Vice reports that some US States are using new academic freedom initiatives, designed to prevent climate indoctrination, to add courses about creationism to mainstream school syllabuses. The question – who has the right to decide what lessons children learn?
CLIMATE DENIAL IN SCHOOLS
A new wave of state bills could allow public schools to teach lies about climate change.
By Emmalina Glinskis on Apr 25, 2017
Legislation proposed across the country since Donald Trump’s election threatens to bring climate change denial into the classroom under the guise of “academic freedom.”
Currently, six states have legislative measures pending or already on the books that would allow anti-science rhetoric, including the rejection of global warming, to seep its way into schools’ curricula. While these types of proposals have become fairly routine in certain states, some of the most recent crop have advanced farther than in the past.
Senate Bill 393 in Oklahoma, for example, would permit teachers to paint established science on both evolution and climate change as “controversial.” The “controversy,” however, doesn’t really exist — more than 97 percent of actively publishing, accredited climate scientists agree that global warming trends over the past century are directly attributable to human activity. And some teachers might already be misleading students.
Since its initial proposal in early February, the bill passed out of the Senate and into the House, where it circumvented the House Education Committee and now heads for a full House vote.
…
Read more: https://news.vice.com/story/six-states-trying-to-pass-climate-denial-in-education-legislation
I believe anyone who takes a serious interest in climate science should be able to see that there are serious problems. The models don’t work, the evidence is weak, and the assurances that the science is “settled” are clearly a political construct, not a scientific conclusion.
I also believe that creationism is junk science.
The thought that creationism is being taught in mainstream schools makes me as uncomfortable as the thought that some students are being indoctrinated with climate dogma.
But plenty of people hold different views. Some people believe evolution is bogus, that creationism is a more acceptable explanation for the formation of the Earth. Some of those believers in creationism are parents.
I believe schools which teach climate dogma to students are doing those students a grave disservice.
Many people believe not teaching climate alarmism leaves students unprepared for the choices they urgently will need to make, to avoid the apocalyptic climate dystopia which looms over their future.
Yet other people think exclusively teaching evolution, not teaching creationism, leaves students with an unbalanced view of the evidence.
Some people even think children as young as seven should be comprehensively educated about all the different weird sexual preferences and “genders” prevalent in some parts of today’s world, should be educated about “gender fluidity”. I personally think confusing young children about sexuality in this way is completely insane.
Who has the right to decide what children are taught?
The answer as far as I can see, is no one group has the right to decide what children learn.
Ultimately parents have to decide what is best for their children.
If parents think the best preparation for their children’s future is a course on making voodoo dolls, or the healing power of crystals, do we really have the right to step in and demand they desist?
Freedom means having the freedom to mess up your life. Academic freedom is the freedom to mess up your children’s education.
I don’t like the choices some parents will make. I absolutely loathe the choices some parents make. I think any parent who indoctrinates their children with the idea that the world is about to end in a fiery climate catastrophe needs their head examined. I think parents who teach their kids that there is no point studying palaeontology, because god made everything just the way it is, are crippling their children’s understanding of the world.
But the alternative to having the freedom to mess up your children’s education, is giving the state the authority to mess up your children’s education.
The only sane choice is to take back power from the state, to demand and receive the right to decide what is best for our own children – however outrageous some of those choices may be. Because the only thing worse than watching other parents make bad choices for their children, is being forced to accept whatever lunacy the latest crop of government bureaucrats decide to inflict on your children.
I’m not trying to cause any trouble here but can we all just remember that Alfred Russell Wallace has a more than equal claim to unlocking understanding of Evolution, which is not Darwinism. Darwin just had some very rich and influential friends who ensured his paper on natural selection got priority. Poor (literally) Wallace gets screwed over to this day on the history, although things have begun to change slowly. I wonder who of the pair of them would have gone along with AGW
(Idle and useless speculation to be ignored, but speculative fun)
And both Wallace and Darwin were beaten to the buzzer by a Scot called Patrick Matthews in the 1830s who set out the basics to the theory of natural selection in an addendum on a piece on arboriculture and boatbuilding . . . There are numerous online refs to Matthews and his work, including this one: http://miltonwainwright.com/patrick-matthew-from-natural-selection-to-the-germ-theory/ . It’s referred to in Walker’s Revival of the Democratic Intellect (1994, Polygon, Edinburgh). Daniel Dennett also identifies Matthews and his work on page 49 of his “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”. For those looking for a very comprehensive discussion of evolution – Dennett’s book is good, and Sean B Carroll’s Making of the Fittest is better still imv.
True, but not surprisingly, no one in the broader scientific community read his article in an obscure periodical. Nor did he do anything concrete with his insight. Darwin and Wallace, by contrast, mustered supporting evidence from many sources around the world.
Others to before them glimpsed evolutionary processes dimly, to include Darwin’s grandfather. If Lamarck had had Darwin’ insight instead of the conjecture he did come up with, biology and medicine would be a lot farther advanced now.
No, iMO Wallace can’t hold a candle to Darwin, who had the insight in 1837, then spend two decades researching his hypothesis to test it and obtain evidence. One of the best diagrams of common descent I’ve ever seen was the sketch in Darwin’s notebook from that year.
Wallace sent his letter to Darwin because he had heard that the distinguished naturalist was a secret (except to friends) “transformationist”, but didn’t know that he had already discovered natural selection. Maybe private transformationist is better, since he really didn’t make his views secret, but hadn’t published them yet.
A book in 1844 about “development”, what would now be called “succession”, in the fossil record was surprisingly well received, helping to allay some of Darwin’s worries about heresy. Yet he still didn’t rush to press. He wanted to compile so much evidence that no open minded person could fail to see the reality of his hypothesis.
Wallace could not have written “Origin” in 1859 because he hadn’t spent the prior 20 years gathering evidence.
Of course everybody in his right mind now knows in his bones that it is more than 6000 years ince the creation of the world – but that is new knowledge. We mustn’t forget that until less than 300 years ago every educated person thought the same thing. Only the odd geologist was beginning to suspect otherwise. Children then was certainly being taught creationism. Does it really matter that much in the big scheme of things if a few kids get told stupid knowledge at school, be it creationism or climate alarmism? The main thing is that they are free to grow up and think things out for themselves. What really matters is that our society gives us the freedom to talk and to print books.. Everything will work out peacefully then.
Of course everybody in his right mind now knows in his bones that it is more than 6000 years since the creation of the world
Time does not exist. Only memory. Time is a way of ‘explaining’ memory 🙂
What kind of memory do you mean? The very incomplete and conflicting memories of humankind, or the physical memories of the earth that archaeologists sift very partially through? Or perhaps, those on hard drives all over the world now? Or do you mean that the events of our past actually occurred but not through the medium we call time? Or are you suggesting that time is only a construct, a concept we’ve devised to aid and organise our understanding, meaning that there is no dimension of time? If the last, then I agree. There is imv only an eternal present where all action occurs at the same “time”/moment, and then it’s over and the wave of action moves on. Behind the wave is the past (memories of every kind – mostly inaccessible, except for those on hard drives etc), and in front of the wave is the future. . . . ?? Bit of a free for all on this page today Mr Watts! Thanks for the space on this part of the wave!
Yes, AndyE, it matters. Children learn to follow rote learning (evolution, climate change) or they learn to think. If we teach them to follow only rote, they make great subjects for dictators and cannot ever survive in a free society. So it matters if you care about children thinking freely. Consider that Muslim children learn everything through the lens of their religion. Not many ever leave that position. Even as children, they may be willing to die to defend their beliefs. It matters.
Evolution is as far from rote learning as possible. It’s the most exciting of all scientific endeavors, with the most benefit for humanity. It explains everything that can be observed in the natural world.
Every child who ever lives is continually exposed to “rote learning” of a sort, both at home and at school – on all sort of subjects. We simply have to acept it. It is impossibly to legislate against, for example. In a free society it sorts itself out in the end.The beauty of an individual human brain is that is is cognisant and conscious – we are not animals who automatically act in response to some stimuli. But yes, we need a free society – freedom to speak and act. If your Muslim children weren’t restricted by their society and their parents they would break that mould within a generation.
Chimp, I think you’re going to swoon over evolution. You are positively in love with the whole idea.
Sheri,
Indeed I do love evolution. It’s the most exciting, beautiful and profound of all great scientific insights. It explains everything about life on earth. I love nature, so must love the process by which its wonderful expressions came to be.
It also offers the most hope for improvement of human life of any scientific discovery. I feel sorry for people too blinkered to study the subject and enjoy the deep understanding it permits.
Evolutionary and divine creationism appeal to different segments of the population. Both are articles of faith that exist well outside the narrow limits of the scientific domain.
That said, it must be noted that the latter acknowledge their belief as faith, while the former mischaracterize their belief as science. Not surprisingly, evolutionary creationists exhibit a high correlation with ideologies that deny individual dignity (e.g. [class] diversity) and life unworthy (e.g. selective-child). Of the two, the evolutionary creationists pose a clear and progressive threat to the integrity and utility of science through conflation of logical domains and to human rights through a violation of conservation of morality.
People want to believe… in something. And the political leverage and narcissistic fervor are intoxicating.
“Everyone must believe in something. I believe I’ll go fishing!” H. D Thoreau
Most people outside of the ivory towers, who do not grasp at the leverage of political industry, would choose to go fishing… to live life, when that is practicable. I would too, if people would respect a separation of logical domains.
Evolution is not creationism and requires no faith whatsoever. Just the facts. It is a natural process which is plainly evident on every side, all the time.
Creationism is a belief system based upon nothing but blind faith. It is based upon no facts or evidence of any kind.
So you have proven that all the mutations that led up to modern animals were 100% random, or is this just something you take on blind faith?
Mark,
Since there is zero reason to assume that divine mutations occur, I have nothing to “prove”. Indeed it’s antiscientific to imagine in the absence of a shred of evidence that they do occur.
If you believe that this has happened, please offer some evidence. That’s how science works.
I can’t “prove” that the universe rests on the back of a giant elephant, either, another proposition for which there is no evidence, same as divinely ordained mutations. As I said, you’re free to harbor whatever belief you want, but if you can’t support your conjecture with evidence from nature, subject to falsification, then it’s a religious belief and not a scientific hypothesis.
That mutations can and do occur in the manners in which science has discovered is subject to such demonstration. That God did it, not so much. As in, at all.
MarkW: It is standard on the part of evolutionists I have known to replace belief in God with belief in nature and claim it is “real” because in their minds it removes the need for God, while ignoring how many things in evolution are not needed either.
Sheri,
What do you think is not needed in evolution?
I’m not sure why we need evolution at all, except to disprove religion. It does not accurately predict the future extinctions and what happened in the past may be fascinating, but much of what is done is simple cataloging of species, etc. You don’t need a theory for that. As David M said, it may predict where fossils will be found, but so what? It’s handy for scientists, but as far as life is concerned, evolution is pretty much irrelevant unless it’s a person’s “religious” belief that erased God. And yes, science can be a religion, if it forms the basis of your life’s beliefs, gives you comfort and meaning, and guides your life. The diety is a method, rather than being. (Note “Scientology” is a religion created by a SciFi writer.) It all depends on definitions. You define words and tems in a way that yields what YOU want. I know you will never consider that possible, but AGW people do precisely the same thing and you don’t seem to agree with them doing this.
One could ask why it’s even necessary or desirable to know where we came from. If there is no God, as atheists say, there is no reason whatsoever to ask where we came from. It’s here and now—Nietzsche’s “whatever doesn’t kill you” is all that is needed in the here and now. Whether or not there were dinosaurs matters not. Here and now we need food, energy, etc. Why are we studying the past? It’s a waste, a total waste.
The climate change catechism is being challenged in the US public schools? Oh Dear!
I had to stop reading because my cognitive dissonance disturbed me so. And I need another cup of java before my morning hike….. /s
I read the article on ‘Vice’, at the link provided by Eric above. It illustrates how firmly the indoctrination is seated in the minds of many who should ‘know better’ by now. ‘Climate Parents’…. Ugh!
Some parents might mess up some children education, but a state can mess up all children education.
I would prefer some children to be brainwashed into creationism, to a state that brainwashes all into submission.
A state mass indoctrination is much worse than individual indoctrination of some individuals only.
But is what Vice reports really true?
Is there really a sneaky effort to get creationism is the schools under the guise of academic freedom?
Or maybe, Vice is trying to protect the CAGW franchise in the public schools, labeling climate realists as the hated “Creationists” and using the old “Think of the Children” ploy.
In one school district near me, the kids were complaining about having to sit through Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” as many as 12 (!) times. No wonder parents might get involved. Easy to see where the CAGW crowd might not like it.
The old leftist ploy, label the opposition as something ugly, like Creationist, Anti-Vaxer, Denia****.
Shut Up!, they explained.
Warmunistas do repeatedly try to tar CACA skeptics with the brush of creationism. Unfortunately, the charge sometimes sticks.
But I agree that this is a pushback attempt by the Carbonari. As noted, it’s illegal to teach creationism in science classes, so any state trying to do so will be in violation of federal law, to include the constitution, which prohibits an establishment of religion.
The first amendment’s establishment clause might not have been intended to apply to the states, but that’s how courts have ruled over time. There were in fact states in 1789 with established religions, ie official, publicly supported denominations.
The theory of origin, whether characterized by divine or evolutionary creationism, cannot be falsified, cannot be established, other than through inference and assertion (e.g. axiom). The chaotic process (e.g. human life) that begins at conception should be incontrovertible, but is actually highly controversial in many secular sects, and taught as a negotiable choice in public schools.
Not sure what you mean by origin. As noted below, the origin of new species via evolutionary processes is observed every day. New species and even genera have been made in the lab as well as seen in the wild.
If you mean the origin of all living things, that’s a chemical evolutionary process separate from biological evolution. Scientists are working on the problem of the origin of life and have made great progress in recent decades. We should be able to make artificial organisms from scratch within the lifetimes of at least some people reading this. Actually, we already can in some ways, but not yet just from mixing the organic chemical constituents of life together under the right conditions. We have however made a lot of wonderful things using directed evolution and synthetic biology.
If you mean the origin of each individual human life, well that process is now well understood, too. There is always more to learn.
The evolutionary (i.e. chaotic) process is uncontroversial. Divine creationists recognize it as a physical process. Evolutionary creationists recognize it as a social process. Origin refers to a source. Not conception, while a highly controversial fact in liberal societies, and often denied for purposes of political progress, is a phenomenon observed and reproduced well within the narrow limits of the scientific domain. Creation or corruption of organisms neither proves nor disproves either of the creation theories. These topics are separable. Religion (i.e. moral philosophy) is separable from faith is separable from tradition and coexist with little conflict (the key is separation of logical domains). Just like climate change, anthropogenic climate change, and catastrophic anthropogenic climate change are separable and each must be qualified in its own right.
NN,
There is no scientific theory of creation. To be scientific, a theory has to be based upon repeatedly confirmed hypotheses. There is no way to confirm a belief in creation by a God, and all the predictions made by biological creationists have been shown false.
Unlike all other vertebrates, mammals have only a single lower jaw bone, the dentary. In mammals, the back two jaw bones of other vertebrates have migrated into the skull to form our unique middle ear structure.
Creationists used to argue that mammals couldn’t have evolved from “reptiles” because that would mean at one time our ancestors had two jaw joints. Biologists predicted that fossils of such proto-mammals would be found, and they soon were, from all over the world. In these Triassic animals, the new jaw joint is already the main hinge, while the little bones of the other joint are already clearly being put to use to augment hearing.
Here’s one such protomammal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganucodon
Actually, as far as I’m concerned, it is a mammal, since it has the mammalian jaw joint, but some taxonomists prefer to assign it to the clade Mammaliaformes.
Every believer in a physical resurrection of Jesus as the Bible describes is a creationist. They are asserting that known physical laws and the time/space continuum are not immutable. They are asserting that the spiritual unknowns vastly outweigh physical knowns.
I’ve always been fascinated by the conviction of those who know nothing about religion, that they in fact know more about religion than those who have been studying it their entire lives.
Scientists belief on faith that the physical “laws” they have identified are immutable. Why? Because their theory falls apart if that is not true. Therefore, it must be true.
Sheri,
No. It’s because the laws have never been shown false. Einstein improved on Newton’s theory of universal gravitation, and science welcomed the advance.
Science is self-correcting, so good scientists should welcome such improvements. Unfortunately, being human, they don’t always accept new discoveries, especially if they lack good explanatory processes, as acceptance of “transmutation of species” had to wait for the discovery of natural selection and continental drift had to await the discovery of seafloor spreading.
Sorry, arguing that EVERYTHING changed over billions of years EXCEPT the laws one needs to support their theory is not different than many of the arguments CAGW users use. It very muchly resembles circular reasoning.
They have not been shown to have remained consistent, which would be the correct proof. What has not been found is an exception, but since the entire model is based on the “law” that things needed do not change, it’s impossible to disprove. A catch 22. (Kind of like the IPCC never disproving AGW because it’s their job to prove and maintain it.) Anything that might show a difference is rejected because the theory would says the finding is wrong. Also, there is no way to PROVE what happened billions of years ago. That is 100% FAITH-BASED. You can whine and moan all you want—it is simply impossible to know that. That only bothers you when it’s religion, not when it’s faith-based “science”.
Um…. do you have any evidence that the rules have changed? (Let’s avoid the term “laws” because of its semantic baggage.)
People who do science for a living have looked for cases where the rules have changed, and they haven’t found any. Have you found something they’ve missed?
And by the way, if the rules do change, then you can quit following this page now, because it relies on a belief system in which the rules don’t change.
Sheri,
There is no reason to assume that the laws have changed. The physical laws which rule our universe have been shown to have operated since its origin. The astronomical, chemical, geologic and biological laws derived from physics have done so as well.
Some surprises have arisen, to be sure, such as the discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be speeding up.
But if you have some sound, valid scientific reason for concluding that, for instance, the decay rate of uranium has changed over time, please present it. Science does assume that fundamental physical laws have always applied, but there has never been any reason to find that rational assumption false.
Talk about science working by consensus. 100% of actively publishing, accredited creation scientists agree that at one time the world was destroyed by a flood.
Creationism/intelligent design is fairly benign. However, socialism, in one form or another, has failed every time it has been tried, from Argentina to Zimbabwe. And in the wake of these failed socialist experiments, some 200,000,000 people have been left dead. Socialism has proven brutally destructive. So, why do so many people believe that it is OK? The number of people who voted for Bernie indicates the “fake news” meme of “higher education” and the dinosaur media has been very powerful in making people think that “black” is really “white” and that 2 + 2 can really equal 5. Watching the travails of Venezuela is just the latest horror story of socialism. I will take a creationist/intelligent design person over a socialist any day. At least they aren’t trying to enslave me.
It took the West over a 1000 years and millions of dead (not to mention millions of parishioners abused) to free itself from Creationists.
We still are fighting them to stop them raping our children.
Why do you think there as a Reformation? Why are we not all Catholics?
Of course the real problem was that of not separating Church and State but it shows that Creationists can’t be trusted to respect others unless they are controlled by secular forces.
Creationism has not been benign in the past. It still abuses people. It will continue to do so unless constrained by the rest of us.
It really is fascinating the lies people will use to justify their hatred of others.
We should be able to teach and discuss what we know about our theories and the limitations therein.
The limitations shared by the Climate Change theory and Evolution via speciation are that neither has any: Laws; Axioms; Postulates; formulae; or anything to reason with. They are each vacuous theories that offer no way to predict anything.
Acknowledging the limitations of theories does not necessitate the acceptance of some other alternative. For example, we should be able to criticize the Theory of Evolution with regard to speciation, without necessarily defending Creationism.
Evolution is a fact, observed over and over and over again. Indeed, it cannot not happen. It’s unavoidable, given genetic inheritance.
Evolution makes predictions all the time, and they have been confirmed. Creationism is always shown false. Evolution most certainly does obey laws. The branch of mathematics called statistics was invented to elucidate evolution, just as calculus arose out of physics and astronomy.
New species are made in the lab and observed in the wild every year. Many of the speciation events seen in nature have been recreated in the lab.
People tend to think of evolution, ie the origin of new species and genera, as gradual events taking many generations. That happens, of course, but more often they arise in a single generation, through such quick and dirty evolutionary processes as hybridization and polyploidy. In the latter case, all or part of an organism’s genome is duplicated, making much more genetic variation upon which evolution can work, but also creating a new species instantly, since the polyploid organism usually can’t reproduce with its parent species. It is probably the dominant method of speciation in plants and has occurred in all animal and fungal lines. It’s if anything even more common in unicellular organisms. The largest genome known belongs to an amoeba.
At least two whole genome duplications occurred during human evolution, and probably more.
For categories higher than genus, gradual evolutionary processes, such as natural selection, reproductive isolation, genetic drift, etc, do predominate. I don’t know of an instance of direct observation of the evolution of a new class or phylum, for instance. In those cases, you have to compare genomes and embryological development, look at fossils, study biogeography and have recourse to other sources of evidence for relationships to see how these groups of organisms evolved.
But that they did arise through descent with modification is the only possible scientific inference and conclusion.
Chimp: “Evolution most certainly does obey laws.”
I notice you haven’t provided any of those laws. Nor have you provided any of those predictions. If your Law is that it is Random, then by definition it is not predictive.
In truth there are no Laws of speciation. There is no science to apply even when faced with simple questions.
For example:
1) what would the first step be for man to add the sensory ability of magnetic fields to the human species?
2) If we are able to establish a colony of humans on Mars and then lose our ability to travel between the planets, when would the Mars’ colony become a separate species from Earthly humans?
You’ll notice that if you attempt to answer these questions you have nothing to get started with, there is no science to apply.
Farmers and animal breeders have experience with thoroughbreds. That’s where we leverage the certainty of passing genes to offspring. That directly conflicts with your assertion that: “more often they [origin of a new species] arise in a single generation”
Thomas,
Biologists regard evolution as a law, just as the theory of universal gravitation is sometimes called a law. The distinctions aren’t hard and fast. The laws of thermodynamics could just as well be called something else.
Allow me to quote a prominent biologist on this question. In his 2008 book “Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution”, Graham Bell wrote, “The main purpose of evolutionary biology is to provide a rational explanation for the extraordinarily complex and intricate organization of living things. To explain means to identify a mechanism that causes evolution and to demonstrate the consequences of its operation. These consequences are then the general laws of evolution, of which any given system or organism is a particular outcome.” I don’t know any biologist who would disagree with that use of the term “general laws”.
Whatever it might be theoretically possible for an organism to evolve won’t occur unless there is selective advantage in the development. But I’ll respond to you hypotheticals.
Using magnetism has evolved repeatedly among different lines of organisms. It’s theoretically possible in humans, since so widespread. We have iron in our bodies already, so if some selective advantage arose, we could form magnetosensitive structures. The genetic ability already exists for a magnetic sense, since there is a protein (a cryptochrome) in our eyes which could serve this function.
Human cryptochrome exhibits light-dependent magnetosensitivity
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1364
Not just Mars, but any isolated space-faring population of humans would evolve into a new species. The spacefarers would probably control their own evolution the better to adapt themselves to such a changed environment, rather than relying on natural selection and reproductive isolation.
The debate in evolutionary theory today is over whether “directional evolution” via processes such as natural selection is more important or “stochastic” processes such as reproductive isolation. Both matter, but it’s possible that more new species have arisen “statistically” rather than via selection.
Chimp: “if some selective advantage arose” … “would probably control their own evolution ”
‘If’ and ‘would probably’ – those are your Laws?
Here’s an example of a Theoretical Law:
“The gravitational attraction force between two point masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation distance.”
The old Creationism was based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. It was not very interesting. Over the years, and many, many debates, Intelligent Design emerged. It is a far stronger and much more interesting proposition.
In other words, It Evolved!
Funny, but ID is old creationism in a new bottle. This fact emerged hilariously in the Dover trial.
There has been no scientific debate among knowledgeable biologists about the fact of evolution since the 1950s, when the French finally came around. The discovery of how DNA and inheritance actually work convinced even the last hardcore skeptics. That evolution is a consequence of reproduction is now directly visible on the molecular level.
Are you saying that a single species can produce two separate species?
It is really frustrating how otherwise smart people completely lose all semblance of intelligence when the subject of religion comes up.
There are huge differences between creationism and ID. It’s just that some people have a belief system that requires them to believe that any mention of God is the same as any other.
Mark,
Clearly you are unfamiliar with ID. The Dover trial showed that the ID textbook was copied directly from a banned creationist textbook, as hilariously shown by the copying errors. There is no difference between the two. ID just pretends to be non-religious, but it has not scientific bases, indeed is actively antiscientific.
Thomas,
Yes, of course. One old species could evolve into a new species, then later give rise to another, It happens fairly often even on observable time scales.
An example is South American butterflies. There are multiple species now in a region where there used to be just one, surrounded by other related species in the same genus. The parent species hybridized with one neighboring species, then another. At least one of those hybridizations has been recreated in the lab. The new species are not interfertile or don’t interbreed with the parental species, hence are true species.
https://phys.org/news/2006-06-hybrid-butterfly-scientists.html
Chimp, I see that you have this fixation on one ID’er and a desperate need to believe the rest of us believe exactly as he did.
Chimp: “The parent species hybridized with one neighboring species, then another”
That’s your example of a single species producing two separate species? You introduced other species. The only criteria I spelled out for you was ‘single species’ and you couldn’t adhere to it?
MarkW April 26, 2017 at 1:12 pm
Behe is the guy who cooked up ID to get around the rulings against creationism.
What evidence do you imagine exists for ID?
Thomas,
That’s a quick way in which a species can produce a new species. If you want to limit it to one species, then there are lots of instances of a plant species undergoing polyploidy to produce different daughter species, then the daughter doing the same.
Here’s an example of one species producing two daughter species:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/08/28/one-species-becomes-two-inside-an-insect/
But even if each maternal species never produced more than one daughter species, it’s still speciation and evolution. Dunno why you think its happening repeatedly for the same species is important.
MarkW: People who have no beliefs based on faith are always the most convinced they are 100% correct no matter what the evidence or lack thereof. Their faith is strong—stronger than many openly religious people.
It is 100% correct that speciation occurs. It has repeatedly been observed. Same as the earth moving, contrary to the Bible. Stating facts observed has nothing to do with faith.
There is all the evidence in the world for the fact of evolution and none against it. That you might imagine such evidence exists would be an act of faith.
It is unconstitutional, ie illegal, in any and all of the United States to teach creationism in public school science classes. If a school has a comparative religions class, then yes.
The courts have so decided for the unanswerably good reason that creationism is not science. Not just junk science, but unscientific and anti-scientific in the extreme. CACA is also antiscientific, IMO, but no court has so ruled, and at least it has a basis in real science, unlike creationism.
I too favor lifting the government monopoly on education. If a fundamentalist charter school wants to teach creationism, that’s OK with me, but for its students to have a chance in the world, they need to be correctly taught the scientific fact of evolution. Maybe no teacher in such a school would know how to do that. But in my experience, when kids have the chance to compare creationism with science, the latter wins, since the evidence for the fact of evolution is overwhelming.
The reporters in the Dover, PA “Intelligent Design” case, despite their college degrees, were plainly flabbergasted by how incontrovertible was the evidence presented in favor of evolution. They had just vaguely thought of it as a “theory”, which it is, but based upon the fact of descent with modification and the origin of species (and higher classifications) by means of natural selection and other evolutionary processes.
Evolution doesn’t need as unscientific appeal to authority, ie a “consensus of 97% of scientists”, for support. Just the facts, ma’m.
We must use the law to outlaw those things that I don’t believe in.
Nobody else has the right to encode their belief systems in the law.
Agreed. Religions are belief systems .. and we do have separation of Church and State
Evolution is not a belief. It’s a scientific fact. If a school is to teach biology, it has to teach the fact of evolution and the theories explaining it. You can’t teach geology without plate tectonics and the theories explaining it. Same, same.
The US has, to some extent, separation of church and state. That separation extends to public education.
Teaching creationism in science classes is clearly forcing people to be subjected to religion in a state setting. Thus doing so is plainly against the law.
The Dover case, like the previous creationism cases, couldn’t have been decided any other way.
Neo, but only other people’s churches. Your church is a different matter.
Evolutionists demand that I accept that random chance, mutation and selection were the mechanisms by which life in all its myriad and varied forms that exist at this moment developed. But evolution must also depend upon some spontaneous mechanism by which something that is not alive became alive, from which all other forms evolved. I have not yet found a shred of plausible let alone compelling evidence that such a mechanism exists. Is it “scientific” to demand that a complex system must have plausible origins? It is mysticism to waive it off as some future problem that cannot be explained but must be believed none the less.
As a scientist, I am compelled to believe that the myriad of harmonious biological complexity that exists in the present and the historical record is direct evidence that life was started and is being guided by a rational outside power. So, yes, I believe that God created life on earth. To what extent subsequent life forms evolved using the mechanisms of adaption, natural selection, random mutation, etc. and to what extent this rational outside power intervened at times, I do not know and don’t know how anyone could prove that.
As to when each step in the development of life took place, I accept the general scientific evidence and timelines. I await more evidence which will surely come as more research is conducted. I accept that some on this very forum will think that I am a “denier” of the fact that life must have sprung from the non-living. I also accept that others on a different forum would think that I am a “denier” when it comes to the extent to which human activity is harming the climate. Other people cannot live my life and I cannot live theirs.
Buck,
You’re making the common mistake of people who haven’t studied biology of conflating abiogenesis with evolution. They are two different processes. You might be surprised by how much advancement has been made in recent decades toward understanding the origin of life. But abiogenesis, ie the chemical evolution of the first living things, is obviously nowhere nearly as well understood as biological evolution.
Descent with modification is a scientific fact, ie an observation seen over and over again. Evolution is also a body of theory aiming to explain those observations. That speciation occurs constantly is a fact of nature. We’ve even made new genera in the lab. That evolution happens is no more controversial than that objects fall when dropped.
“You’re making the common mistake of people who haven’t studied biology of conflating abiogenesis with evolution. …”
Actually, I am not conflating. Cause and effect dictates that a system that purports to be self-sustaining (evolution) must have something initiate it. Logic dictates that either life came from something that was not alive like rocks or water, or an external force was responsible.
But in the end this is always deeply existential. God cannot possibly exist, because if He does, then He might be able to make good on His promise to judge everyone for how they live their lives.
I dread the idea of having the creationist nutters and the vaccine crackpots lumped in with me.
That is, of course, an opportunity the climate alarmist propagandists dream about.
I dread the idea of having those people who are so bigoted against religion that they refer to them as nutters lumped in with me.
As this progressed, those whose own “religions” make them so positive they know the whole truth have emerged with increasing attacks on those who dare question the belief. How one can get angry at the 100% positive nature of global warming teaching and then turn around and do the exact same thing themselves (THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED) is hard to fathom. Perhaps one of you evolutionists can explain the completely contradictory nature of one’s ability to ignore their own prejudices while condemning everyone else. It does not seem to be a “needed” biological adaptation.
The science of biology is not settled. But, just as that the earth goes around the sun is now settled, so is the fact of evolution.
The CACA conjecture however is not settled science. Indeed, it is more akin to the blind faith belief in creationism, although with a better scientific basis, ie some of its conjecture is based upon valid science, contrary to creationism and its bastard child ID.
That CO2 causes warming is as settled as evolution. The details are where both have problems. Of course, you LIKE evolution and don’t like CAGW. If CAGW “proved” there was no god, I can see you jumping on board. Maybe I can get Mann to work that in and make CAGW a bigger seller.
Indeed, there are strong parallels between how “evolution” and “climate change” are “packaged.” Both are better characterized as belief systems rather than scientific theories, and both are highly politicized.
In both cases, some facets of the “package” are well-supported, but other facets are very poorly supported, if at all. In both cases, adherents frequently point to the well-supported bits and say that the issue is settled, while disingenuously pretending that constitutes a complete proof of the entire package of beliefs.
It’s very unscientific. It is, in fact, subterfuge. The demonstrated ability of bacteria to evolve antibiotic resistance no more proves the abiotic origin of life than the demonstrated existence of downwelling longwave infrared from atmospheric carbon dioxide demonstrates that CO2 drives sea-level rise. But you’ll rarely find a leftist who admits it.
Religion does not belong in the public school systems. Parents that want that have options for home schooling or private school. I consider religion to be any ‘fact’s taught that are not confirmed by the scientific method. Thus creationism might be taught in a social sciences class regarding belief systems of various religious groups, but not in a functional biology class. And teaching comparative religion at the public school level probably is too controversial but I’d have no problem with it if it was taught in that context.
Likewise, the belief system of catastrophic human caused climate change is a faith based belief system.
This is clearly true when every honest paleo-climatologist knows our little uptick is the 6th since the last ice age and the least high of the prior 6 which means our overall trend is still cooling to a return of normal ice age conditions. Purveyors of this religion a high bar to prove man is doing it since it’s well withing expected natural variation. (see articles related to the Null-Hypothesis)
I think you are confusing teaching religion and teaching about religion and teaching religion as science, all different endeavours.
The real issue is the use of schools as indoctrination centers, of “teaching” the students to end up agreeing with a certain orthodoxy. Zealots of various types, Marxist, fundamentalist Christian, Feminist New-Age Socialists, CAGW advocates, ad nauseam, all want to advance their particular zealotry.
My particular conclusion is the “vaccine” model, that being exposed to a type of zealotry in low doses enables resistance.
JM,
Depends upon where you draw the line. No one has yet come up with any dark matter, either.
Let’s see. Everyone gets taxed to support the education of your choice. If they choose another option, they still have to pay for the education of your choice.
How tolerant of you.
The very delicately balanced physical forces as well as the almost mystical laboratory proven quantum physics would lead me to believe in intelligent design if I did not already believe in God. Then take a look at the theory of biocentrism and you might start to think that the entire universe requires an observer to even exist. You know, wave function collapse when observed.
I consider myself a creationist. I take offense that I would be the type of person who would might say “there is no point studying palaeontology …”. The mechanism of evolution is a simple and trivial part of creation, What’s the big deal, it could probable be taught to monkeys.
There are also hybrids of creationism and evolution.
For instance, even the more backward creationists often use animal husbandry.
On the other hand, nobody can say what happened on the other side of the “Big Bang”.
Or if there was a “big bang” (i.e. spontaneous conception) at all. The theory is based on liberal assumptions/assertions of uniformity, progressive (i.e. monotonic change) processes, and invariance in systems and processes that exist well outside the scientific domain in both time and space. Assertions about the composition and character of space based on inference (i.e. created knowledge). Not unlike the prophets of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, who offer claims about a system that is incompletely, and, in fact, insufficiently characterized and unwieldy, then demand payments to remain in good standing.
A majority of Americans are creationists in the sense of believing that the Universe was created. Support for the baseless assertion that each and every individual species (whatever that term means to a creationist) was miraculously created by God is lower, and for the YEC conjecture that the earth was made in six days even less.
If I were an advocate of creationism, I would be alarmed that it might be presented on a level playing field and have to stand up to evolution under close examination. If students were to examine the claims, based on the Scientific Method, creationism would not come out looking very good. A complaint about evolution is the unanswered questions. That is even more so in the case of creationism. And, creationism, unlike good science, offers no predictive value. Thus, the insights from evolution that led to understanding how disease organisms mutate and evolve would not have taken place in a society that endorsed creationism instead of evolution. I’m strongly against any faith-based dogma that isn’t subject to falsification tests. Teach it in your local Sunday School if you will, but don’t force it on the general public in publicly funded schools. That is the ultimate science denial.
What bothers me most about Ms. Glinskis’ article is that she is committing the same crime which she rails against. As soon as she promotes the debunked 97% meme it’s clear that she is only partially educated about the climate change. Her words will influence others, and the exponential growth of misinformation marches on ………
Both Creationism and CAGW are Based on Junk Science.
Neither is valid in the scientific domain, which is purposely and naturally restricted. Both theories of creation are philosophies. Either one or both may be true or false. However, with respect to just these two speculations about life, the universe, and everything, there is a real conflict in the evolutionary process (e.g. climate, human life), which precludes predictions outside of a limited frame of reference; but especially in each factions’ beliefs about origin. The best we can hope is that each group recognizes and respects a separation of logical domains. Both seculars and theists have sects that respect and deny their separation and are disposed to conflation of logical domains for political (i.e. social) progress and narcissistic indulgence.
Evolutionary creationism is based on sincerely held beliefs, circumstantial evidence, liberal assertions, and conflation of logical domains. Intelligent creationism less so, if only because believes often respect a separation of logical domains (e.g. science, faith).
Faith= A Belief Held Regardless of the Evidence.
Actually I have faith because of the evidence. I leave blind faith for the atheists
roflmao!
Your loss. Your worldview blinds you to the truth. Have a nice day.
Almost forgot, there is now scientific evidence for a soul, I would send a link, but know you would ignore it.
Michael,
You have no evidence whatsoever. You imagine things because you’re blinded by your religious faith.
Posting a link to a pack of lies by professional liars isn’t evidence of anything other than your gullibility.
Hmm, you have decided what is correct, even without looking at them.. How would you know they are “liars” without examining the evidence? Your mind is closed. You attitude is the same as a warmist.
Mike,
Do you refer to Gerlach, et al, 2011?
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1263
Quantum interference of large organic molecules
“The wave nature of matter is a key ingredient of quantum physics and yet it defies our classical intuition. First proposed by Louis de Broglie a century ago, it has since been confirmed with a variety of particles from electrons up to molecules. Here we demonstrate new high-contrast quantum experiments with large and massive tailor-made organic molecules in a near-field interferometer. Our experiments prove the quantum wave nature and delocalization of compounds composed of up to 430 atoms, with a maximal size of up to 60 Å, masses up to m=6,910 AMU and de Broglie wavelengths down to λdB=h/mv≃1 pm. We show that even complex systems, with more than 1,000 internal degrees of freedom, can be prepared in quantum states that are sufficiently well isolated from their environment to avoid decoherence and to show almost perfect coherence.”
I once met a fellow cultist of yours who bizarrely imagined that this result somehow “proved” the existence of the soul.
Sorry to say, I couldn’t help laughing out loud.
actually no.
Mike,
I don’t need to look at them, since I’m at least as familiar with old, tired, worn out Day-Age drivel as the authors.
as I said, you are blind to the truth. Your disregarding what I have offered means you are no better than the warmists.
Evolutionists and Creationists aren’t asking for $15 trillion from public coffers.
Let’s be clear. There is no dispute that human activity (particularly the release of greenhouse gases) is warming the world. Well not with the people who work in the field anyway. So it is not only reasonable, it is essential that our children are taught there is overwhelming evidence that our actions have an effect and that if we carry on business as usual, there will be consequences. What is not known (and can never be known for sure… til they happen) is what the consequences will be. What is not acceptable is to teach children that the current thinking has an equal number of people on both sides of the debate. That is simply not true.
Now before some here jump down my throat, here is a challenge. Give me the name of one person working in the field who does not accept my second sentence “……human activity (particularly the release of greenhouse gases) is warming the world.” All the prominent skeptic scientists believe this… Spencer, Christy, Curry. Even the creator of this blog agrees with this. So if it is not in dispute, why not accept it is right to teach it in schools? I know some here will believe teachers are on soap boxes telling children they are all going to burn. But truth is it is the creationists who believe some of us are going to burn…. “in hell” and are happy to teach the children that.
So to finish, there is nothing wrong with teaching students the current thinking with regard to greenhouse gases and to also show them the possible scenarios if we continue as usual. That includes minimal impact through to major problems. To do anything else would be dishonest. After all it is the future that is theirs, not ours.
Physical properties are things that can be measured. Things that cannot be measured are not physical properties. To Date, there is no way to measure the ‘Greenhouse Gas’ effects that you reference as indisputable, and that means there is no actual ‘Greenhouse Gas’ physical property. We should be teaching our children this truth.
We should be teaching our children that Carbon Dioxide is the base of the food chain for all Carbon Based life forms. We should be teaching our children that Carbon Dioxide is the unique singular throttle in the Carbon Cycle of Life. We should be teaching our children that all of the Carbon in all organic material came from Carbon Dioxide. We should be teaching our children that there can be no life without Carbon Dioxide.
It really amazes me how Simon is so shameless about promoting lies that have been refuted time and again.
Then again, when your paycheck relies on you believing something, you believe it.
Right so you so you are with Mr Watts a liar?
Right so you are calling with Mr Watts a liar? After all he concede CO2 plays a part in the warming. It is all a question of how much and how much damage will occur.
MarkW
You seem to have gone awfully quiet. Not like you.
Simon: “So if it is not in dispute, why not accept it is right to teach it in schools?”
What is it that you think is being taught? That humans can have a minor influence on the climate, particularly local microclimate? Probably no-one would disagree with that.
That isn’t what my kids are taught when this topic comes up at school. They are told that CO2 is a pollutant. That we are harming the planet. That warming is bad. That species are dying off from climate change. That we have to stop climate change. That our behaviors need to change. That this is an urgent crisis. And on and on.
Such claims are indeed highly questionable and controversial.
BTW, my son came home this week and told me that the teacher just started showing them Bill Nye’s new series on Netflix. You know, the one with all the additional propaganda that goes far beyond a claim of minor influence on the climate.
If I were to spit in the ocean, I defy anyone to claim I haven’t warmed the ocean. Go ahead, deny it. I dare you. It is “human activity”, after all.
That’s true. Its the level of effect that is the question.
From the OP:
“Senate Bill 393 in Oklahoma, for example, would permit teachers to paint established science on both evolution and climate change as ‘controversial.'”
Where in this bill does it say that it would “add courses about creationism”? Adding courses about “creationism” sounds scary, doesn’t it?
On the other hand, if what is being proposed is that students and teachers have an opportunity to ask hard questions and learn about both the strengths and weaknesses of a theory, then any rational person who isn’t committed to a philosophical position should be fine with it — indeed, supportive of it.
The handwringing about this so-called “attack on science” looks like it is nothing more than false information, news spin, and circling of wagons on “consensus” science.
established science on both evolution and climate change as ‘controversial’
The very essence of scientific thought. A departure from political/social consensus and conflation of logical domains. The controversy is born in individual minds conceived from inference and a peculiar prejudice.
oeman50 April 26, 2017 at 11:16 am
MarkW:
Why do you have to get a new flu shot every year? Because the viruses mutate, which means short term evolution.
flu viruses mutate But thats not evolution Its still a flu viruses.
evolution is to change species.
True evolution would be for the flu viruses to change say into the hepatitis viruses.