Ohio biology curriculum - petition

The dark forces of "Intelligent Design" are at work again in Ohio - you may be able to help by signing this petition:
Petition Online - Petition Online has been retiredThanks.

Coragyps, I don't understand the following:"In a proposed lesson plan, Critical Analysis of Evolution, students are to find data challenging evolution but no such data or experimental results exist in the scientific literature. The only sources for criticism of evolution as a concept are nonscientific and do not belong in a science curriculum."Every theory has its critics. Is the petition claiming that the theory has never been criticized by any scientists, its weaknesses never pointed out from within science?

Tamara,What are the weaknesses in evolutionary theory that we should teach to students?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Thanks for the "heads-up". I've heard that there is some new "cartel" of 22 states that pass/fail textbooks and that in an attempt to get "their" textbooks chosen for all 22 states (lotsa money!) publishers are really doing some crazy stuff, is Ohio one of these?

Tamara, I see the emphasis like this:
"criticism of evolution as a concept are nonscientific and do not belong in a science curriculum."
Sure, there is plenty of criticism, disagreement, and infighting within that concept, but the edifice itself stands solid, and has since Ernst Mayr was a pup.

Coragyps,You note, As I was taught the definition of science, evolution was considered non-scientific because nobody could think of a way it could be falsified. It was also normally presented as tautological, "survival of the fittest, where the fittest are those that survive." The evolutionists also decided to defend their theory from criticism by saying that any alternative to the theory was unscientific. Science is thus redefined so that the creationist hypothesis, which of course requires a supernatural creator, is simply disallowed into the discussion. They took data that could have come from artificial selection as well as natural selection, and treated it only as evidence for "evolution" which once, at least, referred only to natural selection. Meanwhile, the whole basis for evolution, the sine qua non without which it cannot stand as a theory, remains, to my knowledge, unproven. There is no observation that I know of, of a non-functional string of DNA being randomly mutated to produce a functional base sequence producing a protein that is effectively structural or enzymatically active.During the great Kansas evolution debate, I went to visit the professor who was the most authoritative philosopher of science I could find on the KU campus. I asked them their opinion about evolution as science, and they said simply that, in their study of philosophy of science, it was a very poor excuse for the discipline, was very unscientific in its approach. I asked them why they had not made this clear in the midst of the debate then raging, and they said that it was pointless, evolutionists were far too deeply subjective in their belief, and would only rage at him. It was not a scientific controversy, they said, just passionate argumentation, with no interest in either side for the truth.Just in case you wanted to know.Stephen

quote:

---

As I was taught the definition of science, evolution was considered non-scientific because nobody could think of a way it could be falsified.

---

This is one of the most blatant disregards of facts that I have seen for a while. Look at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Every confirmation has a companion section on potential falsifications. There is more than 29 evidences, there is also 29 potential falsifications listed as well. If you want more, let me know.

quote:

---

Science is thus redefined so that the creationist hypothesis, which of course requires a supernatural creator, is simply disallowed into the discussion.

---

If a supernatural deity causes changes in nature it would be detectable. However, the repeatibility of natural phenomena and the presence of physical constants argues against this. Complaining that supernatural, unprovable, explanations aren't taught in science classes sounds like whining to me. Tell me where God should be inserted in Koch's Postulates, and if God is not to be inserted does that make Koch's Postulates wrong? Strange that only evolutionary science seems to be plagued by supernatural detractors.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, the whole basis for evolution, the sine qua non without which it cannot stand as a theory, remains, to my knowledge, unproven.

---

Nothing in science is proven 100%. However, the tentativity of a theory can be lowered by supporting evidence. Evolutionary theory is supported by such a great weight of evidence that its tentativity is considered neglible. See above website (29 evidences) for just a small peak of the overwhelming mountain of evidence.

quote:

---

There is no observation that I know of, of a non-functional string of DNA being randomly mutated to produce a functional base sequence producing a protein that is effectively structural or enzymatically active.

---

The nylC gene in flavobacterium was just such a string of non-functional DNA. One frameshift mutation allowed the bacteria to live off of nylon byproducts as its sole source of nutrition. Again, this can also be seen in numerous other areas. Do you want more info on this?

quote:

---

It was not a scientific controversy, they said, just passionate argumentation, with no interest in either side for the truth.

---

Simply incorrect. The vast majority of scientists accept ToE as a supported and correct theory, with creationist scientist only making up a few percent, and only a few tenth's of a percent if only the biological sciences are taken into account. The evidence is to overwhelming and abundant, no matter the opinion of a few agenda minded detractors.Added in edit: This post is so far off topic I feel a little embarassed. If Stephen wants, he can reply once and we will leave it there or start another thread.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-17-2004]

Stephen ben Yeshua alleges,

quote:

---

During the great Kansas evolution debate, I went to visit the professor who was the most authoritative philosopher of science I could find on the KU campus. I asked them their opinion about evolution as science, and they said simply that, in their study of philosophy of science, it was a very poor excuse for the discipline, was very unscientific in its approach. I asked them why they had not made this clear in the midst of the debate then raging, and they said that it was pointless, evolutionists were far too deeply subjective in their belief, and would only rage at him. It was not a scientific controversy, they said, just passionate argumentation, with no interest in either side for the truth.

​

Just in case you wanted to know.

---

Oh. Kay. Am I the only one who smells something mighty fishy in this tale?regards,
Esteban "Just Call Me Skeptick" Hambre

Congratulations, you're our 1000th user of creationist canard CA211. You are now the proud winner of the entire catalogue of works by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. Thanks for playing!

Loudmouth,I just found your neat post over on the protein thread, which was news to me, and most interesting evidence in favor of random mutations that produced a beneficial result, an apparently newish protein that actually worked better than the originals! I would still like to see it done so that an effort is made to eliminate genetic engineering from spiritual beings as a cause. But, as it stands, it certainly raises the plausibility that random mutation can produce something of value in a reasonable amount of time.I liked the reference you sent me to, but realized that, back in the sixties when we were discussing "evolution," "commen descent" was a different theory, one generally accepted and easily shown to be scientific. As your writer observes, the study of common descent does not identify method, artificial or natural selection, for example, or random mutation verses genetic engineering. It was natural selection that we were having a problem with, and random mutations. Part of the problem was statistical. You are probably aware that one cannot "prove" the null hypothesis of random effects. One can only fail to exclude it. "If the sample size were increased, perhaps we would have a significant effect." To have a theory based on basically a null hypothesis seemed weird.But, I gather you want to define evolution and common descent as the same. Fine, but is it fair to let natural selection and random mutation sneak in as tag-a-longs? Fair to God that is. From His perspective, the whole discussion is important, because, as evolution is usually taught, He doesn't get any glory for His creativity.Stephen

MrHambre,Well, you can go find your own handy philosopher of science, and ask them what they think. I'd be interested in their report.Stephen

Stephen,You mean instead of just telling you I did and expecting you to believe me?See, even if your story were true (and the plausibility associated with that is far shy of .6) it would still only constitute an argument from authority. "My source told me these things, so they must be true." It's no surprise that you didn't explain why your source was dissatisfied with evolution on scientific grounds.Well, the philosophy of science I'm familiar with would not be so noncommittal in the battle between evolution and its foes. Support for the mechanisms of evolution by natural selection is derived from many disciplines. These mechanisms are testable and (although you lack the imagination to see how) very much falsifiable. The theory serves as a template for further research and has been the basis of groundbreaking scientific discoveries. Watson and Crick were forthright in their assumption that the theory of common descent would prove indispensible in their search for the structure of DNA. The wonders of Nature are comprehensible thanks to Darwin, and each new advance confirms the validity of his theory.Philosopher of science Robert Pennock of the University of Michigan has written an amazing book called Tower of Babel that separates the sound scientific methodology of evolution from its pseudoscientific competition. By describing the historical foundation of evolutionary theory, Pennock contextualizes Darwin's ideas in the tradition of empirical evidential inquiry. Instead of engaging in a factoid-war with creationism, he clarifies our expectations concerning science and the implications of methodological naturalism.In conclusion, I'm not saying this is true because Pennock says so. I'm stating that evolution symbolizes a rational mode of inference that philosophers of science would consider valid. Creationism does not meet the same standards of objectivity, so it's not scientific. I signed the petition linked to in the first post because I don't think that there is any rational way to deny evolution on scientific grounds.regards,
Esteban "MN-em" Hambre

Coragyps, it looks like this thread evolved legs and ran off after the wascally wabbit! Anyways, I think that if it's a biology class then it ought to teach biology. And while I don't think materialism is a necessary underpinnings of science, I think naturalism is.I think it would not be amiss, tho, to consider a meta analysis, to talk about what makes a good theory, and look at ToE from that angle. But this may be a little beyond high schoolers...

quote:

---

The nylC gene in flavobacterium was just such a string of non-functional DNA. One frameshift mutation allowed the bacteria to live off of nylon byproducts as its sole source of nutrition. Again, this can also be seen in numerous other areas. Do you want more info on this?

---

Dammit...Loudmouth beat me to the punch in two threads It is ironic that Stephen is now falling into the old creationist pattern of "Well nobody has ever shown that so evolution is not true" when in fact, what they claim has not been demonstrated has been shown but since they rather make claims than actually know, they miss all the research that has been done. True to form, Stephen will move on to the next "well ok, maybe that has been done but you have not shown every single step from bacteria to cat down to the cellular pH so evoltuion is not true" Ironically, they have no support for anything they say and I have yet to see "goddoit, goddunit, goddidit" demonstrated.

Mammuthus,

quote:

---

I have yet to see "goddoit, goddunit, goddidit" demonstrated

---

That's because, unfortunately, you're a scientist. If you were a philosopher of science, on the other hand (say, at Kansas U or Nganjuk Tech), you'd understand how unscientific evolution is in its approach. Philosophers of science see this sort of stuff demonstrated all the time. Read my doctorate thesis (available at Patriot U's website) called "Gimme an 'H'! Gimme a 'D'!" if you want to know more.regards,
Esteban "H-D-ploma" Hambre