's Creation Seminar Online Part 4 What is in the Textbooks?
- Critical Summary: The original Miller-Urey experiment
demonstrated that some of the molecules necessary for life could be produced
via non-life chemistry plausibly attributed to natural processes, a fact not
previously substantiated. While the conditions of the original experiment do
not match our current best understanding of the earth's early atmosphere,
variants of Miller-Urey processes have been applied to these (more
realistic) conditions and still produce amino acids. In this instance, an
experimental procedure is being treated as false when the only issue raised
is how well its original conditions can be applied to early earth history,
which is a separate concern. Assessment: The bill labels as false or
fraudulent an experimental procedure which has been replicated in many
laboratories, and even works under conditions matching our current best
knowledge of the early earth atmosphere. The bill's text seeks to set aside
empirical data via legislative fiat that it cannot hope to counter in the
domain of science.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(C)(i-ii): "Archaeopteryx as a missing link; (ii)
An X-ray resonance spectrograph of the British Museum fossil showed that the
material containing the feather impressions differed significantly from the
rest of the fossil slab."
-
- Anti-evolutionary sources: Center
for Scientific Creation, What Was
Archaeopteryx?
- Critical Summary: The bill's text reflects an anti-evolutionary
claim that the feather impressions of the London specimen of
Archaeopteryx lithographica were added fraudulently to a reptilian
fossil. Claims of forgery have been investigated and found baseless.
Assessment: The bill's text makes an implied claim about the evidence which
has shown to be false or misleading.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(D)(i-ii): "(i) Peppered Moths; (ii) The
photographs used in current textbooks are fraudulent as the moths were
discovered to be dead and glued in place."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: A Critique of
the Primary Evidence Used to Support the Theory of Evolution
- Critical Summary: There is a difference between a staged
photograph and a fraudulent photograph. Textbooks commonly use staged
photographs of peppered moths for the purpose of illustrating crypsis
(camouflage for hiding) in these organisms. For this purpose, there is no
fraud - the crypsis is a real phenomenon. If a photograph made with dead
moths were to be represented as unstaged, that would be fraudulent. If a
photograph showing peppered moths in some location was represented to
illustrate a preferred resting place when in fact it wasn't, that would be
fraudulent. However, anti-evolutionists have not demonstrated that either of
the fraudulent uses have actually occurred. Assessment: The bill fails to
distinguish between photographs staged for pedagogical purposes and actual
fraudulent usage of photographs. No substantiation of the claim that
fraudulent use of photographs of peppered moths has occurred is provided. As
a precedent, the bill's text would severely restrict the ability of textbook
authors to provide visual aids for their works.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(E)(i-ii): "(i) Fossil Horses; (ii) It is
fraudulent to state that modern horses descended from fossil horses with four
toes."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Biology
Textbook Fraud The Horse Series
- Critical Summary: The empirical data of fossil horses is real,
not fraudulent. Hyracotherium is known to have had four toes on its
forelegs. The bill's proclaims by fiat that it is fraudulent to state that
modern horses descended from precursors with four toes, but no reason is
adduced as to why this particular inference should be considered fraudulent.
Assessment: The bill would exclude any textbook containing the empirical
data of fossil horses, which are unequivocally real.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(F)(i-ii): "Heidelberg Man; (ii) Built from a jaw
bone that was conceded to be quite human;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jack Chick's
"Big Daddy" cartoon tract. (Exact match.)
- Critical Summary: The genus Homo includes humans. However,
the "Heidelberg Man" fossil is readily distinguished on its characters from
modern Homo sapiens. Assessment: The bill makes an implication
concerning the evidence that is false to fact.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(G)(i-ii): "Nebraska Man; (ii) Scientifically built
up from one tooth and later learned to be the tooth of an extinct pig;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jack Chick's
"Big Daddy" cartoon tract. (Exact match.)
- Critical Summary: Nebraska Man was an incident of
misclassification. The actual fossil evidence is real, not fraudulent. Only
the original classification was false. Further, the original classification
was made on the basis of two teeth, not one. The researchers who made the
original classification also did the field work leading to their
re-classification of the fossils. Assessment: The bill's text makes claims
that are false to fact. The bill would make it infeasible to incorporate
examples into textbooks of the tentative nature of scientific practice and
the efficacy of peer review and follow-on research in self-correction of
error, since any such examples would necessarily mention concepts which are
now regarded as false.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(H)(i-ii): "Piltdown Man; (ii) The jawbone actually
belonged to a modern ape;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jack Chick's
"Big Daddy" cartoon tract. (Close paraphrase.)
- Critical Summary: Piltdown Man is an example of a hoax which for
four decades was regarded by many to be a genuine fossil find. However, the
status of Piltdown Man was never unequivocally assented to, and as other
fossil evidence was discovered, came to be generally regarded as anomalous.
Scientists discovered and published the expose' of the hoax.
Anti-evolutionists have been challenged to produce a citation of any
textbook written after 1953 which presents Piltdown Man as a genuine fossil.
No such citation has ever been produced. Assessment: The bill would exclude
any textbook which mentions Piltdown Man, ignoring the obvious pedagogical
benefit of explaining how the Piltdown Man hoax (and other examples of fraud
in science) shows that critical examination of claims is necessary to
eliminate error. The bill does not distinguish between fraudulent use (i.e.,
a claim in a textbook that Piltdown Man is a genuine fossil find) and good
pedagogical practice (i.e., that Piltdown Man was a hoax that shows that
critical evaluation of empirical data is necessary to scientific practice).
- Section 1 (d)(3)(I)(i-ii): "Peking Man; (ii) Supposedly 500,000
years old. Ten humans were found with the "Peking Man" along with crushed
monkey skulls and tools.""
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jack Chick's
"Big Daddy" cartoon tract. (Paraphrase.)
- Critical Summary: Empirical evidence places these fossils between
500,000 and 300,000 YBP. The modern human specimens alluded to were found in
the Upper Cave at Locality 1, while the Peking Man fossils were found in the
Lower Cave. The implication that Peking Man was simply a ape-like prey item
of modern humans does not withstand scrutiny. Assessment: The bill's text
labels as false or fraudulent actual fossil evidence which in no way has
been shown to be false or fraudulent.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(J)(i-ii): "Neanderthal Man; (ii) At the
International Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A. J. E. Cave said his
examination showed that the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over
50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jack Chick's
"Big Daddy" cartoon tract. (Exact match.)
- Critical Summary: The fossil evidence of Neandertal Man is
unequivocally real, not false or fraudulent. The assertion that Neandertal
Man fossils are simply modern humans suffering from arthritis or rickets is
unsubstantiated and counter to the available evidence. Assessment: The bill
attempts to exclude valid empirical fossil evidence by legislative fiat. The
bill promulgates as valid an assertion which has been shown to be
unsubstantiated.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(K)(i-ii): "(K)(i) Homo-erectus (originally "Java
Man" and later Pithecanthropus erectus) was made from a few scraps of bone
found in 1891. (ii) The skull cap came from an ape and three teeth and thigh
bone (50 feet away) came from a human. Two normal human skulls were also
found, but purposely hidden for 30 years."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Sources:
- Critical Summary: Homo erectus is not, as this implies, known
only from a handful of fossils. There are now many erectus fossils known,
including a complete skeleton (WT15000) and a complete skull (ER 3733). The
"two normal skulls" (Wadjak Man) were in fact found about 100 km away in
totally unrelated and far more recent deposits. Assessment: The bill
attempts to exclude valid empirical fossil evidence by legislative fiat.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(L)(i-ii): "(i) Cro-Magnon Man; (ii) One of the
earliest and best-established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain
capacity to modern man;"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: Jack Chick's
"Big Daddy" cartoon tract. (Exact match.)
- Critical Summary: Since Cro-Magnon fossils have always been
identified as Homo sapiens, it is unsurprising that they share
various and sundry traits with modern humans. However, the assertion that
Cro-Magnon fossils specimens are among the "earliest" known is ambiguous.
Certainly the Cro-Magnon specimens are far more recent in age than most
fossil hominid species. If the objection refers to the sequence of discovery
of fossil evidence, it should be made clear that is the case. Assessment:
The bill's text claims that certain fossil specimens of Homo sapiens
have been found to have characteristics of Homo sapiens. There is no
substantiation that the empirical fossil evidence is false or fraudulent.
The bill attempts to exclude valid empirical fossil evidence by legislative
fiat.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(M)(i-ii): "(i) "Lucy"; (ii) Charles Oxnard studied
16 years and used computer multi-variant analysis and concluded "Lucy" is not
intermediate"
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: EVOLUTION'S BLOOPERS AND
BLUNDERS by D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.. (Note the use of the erroneous
phrase "multi-variant".)
- Critical Summary: The empirical fossil evidence of "Lucy" and
other Australopithecus afarensis specimens is real, not false or
fraudulent. Oxnard's analysis has not been widely accepted. The analytical
technique is "multivariate analysis", not "multi-variant analysis". Others
utilizing computer technology have come to different conclusions.
Assessment: The bill attempts to exclude valid empirical fossil evidence by
legislative fiat. The bill's text shows a basic unfamiliarity with the
evidence and techniques (cf. comment on "multi-variant" above). There is no
substantiation that any analysis by Oxnard or anyone else has demonstrated
the empirical fossil evidence to be false or fraudulent.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(N)(i-ii): "(i) Vestigial Structures; (ii) As
science improves, our knowledge of the body has increased and functions of
parts formerly thought to be useless are becoming known; and no proven
vestigial structures exists[sic]. "
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined
- Critical Summary: It is not necessary to prove that a supposed
vestigial feature has no function, if it has clearly lost the original
function - this is still evidence for evolution. Rudimentary hind legs in
whales are clearly vestigial and do not have any important function, since
most individual whales lack them. Assessment: The bill attempts to exclude
valid empirical evidence by legislative fiat.
- Section 1 (d)(3)(O)(i-ii): "(i) Lobe-fined[sic] fish; (ii)
Lobe-fined[sic] fish are "index fossils" for rock 325-410 million years
old. These fish are still alive today. "Coelacanth" was found in 1938 and
still inhabits the Indian Ocean. It is obvious that it cannot be an "index
fossil" for any age rock."
-
- Anti-Evolutionary Source: To Be Determined
- Critical Summary: The empirical evidence of extinct and extant
lobe-finned fishes is real, not false or fraudulent. There is no
substantiation of the assertion that the modern coelacanth, Latimeria
spp., has ever been used as an index fossil. Further, the species of the
genus Latimeria are known only from modern specimens, and no
fossilized remains of these species have been found. Modern species of
Latimeria are distinguishable from their extinct relatives, such that
the closest affinities are no closer than the genus level. A search of the
GeoRef database, covering 1785 to 2000, found no instance of a paper citing
use of Latimeria (or any other sarcopterygian fish, extant or
extinct) as an index fossil. Assessment: The bill attempts to exclude valid
empirical fossil evidence by legislative fiat. The further claims concerning
"index fossils" are completely unsubstantiated.
The following list enumerates a number of serious problems which HB2548 has.
These are taken from the "Assessment" sections of the "Critical Summary" items
given above.
- The bill sets up its author as an absolutely reliable source of true
knowledge, which examination of the claims shows to be false.
- The bill's text is biased in application and redundant in its direction to
provide the most accurate information possible.
- The bill is biased as would be expected of a specifically
anti-evolutionary rule.
- The bill's text gives no guidance for how determinations of fact will be
made, and no provision for review of possibly erroneous decisions made by
instructors.
- This bill serves the anti-evolutionary agenda by implying that the label
of "theory" means that students should have low confidence in the concepts and
the empirical data which supports those concepts. This polemical content is
profoundly anti-scientific in effect.
- The bill makes claims which are false to fact.
- The bill's text misleads by implying that scientists cannot reliably date
materials via C14 and other radioisotope methods, when in fact no such
conclusion has been shown to hold true.
- The bill fails to note the extensive empirical testing which K-Ar dating
has undergone and fails to clarify how the supposed counter-example could even
possibly be considered to put that body of work in doubt.
- The bill presents a view of science which is false to fact. Its effect, if
implemented, can only be to obfuscate and confuse students attempting to learn
what science is.
- The bill provides an opportunity for mischievous effects as
obstructionists are empowered to shut down the purchase of materials found
unsuitable separately to each narrow agenda. The anti-evolutionary agenda of
this bill is made clear by the enumerated instances given.
- The bill relies upon unsubstantiated hearsay, ignores valid empirical
work, and knocks down a strawman version of evolutionary argument concerning
embryological evidence.
- The bill labels as false or fraudulent an experimental procedure which has
been replicated in many laboratories, and even works under conditions matching
our current best knowledge of the early earth atmosphere.
- The bill's text seeks to set aside empirical data via legislative fiat
that it cannot hope to counter in the domain of science.
- The bill's text makes an implied claim about the evidence which has shown
to be false or misleading.
- The bill fails to distinguish between photographs staged for pedagogical
purposes and actual fraudulent usage of photographs. No substantiation of the
claim that fraudulent use of photographs of peppered moths has occurred is
provided. As a precedent, the bill's text would severely restrict the ability
of textbook authors to provide visual aids for their works.
- The bill would exclude any textbook containing the empirical data of
fossil horses, which are unequivocally real.
- The bill would make it infeasible to incorporate examples into textbooks
of the tentative nature of scientific practice and the efficacy of peer review
and follow-on research in self-correction of error, since any such examples
would necessarily mention concepts which are now regarded as false.
- The bill would exclude any textbook which mentions Piltdown Man, ignoring
the obvious pedagogical benefit of explaining how the Piltdown Man hoax (and
other examples of fraud in science) shows that critical examination of claims
is necessary to eliminate error. The bill does not distinguish between
fraudulent use (i.e., a claim in a textbook that Piltdown Man is a genuine
fossil find) and good pedagogical practice (i.e., that Piltdown Man was a hoax
that shows that critical evaluation of empirical data is necessary to
scientific practice).
- The bill's text labels as false or fraudulent actual fossil evidence which
in no way has been shown to be false or fraudulent.
- The bill promulgates as valid assertions which have been shown to be
unsubstantiated.
- The bill's text claims that certain fossil specimens of Homo
sapiens have been found to have characteristics of Homo sapiens,
with the implication that this indicates that the evidence is false or
fraudulent.
- The bill's text shows a basic unfamiliarity with the evidence and
techniques (cf. comment on "multi-variant" above). There is no substantiation
that any analysis by Oxnard or anyone else has demonstrated the empirical
fossil evidence to be false or fraudulent.
- The bill attempts to exclude valid empirical evidence by legislative fiat.
- The bill makes claims concerning "index fossils" which are completely
unsubstantiated.
Arkansas House Bill
2548 extols the virtues of accurate information (Section 1 (b)), but the text of
the bill itself is taken in significant part from unreliable and inaccurate
sources.
The essentially misleading and disingenuous nature of the "examples" provided
by anti-evolutionist sources becomes clear when one looks at the criticism that
these have received. In the following section, links are provided to online
sources that deal with the anti-evolutionary objections on various topics
mentioned in HB2548.
In general, one should search the Talk.Origins Archive Talk.Origins
Archive for critiques of anti-evolutionary claims. The t.o. archive also
provides an extensive links page to other sites, including anti-evolutionary
ones.
- Archaeopteryx: [cf. AR HB S 1(d)(3)(C)]
Anti-evolutionists have found the existence of Archaeopteryx
lithographica exceedingly inconvenient, and have made a number of claims
which collapse upon examination.
-
- Fossil hominids: [cf. AR HB S 1(d)(3)(F-M)]
The fossil record as it touches upon the descent of man is an especially
touchy subject for anti-evolutionists, who have written much angry nonsense
about it (cf. "Big Daddy", the source of much of HB2548's discussion of fossil
hominids).
-
- The Age of the Earth: [cf. AR HB S 1(c)(3)(A)]
The anti-evolutionary sources from which much of HB2548 derives take a stance
that the earth was created by God less than 20,000 years ago. This is known as
"young-earth creationism" (YEC). Because this puts YEC in direct contention
with scientific findings concerning the age of the Earth and the universe, it
is unsurprising that a great deal of denial is engaged in by YEC advocates.
-
- Age of
the Earth at
the Talk.Origins archive.
- Dating with
Icecores. (Conclusion:
Icecores provide evidence that the Earth is at least 160,000 years
old. This is well outside the maximum figure that YEC advocates can
tolerate.)
- The Geologic Colum: [cf. AR HB S 1(c)(3)(D)]
Anti-evolutionists have long denied the existence of the "geologic column" as
being seen in any one locale. Apparently, this is supposed to cast doubt upon
the entire enterprise of dating strata if not all the strata are seen at a
particular location. What they fail to mention is that the geologic column was
conceived of and documented by creationists who used no evolutionary
principles in their research. Also, geologists know that one can find
locations where the entire geologic column is preserved.
-
- Transitional Fossils: [cf. AR HB S
1(c)(3)(E)] The issue isn't whether particular animals had offspring in the
past.
-
- Radioisotope Dating: [cf. AR HB S
1(c)(3)(F)] Some of the confusion experienced by anti-evolutionists is
reflected in the heading of this section of HB2548: "Carbon, Radioisotope
Dating". Some anti-evolutionists seem to believe that carbon dating is
the method of radioisotope dating. It isn't. C14 dating is restricted
to recent times (<~55,000YBP) and terrestrial carbon cycles. Other
radioisotope methods are used to determine ages at longer time scales.
-
- "Icons of Evolution": [cf. AR HB S
1(d)(3)(A,B,C,D,E)] Various items in HB2548 are chapter topics in Jonathan
Wells' anti-evolutionary opus, "Icons of Evolution".
-
- Peppered Moths: [cf. HB2548 S 1
(d)(3)(D)(i-ii)] Recently, anti-evolutionists have seized upon photographs of
peppered moths on tree trunks as evidence of fraud in evolutionary biology.
Again, the anti-evolutionists distort the real situation for political effect.
-
- Ian Musgrave's
discussion of the "peppered moth" item in HB2548.
- Industrial melanism
- A
textbook author responds to criticisms of the peppered moth example.
- The
Demonstration of Natural Selection.
- NMSR Debates Intelligent
Design proponent Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute . Notable for
the following excerpt:
Wells refers to researchers who found that the moths sometimes
preferred resting sites besides tree trunks, such as under branches high
in the canopy. Two points are important here. Point (1): "Do not normally
rest" is not the same as "never rest." Consider the following numbers of
moths found resting in various sites between 1964 and 1996 (Majerus 1998,
Tables 6.1 and 6.2, page 123): In the wild, 32 peppered moths were found
on exposed trunks, unexposed trunks, and trunk/branch joints, while 15
were found on branches alone. In the vicinity of light traps, another 135
were found associated with trunks, and 20 with branches alone, for totals
of 168 associated with trunks, and 35 with branches alone Clearly, Wells'
implication (stated explicitly elsewhere, for example the Detroit News,
March 14, 1999) that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks is simply
not supported by the available data. Point (2): Majerus and others have
performed new experiments, in which moths were marked and released,
allowed to rest wherever they wanted (trunks or not), and then recaptured
(if possible). The numbers of moths recaptured were different in polluted
woods then in unpolluted woods, again supporting the differential bird
predation hypothesis, i.e. that moths that blend in better with available
backgrounds tend to have a better chance of survival.
- Abiogenesis: [cf. HB2548 S 1
(d)(3)(B)(i-ii)] Anti-evolutionists like to confuse and conflate the
discipline of abiogenesis (or origin of life) research with evolutionary
biology. The two are separate. Further, statements such as those found in
HB2548 S 1 (d)(3)(B)(i-ii) ignore the fact that more work has been done since
Miller's mid-1950's experiment.
-
- Living Fossils: [cf. HB2548 S 1
(d)(3)(O)(i-ii)] Anti-evolutionists tend to think that horseshoe crabs or
coelacanths pose difficulties for evolutionary biology. They don't.
-
- Mammoths: [cf. HB2548 S 1 (c)(3)(F)(ii)] YECs
and other varieties of anti-evolutionists make claims about mammoths that are
not supported by a scrupulous examination of the evidence.
-
- Ernst Haeckel: [cf. HB2548 S 1 (d)(3)(A)(i-ii)]
Haeckel's embryological illustrations and dictum that "ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny" are favorite targets of anti-evolutionists.
-
- Haeckel's
Embryos. (There are many myths and misconceptions about Ernst Haeckel
and his embryo drawings [even amongst mainstream scientists] and the
evidence for evolution from comparative embryology; this page address those
contained in HB2548.)
- Haeckel
and his Embryos. (This page shows textbook authors working quickly to
correct inaccurate information. It also shows what scientists do when such
errors are discovered: they document what the actual data show. I
would challenge any proponent of YEC or "intelligent design" to find and
cite a case where YEC or ID anti-evolutionists have ever done more
than simply repeat criticisms; where the anti-evolutionists actually do
research that substantially improves our knowledge of the topic in question.
These textbook authors did the hard work; the anti-evolutionists do not.)
AR HB2548 has other difficulties besides reliance upon inaccurate or
misleading sources.
Philosophy of Science: AR HB2548 S 1(d)(1-2) attempts to define, in
two sentences, the philosophical basis of science. This definition follows
anti-evolutionary sources closely, and is remarkably similar to language
proposed in legislation in New Mexico. It also has the property of being,
itself, false. One can find examples of scientific research that do not comport
with the definition given by AR HB2548. For example, astronomers routinely
investigate phenomena, like supernovas, which are unrepeatable events. In
physiological research, it is often the case that the quantities that are
measured do not directly come from the process of interest, but rather reflect
by-products of such processes. Further, the characterization of science as
employing some form of naive falsificationism is a significant distortion of the
more complex reality of scientific research.
While AR HB2548 S 1(d)(3) enumerates only purported "false" or "fraudulent"
examples from geology and biology, the broad language of the bill will make it
difficult to find any textbook of significant scope that could even conceivably
pass muster in any discipline that covers empirical findings, and may prove to
raise difficulties even for arts and language topics. Textbooks generally lag
the current findings in any discipline by several years. Current findings tend
to revise or falsify prior concepts. This means that any person determined to
block the adoption or purchase of a particular textbook in almost any discipline
will be able to use AR HB2548 S 1(d) as a legal bar to such adoption, since any
example of a known false concept within a textbook will disqualify it from
consideration.
For example, most physics textbooks devote some pages to Newton's laws of
motion. However, relativistic physics has shown that there are circumstances
under which Newton's laws of motion yield false results, and could thus be
considered false. This would be enough under a consistent reading of AR HB2548
to bar the purchase of any such textbook.
Fixation on the labelling of "theories": AR HB2548 S 1(c)(2)
dichotomizes fact from theory, as if "theory" were just a "guess or hunch" in
science. This is not the case. The National
Center for Science Education has prepared a brief article
about the various problems with "theory not fact" type legislation.
Rep. Jim Holt relied upon Dr. Kent Hovind not only for directly quoted
material used in HB2548, but also called upon Hovind to testify before the
Arkansas legislature in support of HB2548. The following online resources call
into question the reliability of various of Hovind's claims, and also delve into
Hovind's background.
- Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind's Materials
- The following links go to Kent Hovind's web pages:
- On Hovind's $250,000 "challenge"
-
- On Hovind's "Debate" Challenges
-
- Hovind's Questions for Evolutionists, Answered
-
- Critiques of Items on Hovind's Web Pages or in Hovind's Seminars
-
- Kent Hovind's Educational Background
-
- Kent Hovind's Position on Payment of Income Tax
-
John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells has, in contrast to Kent Hovind, a real earned
Ph.D. degree from a well-recognized academic institution, the University of
California at Berkeley. Wells is a Senior Fellow with the Seattle-based
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. The CRSC is
notable for their promulgation of the "wedge strategy", which seeks
nothing less than a complete philosophical change in the basis of how science
gets done.
Jim Holt claimed in an article appearing in the 2001/03/27 Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette that Wells' book, "Icons of Evolution", was the source for some
of the items that he listed in HB2548.
Holt said he also used the book Icons of Evolution by Jonathan
Wells. He said Wells is an evolutionist but found numerous examples of faulty
evidence used to prove evolution. Holt includes these in his bill.
How well does Holt know his sources? In this case, I believe that Holt has
seriously mischaracterized Wells, who is one of the country's leading
anti-evolutionists.
Wells apparently comes by his objections to certain evolutionary topics via
his religious background. Obviously, religious background says nothing about the
validity of any argument made, which must be considered upon its merits or lack
of same. However, Wells has claimed in the past to have no theological
predisposition that puts him at odds with evolutionary concepts. This is at
least disingenuous, as Wells has written that by 1978, at the end of his time in
seminary, Wells and his religious advisor had plotted his future career, which
included seeking a Ph.D. degree in biology for the purpose of "destroying
Darwinism".
Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.-Berkeley, CA
At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was
admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary.
During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked
God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through
my prayers, but also through Father's many talks to us, and through my
studies. Father [the Rev. Sun Myung Moon] encouraged us to set our
sights high and accomplish great things.
He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently
criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's
purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took
Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or
history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and
even God as products of human imagination.
Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should
devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow
Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When
Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a
Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for
battle.
- Darwinism:
Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
Wells has objected to this text being brought up, variously claiming that it
is an ad hominem argument or that it is an example of "viewpoint
discrimination". I bring it up here to address a narrow point, which is whether
theological issues do or do not enter into Wells' anti-evolutionary activities.
It seems clear to me that they do. Wells has also objected that his comments
about "destroying Darwinism" only extend to Darwin's mechanism of natural
selection, and that he had no prior objections to the theory of common descent.
In fact, Jay Wesley Richards, another DI CRSC Fellow, went so far as to claim
that Wells had "affirmed" the theory of common descent prior to his coursework
at UC Berkeley. I find Richards' claim and Wells' protestations less than
convincing. Wells has committed his anti-evolutionary advocacy to various
essays, linked from here, but I have tried
in vain to find any evidence whatsoever of the "affirmation" of common descent
that Richards alluded to.
- Links to works by Jonathan Wells:
-
- Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution":
- Wells and HB2548:
-
It does not appear that Wells played any active role in the promulgation or
promotion of HB2548. A query to the Discovery Institute got a response that
the DI CRSC has not been involved in this legislative activity.
An article by Seth Blomeley in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on 2001/04/02
stated that Jonathan Wells had termed Neandertal Man and Homo erectus
as fraudulent. Apparently, Jim Holt told Blomeley that his list of items in
HB2548 had come from Well's book. While it is true that "Icons of Evolution"
takes up the topic of human evolution in one of its chapters, it does not
appear that Wells made these particular claims attributed to him. I wrote a letter to the editor
to apprise him of the error.
- Wells' topics:
-
- Peppered
Moths
- Miller-Urey
Experiments
- Haeckel's
Embryos. (It is curious that Wells, whose Ph.D. was obtained in the
discipline of developmental biology, did not put together an accurate visual
comparison of embryos across taxa, but rather has apparently settled for
complaining about the inaccuracies of Haeckel's drawings. Miller and Levine,
the authors of a textbook criticized for reliance upon Haeckel's inaccurate
drawings, collected photomicrographic evidence to produce a new, accurate
illustration of the similarities and differences that are seen during
embryological development. Whose interest in making accurate information
available is greater? In my opinion, score one for the textbook authors.)
- Archaeopteryx
- Fossil
Hominids
A page with the contact information for the members of the Arkansas state
legislature can be found here.
The listings below are taken from that page.
Arkansas State Representatives:
(HB2548 sponsors: Holt, Fite, Prater, Mack, Nichols, Adams, M. Smith,
Bennett, Duggar, Green, Altes)
Arkansas State Senate: Some of the senators have email, and those with email
are listed below:
(Bill sponsors: Critcher, Hunter, Baker)
Text of email from
Wesley R. Elsberry to various members of the Arkansas State Senate,
2001/03/23.
If you have information regarding the source of a part of HB2548, a rebuttal
or link to a rebuttal of a part of HB2548, or even just want to make a comment
about this page, use the form below to enter it and press the "Submit" button.
Page history:
Page created by Wesley R.
Elsberry, 2001/03/22
Page maintained by Troy Britain and Wesley R. Elsberry, 2001/03/22-present
We thank our many contributors, who include Thomas J. Wheeler, Ian Musgrave,
Michael S. Hopkins, Paul Heinrich, Barbara Forrest, Jim Foley, and Karen
Bartelt.
Anti-Evolution
breitling,rolex day date,
fake rolex for sale,patek philippe,rado,u boat,
fake rolex for sale,rolex prince,bell ross,corum,rolex daytona,iwc,
replica tag heuer,cartier,hublot,roger dubuis,rolex submariner,
faker rolex for sale,tissot
