Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012

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.

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! 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

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?

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. Yes, I know, but they've been doing it since they started creation "science". Nothing new. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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

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.

Its definitely not Kosher or Halal.

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.

ORLY?
Here is one: Gene expression analysis of the ovary of hybrid females of Xenopus laevis and X. muelleri - PMC
Takes previous work and builds on it. Working in baby steps, doing something that has already been done and building on it a bit. And it is from a researcher at the NIH. Go figure, but hey I’m very very wrong according to your genius on this subject. Sure. 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 doesn’t make them anti-science, I am surprised you do not understand the difference. 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. Well shit. Why not straw man me like everyone else and tell me what I am arguing? Rofl. I don’t, though you shouldn’t preach the US constitution if you aint one of us, and aint here Just like I don’t tell you how to be a subject of your Queen, I won’t hear anything from you people about our constitution. Mind your own business.

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!") 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.

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

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? 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.

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.

Did you reply to my post by drawing random words out of a hat?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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