Pennsylvania school district defends creationism

A Pennsylvania school district on Wednesday rejected charges that plans to include references to an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution in high school biology classes would be illegal.

The Dover Area School District near Harrisburg is the first in the United States to introduce "Intelligent Design," a theory that the natural world is so complex it must have been made by an intelligent being, rather than occurring by chance, as held by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Read all about it here.

I'd be interested in the results of a poll of the biology teachers in that school district re this decision.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

*twitch*

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

Agreed. Someone want to go over there and explain to them the difference between "chance" and "natural selection" for criminy's sake! #-o

__________________
. . . My moustache is touching my brain!!!!

Ummm, I may be wrong here, but is the occurrence of a mutation not purely by chance? The survival of that mutation is natural selection, and the combination of both is Darwinian evolution. Very concise, I know...

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

I see what you're saying Fram, but natural selection isn't completely driven by mutation, right? e.g. a giraffe's neck didn't suddenly become long due to a mutation. It slowly, over years/decades/centuries became longer as those with the longer necks survived better than those with shorter ones. Point being, it's also genetic, right? (I'm way out of my league here, by the way, so chew away at me at will!).

__________________
. . . My moustache is touching my brain!!!!

From the article

Go here for some online reviews of this book. Please note that the "Editorial Review" was penned by the publisher! The supporters are, strangely enough, creationists, whereas the detractors tend to be of a scientific bent. The best review title? William Jennings Bryan has risen from the grave

BTW, it's cheap too: 4 used & new from $99.00. Other sources ask for a $25 "donation". Creationists out to make a buck? Nahhhh!

Here are some other reviews of the book that the Dover Area School District is recommending their students read to further their education:

Link One

Link Two

Link Three

Link Four

The last is from the National Association of Biology Teachers

Now for two more links.

Link Five A recommended text for those involved in home schooling. BTW, for the uninitiated, "home schooling", along with "vouchers", is a euphemism for "xian indoctrination of children while keeping them away from the immoral secular public school system".

Link Six Recommendation by the ICR. Need one say more? BTW, it was kind of neat how the ICR URL wound up as Link Six.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

That's basically it, as I understand it, with Wally's comments about time. It also depends on what you mean by mutation; we'll all "mutants" in that among humans, for example, we have a variety of genes. Just because I have dark hair and you have light, doesn't make one of us a mutant. But if the environment should start favoring people with dark hair, I would have a better shot at passing on my genes.

I just read in Science News (Dec. 18/25 issue) about some work by Fondon and Garner at U. of Texas Southwestern Mdical Center. They studied changes in domestic dog breeds. They contend that single-point mutations occur too infrequently to have a big impact (1 out of every 100 million DNA sites each generation). However, there are mutations in small repeated DNA sequences called "tandem repeat sequences" (they are repeated sections of DNA and the mutations are in the number of repeats). These mutations happen about 1 out of every 1000 DNA sites each generation and can lead to changes in appearance (they looked at the shape of dog muzzles).

There are arguments that this might not be applicable to natural species/selection, but it is an interesting idea.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

I understand that this might be a worm can, but can someone point me at a serious explanation as to exactly where "Intelligent Design" differs from your basic Creationism, other than in the use of a handful of pseudoscientific buzzwords? It can't be that simple, surely?

It's that simple.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Ah, so they've decided to follow the "but its ONLY a theory" argument, by coming up with something else they call a theory. After all, if you've got two competing theories, Science can't tell you which one is right, can it?

Mid, you got it in one. Not a bad summary of most ID arguments.

You can find all the good information and commentary about ID claims you can stomach (with plenty left over) at religioustolerance.org.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

Creationism says "God did it." ID just says "Someone did it," possibly God, possibly superpowerful aliens from M31. Since they don't mention God, it's therefore a theory and not a religious belief. They also to claim to have empirical evidence that "someone did it," while Creationists tend to confine themselves to trying to poke holes in evolutionary arguments.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

But ID totally fails as a theory because it depends on "irreducible complexity" and therefore begs the question "how did the aliens/God come about then?" As to their "evidence", I've yet to see any of them come up with anything beyond the IR arguments like "isn't an eye so well designed" -- I wouldn't call that empirical evidence.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

The occurence of mutations is only a small part of evolution, and the theory of evolution only concerns a small part of the natural world, which is how species of living beings change over time. It does not, for instance, say anything about how life appeared in the first place.

"There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and SELECTION IS THE VERY OPPOSITE OF CHANCE."

(my capitals)

From Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution (scroll down to the rebuttal to "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.")

I would dispute that. ID does not seem to be a scientific theory, at least.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Is there anything in ID to cover screwups, cost based engineering, or plain bad ideas? Where are IDs Edsels, Spruce Gooses or Blue Streaks?

I can understand God being infallible (I don't believe it but I can understand it) but infallible aliens?

I don't think ID says the Designer is infallible, only that there must have been a designer.

But where are the failed designs? Or are they the bits of the earth that do bad things, like tsunami?

I know I should read some of their stuff, but am lazy and can't bring myself to. Sorry. ops:

Take a look at TalkDesign.org.

The whole thing sounds suspiciously like the good ol' fallacy of untestability.

Depends on what you mean by "failed". The complete failures (dinosaurs, mastadons, dodos) are dead.

If you mean, what are the bad design features, just look at humans - there are lots of bad components: knees, backs, appendix, they fact that when we are unconscious our tongue blocks our airway. If there is a designer, we need a design review.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

TalkDesign examines one of the arguments for ID in here, and calls it a God-in-the-gaps / argument from ignorance.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Do Creationists and IDers accept these are bad designs?

Ok, ok, I'll read the links. Thanks.

I'd personally like to see these "Intelligent Design" nitwits sit down with an anatomy book and explain to me the "intelligence" of human design.

Why does the coccyx (sp?) exist? What is the point of a little toe (aside from being PAINFULLY broken)? What purpose to fingernails and toenails serve? What's the deal with wisdom teeth? Why is a vestigal organ like the appendix still around? Why is the human spine still, after all these millenia, still not properly adapted to upright postures? Why do spinal injuries not heal?

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Regarding the specific story, I wouldn't be too concerned about it. The school board may be a bunch of uneducated jackasses, but the courts don't have a whole lot of tolerance for this kind of BS anymore. This will get shot down rapidly and spectacularly.

It's a science class, not a religious class. Teach evolution in schools, teach creation in churches. What's wrong with that school district? It's not like churches are forced to teach evolution... Can't they keep them separate?

It's obvious that little toes evolved to find chair legs in dark rooms.

Fingernails are useful for opening penknives so that fingernails can be trimmed.

The Tooth Fairy puts wisdom teeth under your gums so the dentist can take them for a change.

The appendix is still shrinking; in a million years or so it will be down to the size of an index.

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

=D> You are very clever, sir.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Someone needs to remind the religious enthusiasts who got themselves elected to the school board that K-12 is the warm up to college. And if they want their little kiddies to do well in this world, they might want to visit a few college biology classes.

The colleges and universities should step up to the plate here. Perhaps they could save the courts some time.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

If GW keeps stacking the judicial deck with Evangelicals we may be in trouble here in the near future.

Scientists may want to stay out of the political debates but not have that luxury. Maybe even Phil will have to add a forum for "politics that affect the sciences". [Galileo rolls over in grave]

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

I hope I was clear enough in my first post, but to be ceratin: I agree. I was just trying to point out that while saying 'Evolution happens purely by chance' is plain wrong, it is equally wrong to say or imply that chance plays no role in it. I have often (though normally not around here, thankfully) heard Evolution being described as an almost living thing, as having a 'will' of its own, like 'when there's an ecological niche, an animal will evolve to fill it'. That's just plain nonsense, and comes in a way close to ID.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

But did anyone here say or imply that chance plays no role in evolution?
For the record, my use of capitals was directed at the people responsible for this latest attack on science, not at you.

Ah, Lamarckian evolutionism... It just won't go away.
Yes, even biologists talk like that sometimes. I suppose it's a useful metaphor. Unfortunately, it's also a very misleading one.

[Edited for spelling.]

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.