Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Last Thursday, July 21, the Texas Board of Education in an 8-0 unanimous vote opted to keep teaching evolution in high school biology classes using approved scientifically accurate textbook supplements from established mainstream publishers. They did not approve of the creationist-backed supplements from International Databases, LLC. Four times as many people showed up to testify in favor of the scientifically accurate texts as showed up to oppose them.
Although a creationist member of the Board objected to the supplement from textbook publisher Holt McDougal by releasing a list of Holt’s supposed errors involving evolution and common descent, the Board responded by noting that the list had not been signed off on by the Board of Education’s review panel in full. The Board went on to approve the Hold McDougal supplement, but submitted it for review by Commissioner of Education Robert Scott to look at the supposed errors and suggest changes to the Holt McDougal supplement. Local educators and the National Center for Science Education are confident any of Director Scott’s revisions will show the current state of evolutionary biology. In a statement released by the NCSE, NSCE Director Dr. Eugenie Scott praised the Texas Board of Education, saying “These supplements reflect the overwhelming scientific consensus that evolution is the core of modern biology, and is a central and vital concept in any biology class. That these supplements were adopted unanimously reflects a long overdue change in the board. I commend the board for its refusal to politicize science education.” This is squarely a victory in the battle to keep public education educational over the forces that would make public education into religious and/or political indoctrination.
Source: NCSE
~Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Thanks for for further establishing the record, GeneH/Buddha. You seem awfully upset about my discovering your alter ego, perhaps too much.
In event event, re your friend Slarty, is that your consensus view?
OS,
We should have had a Birthday party for Mendel!
kderosa,
The problem here is that there is nothing for me to “believe”. I am posting as who I am. That you think I’m someone else is irrelevant other than as an indication that you are possibly mentally ill. Your transference of your obsession with Buddha Is Laughing over to me is perfectly understandable from a psychological perspective. You apparently need a nemesis. So when yours left, you decided to create one. Apparently the new guy was your target of choice. If you want to be taken seriously, and I’ll assume you do either personally or because your employer requires it, then you should really get some grip on reality. I’m not who you think I am no matter how much you wish it so. If you want to talk about your ignorance of the scientific method, since Slartibartfast has identified himself by name and as a professional scientist, I’m more than glad to let him stomp on you some more because that was funny.
With regard to the Big Bang itself, most cosmologists estimate that took place about 13.7 billion years ago. The term was coined by Dr. Fred Hoyle, who intended it to be pejorative, since he believed in a strange “solid state” or constant state theory in which matter was continually being created in space. I first read one of Hoyle’s books about 1950 and I thought then that his theory was beyond reasonable belief. At any rate the term caught on to describe the singularity from which the universe sprung. There is no way to extrapolate what happened before that. Is the universe continually expanding and contracting like an accordion? Has the universe been created before and destroyed, only to be reborn?
There’s no rest for the wicked, GeneH/Buddha, you know that. Fess up, so we can move on. I’d much rather explore your and your old friend’s ignorance of what constitutes science.
Keep repeating that and sooner or later you’ll believe it. You used to call that the Big Lie. It’s too funny.
Charles, I am sitting here in stunned disbelief at your statement that Darwin’s theories require a “big bang” of sorts. Not hardly. Whoever is giving you information is sadly misinformed.
Evolution is gradual. Organisms that have short life spans evolve more rapidly than those with long life spans. That is one reason bacteria develop resistance to things that will kill them more quickly than trees. Evolution is explained most elegantly by the laws of genetics, as described by the monk, Gregor Mendel. Factoid: Mendel’s birthday was this week. He was born on July 20, 1822.
Big bang? It took over twenty million years to get from Hylobatidae to Cro Magnon.
kderosa,
Do you have something topical to add to this thread or are you going down the rabbit hole on one of your paranoid jags again?
Yes, I do, kderosa.
Someone who is not really here.
I suspect you do that a lot.
You know exactly who I am talking to, sock puppet boy.
Talking to your imaginary friend again, kderosa?
That doesn’t help your non-existent credibility much.
Yes, I do…The apple one that I got has that gel stuff…I initially got the full gel and it felt icky in the hands…so I went for leather…what is nice about the keyboard…is you can use it or not…it wraps around the back and you don’t see it…it has a place for the hand…and you don’t touch it…it is kind of like holding a paperback in one hand….
Slartibartfast,
“Thank you, I don’t like people that don’t understand science (evolution in particular) and then try to share their ignorance and misinformation…”
You’re welcome. Since you hate the sharing of misinformation and ignorance, you should really loathe “it’s” last post. I’m laughing so hard at it, I can barely type. Talk about Lysenkoism!
@Buddha
“Actually science not only requires consensus but independent falsification or validation.”
It requires the latter, not the former.
“Clearly you don’t understand the peer review process and the value of independently repeatable and verifiable (or falsifiable) experimentation.”
A non sequitur. Unless you are claiming that the peer review process is scientific consensus. Which it isn’t.
“This comes as no surprise that you don’t understand the scientific method as your understanding seems to be limited in general, kderosa. Limited to what your handler feeds you to be precise.”
Spoken from the guy who doesn’t understand the difference between correlation and causation.
This has nothing to do with”resistance.” How can you “resist” a belief system? Its all in what a person believes.I said that I couldn’t spend a lot of time on this subject, but I love inteligent discourse.In order for anyone to believe in Darwins theory, you have to believe that (1) there was some sort of a “Big Bang” in a Universe which created itself.This “Big Bang” was composed of some molecules of gas or other energy,which was also self created,the subsequent result was a planet (Earth) which began a spinning rotation, resulting with gravity to hold things down,a sun to provide light and energy which has been in place for millions of years.Air,and water needed to support life was also produced at the same time.(2) Scientific evidence:The smallest possible piece which matter can be broken down into is an Atom.Atoms make up molecules.Could anything this complex happened by mistake?(3)My last point is, that Scientist admit that DNA cannot change itself from one thing to another.In order for evolution to exist,Physics would have to break their own laws.Wouldn’t that be considered Divine Intervention?
I could go on and on,but theres no need to try to convince anyone else what they should believe.There is nothing wrong with having doubt’s about God and Creation.There are many scriptures that corroborate that.
I respect everyones point of view,getting late.
Rob,
Thanks.
OS,
That wasn’t epic – that was just a wee rant, I hardly even got warmed up…
Gene,
Thank you, I don’t like people that don’t understand science (evolution in particular) and then try to share their ignorance and misinformation…
Slartibartfast, good to have another aging intellectually-arrogant hippie enter the ring to embarrass himself.
So you say “Science, the scientific method, in particular, is a way of predicting, gathering, and interpreting empirical data which has proven incredibly successful at understanding the physical universe.” Fair enough.
Even Wikipedia knows that “consensus science” has little to to do with science or the scientific method. So, I’ll just let Wikipedia make the argument for me.
“Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method”
The opinion of scientists is not science. Real scientists let the science do the talking. Science does not depend on consensus. Consensus is how scientists avoid doing the hard work of science. It’s a non-scientific short cut that exposes the biases of the scientists. Let us just take a look at a few instances recounted by Wikipedia of how the scientific consensus got it wrong and ignored contractictory science:
* the theory of continental drift proposed by Alfred Wegener and supported by Alexander Du Toit and Arthur Holmes but soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection.
*the theory of symbiogenesis presented by Lynn Margulis and initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted.[citation needed]
the theory of punctuated equilibria proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge which is still debated but becoming more accepted in evolutionary theory.
*the theory of prions—proteinaceous infectious particles causing transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases—proposed by Stanley B. Prusiner and at first rejected because pathogenicity was believed to depend on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating evidence.
*the theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers. This theory was first postulated in 1982 by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren but was widely rejected by the medical community which believed that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach. Marshall demonstrated his findings by drinking a brew of the bacteria and consequently developing ulcers, subsequently curing himself with antibiotic medication. In 2005, Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on H. pylori
Strike one.
Then you go on to mistakenly claim that evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life: Oh really? Again, Wikipedia begs to differ with your unique view:
Evolution: Origin of life
Further information: Abiogenesis and RNA world hypothesis
Highly energetic chemistry is believed to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[235] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[236] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[237] and the assembly of simple cells
2 strikes, you evil genius you.
Moving on to Lysenkoism. Lysenkoism is the distortion of the scientific process by pseudo-scientists like Kevin Kesseler who claims that scientific consensus is actually science and is willing to substitute consensus for actual scientific proof to prove such things as global warming, which lacks scientific proof but certainly not scientific consensus, to accord with his idealogical biases.
Strike three, Magoo.
New batter. Or do you want to try again?
Slartibartfast,
A job well done, sir. The fjords are really nice too. Especially all the squiggly bits.
Doc Slarti – a masterpiece. Congratulations on an epic rant.
AY,
My sister has one with the cover that comes from apple – do you think the type you linked is better? I’ve already got an apple bluetooth keyboard. Any other accessories that you recommend?
kidiot,
To what overreaching are you referring? Can you be specific?