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
You want discussion KD? I would be most interested in your assessment of the differing views and arguments of Fred Hoyle, Georges Lemaître and Hannes Alfvénon the origin of the universe.
Bdaman, I was not referring to you in my previous comment. BTW, how is your family? I was thinking of you yesterday.
O.S. it’s an inside joke Slarti will know exactly what I’m talking about.
More innuendo by Mr. Innuendo himself, otteray scribe. Don’t hide behind innuendo, OS, make your argument like a big boy.
Mespo, sometimes the jokes write themselves. And some people are jokes. The troll’s handlers ought to be ashamed of themselves. Sending amateurs to duel with professionals. Slarti may want to have some fun with those last couple of troll comments.
@mespo, more innuendo from you. Make your argument like a big boy. That way I can respond. As usual you are mistaking personal attacks for ad hominems et al. Show how i’ve tied those into support for my conclusion. Can you?
Hi Slarti. Hadn’t seen you in a while but did notice you doing a little wrestling with Goldberg. WWE Smackdown
Slartibartfast:
“Oh they is not is they? Science starts by making a testable hypothesis – a prediction. You know, the scientist’s opinion about what’s going to happen in his experiment. But that’s not a part of science according to kidiot, is it…”
Is that right? Isnt a scientists “opinion” about something based on observations that he makes in nature or the laboratory and cannot determine why the event happened? He then develops an hypothesis and a research methodology to try and figure our what happened and why.
The scientists “opinion” is based on his considerable knowledge of his subject. If I saw something, I would probably have an opinion on what happened but would know if it was a significant occurrence.
I would say a scientists “opinion” is something more than just an opinion.
I would also say that calling someone kidiot is ad hominem and the refuge of an intellectual scoundrel.
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/public-education/meet-barbara-cargill-sboes-latest-chief/
@Kesseler, you’re not much of a scientist are you? Does a dissertation even count as science? How much grant money did you pull in last year? Or are you the guy that sets up the equipment for the real scientists. Judging by your intemperate comments in this forum you don’t appear to have the demeanor of a real scientist. Also, do you know what an appeal to authority is? Let me help you out by giving you an example “For the record, I AM a scientist…” Plus, only a jackass makes such statements, for the record. Let’s move on to your latest “arguments.”
*****************
Normally, I’d deconstruct this paragraph to highlight it’s silliness, but I think that here, and for the first time, the whole is greater than its constituent parts, As hard as it is to imagine, I think kderosa has done what few have done before him — commit every logical error most people can muster in just a few sentences. In the annals of bad argumentation this stands as the nadir. They’re all there ad hominen, circular reasoning, no true Scotsman etc.
Simply breathtaking!
@Kesseler, you’re not much of a scientist are you? Does a dissertation even count as science? How much grant money did you pull in last year? Or are you the guy that sets up the equipment for the real scientists. Judging by your intemperate comments in this forum you don’t appear to have the demeanor of a real scientist. Also, do you know what an appeal to authority is? Let me help you out by giving you an example “For the record, I AM a scientist…” Plus, only a jackass makes such statements, for the record. Let’s move on to your latest “arguments.”
Consensus science, scientific consensus — it’s all the same thing — not science. The fact that scientific consensus is “based on” the scientific method, doesn’t make it science. There is a conflict, dummy. It’s not a scientific argument and not part of the scientific method. It’s extrapolation. The opinions of scientists on how the science is to be interpreted isn’t science. Maybe one day you’ll learn that when you get more scientific experience. In the meantime, look up confirmation bias and herd mentality and figure out how they adversely affect the scientific process and the scientific consensus. Then get back to me and begin your backpedaling or do like GeneH/Buddha does and look silly by depending clearly wrong arguments to the bitter end.
As for the examples you glossed over, the consensus was wrong because the consensus went past what the science actually showed. It wasn’t just a matter of new science overturning old science. It was new science being ignored because it contradicted the consensus. As I said, when you have science you don’t need consensus. In these cases not only was the scientific consensus wrong, the herd mentality of the scientists in forming their unscientific consensus actually prevented the real science that conflicted with the consensus to be realized for quite some time. Classic confirmation bias. Shame you didn’t know that, you may not have embarrassed yourself so badly in your last two posts.
As for your dopey origin of life argument, the hypothesis I gave was part of the evolutionary hypothesis on how life started. Evolution does have something to say on the origin of life, look again, science-boy:
“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”
This is the overreach part in case you were wondering. Notice how they have to rely on “the current scientific consensus” instead of the actual science like in other parts of evolutionary theory. There is no science in this origin of life part. Hence, the consensus extrapolation.
Last, I’m using “scientific proof” as in “strongly supported by scientific evidence” sense which is appropriate for a non-technical discussion on a political blog. I’m glad to see you’re down to trying to pick nits since your real arguments weren’t very good.
Now after you’re done cleaning the test tubes for the real scientists, go learn about confirmation bias and get back to me and we might be able to disabuse you of your misunderstanding of scientific consensus.
Slarti, I don’t really have an opinion on the Big Bang simply because I am not a physicist and do not keep up with the literature on modern physics. However, the Big Bang makes more sense to me than Fred Hoyle’s strange theory of matter being constantly created out of nothing. I have some good friends who are physicists, and I have a physics minor in undergrad school, but frankly, have trouble keeping up with the literature in my own field. The information explosion is almost overwhelming. Maybe I ought to get one of those newfangled reading gadgets if I can get journals on it.
For my next project, I think I will dig into the reference you made to the work of Hans Alfen and see what he has to say. You have me intrigued. Being curious is sometimes a curse. 🙂
kidiot posted:
OS,
I don’t believe in the Big Bang (I prefer the theories of Nobel laureate Hans Alfven), but I’ll re-evaluate that position after the LHC goes to 14 TeV in 2014…
Blouise,OS and Slarti,
I have a first generation Kindlel and I love it. I find that I read more and I read faster with it. I also have an IPad but I haven’t tried using the Kindle App to read a book on it.
Blouise
but can you kill a spider with it?
OS and Slarti,
When my daughter bought me a Nook I thought, “I know I’m going to hate this … it’s just not going to be like a real book.”
I was wrong. It goes everywhere with me and all my books are right at my fingertips … in the doctor’s office, waiting for a friend in the restaurant, in the car or suitcase when I travel, … I am never without it.
Gene H,
When the messenger brings good news we throw him a feast … trolls always show up uninvited and insist we feed them. Tiring.
Thanks for the good news!
Thanks OS, but it was too confusing for my simple left wing brain.
Kdpanzee,
Think….oh no…a new lefty…alls he can do is recite….
Raff, Google did create one of their doodle logos for him on his birthday.
http://www.popherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/gregor-mendel-google-doodle.jpg