Friday, March 07, 2008
Pat Hardy Has Won
The Dallas Morning News has reported that Pat Hardy has retained her post in the Texas School Board against challenger Barney Maddox, the avowed creationist. See this post for more information. This is good news.
Kenneth Miller on NMSR
New Mexicans for Science and Reason posted an interview with Kenneth Miller, Brown University biochemist. It was aired on February 8 of this year can be found here by following the "Archives" link. I am listening to it now. First up is a definition of science as being outside the realm of the supernatural and subject to peer-review. "Throw rocks at me" is how one of the hosts puts it. It is a methodology of learning about the natural world. It is not an ideology. Contrast this with the AIG post on "Are We Against Science?"
They are remarking on the Avalon Explosion, which occurred before the Cambrian explosion and took place over a time period of some thirty million years. This is a problem for creationists because they are fond of saying that the all of the major forms of life "exploded" on the scene, suggesting that animal and plant life did not evolve slowly but arrived on the scene at one time. The Avalon explosion suggests that there has been more than one "explosion." Listen to it if you have the time.
The interview mostly covers the Dover School Board trial and the adoption of the book that he and Joe Levine wrote on biology. He suggests that the Discovery Institute realized that the trial was going to be a "train wreck" because of the "hidden links between ID and old fashioned creationism" and that is why the DI's senior fellows withdrew from the trial. Miller refers to the trial as a "scientific rout for evolution."
They are remarking on the Avalon Explosion, which occurred before the Cambrian explosion and took place over a time period of some thirty million years. This is a problem for creationists because they are fond of saying that the all of the major forms of life "exploded" on the scene, suggesting that animal and plant life did not evolve slowly but arrived on the scene at one time. The Avalon explosion suggests that there has been more than one "explosion." Listen to it if you have the time.
The interview mostly covers the Dover School Board trial and the adoption of the book that he and Joe Levine wrote on biology. He suggests that the Discovery Institute realized that the trial was going to be a "train wreck" because of the "hidden links between ID and old fashioned creationism" and that is why the DI's senior fellows withdrew from the trial. Miller refers to the trial as a "scientific rout for evolution."
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The "Academic Freedom Bill" Rises Again
Rhonda Storms has proposed the Academic Freedom Bill in the Florida State Legislature. Tampa Bay Online has this to say:
Storms said the new bill merely says teachers should have the freedom to teach what they want, including theories that may contradict the prevalent theories of biological and chemical evolution. The bill does not mention creationism or intelligent design.
The basis of her bill came from activists who failed in February to persuade the state Board of Education to allow the leeway. The board voted 4-3 two weeks ago to explicitly require the teaching of evolution.
Here is where the problem occurs. My wife and I teach our kids at home, in large part because we don't like the education in the public schools. It also allows us to tailor our education to the kids to maximize their learning potential. In our defense, our son Marcus took the first grade Stanford Achievement Test earlier this year and blew it out of the water. The key is that we teach well-grounded math, literature and science. Allowing teachers to teach "what they want" is not the same thing. I don't teach my children the theory of phlogiston, or Lamarck's theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Why? Because it is not good science. I might teach science more rigorously than the public schools, and make it more fun for my kids than they would, but it is not junk science. If there are legitimate alternatives to evolution, they should be taught. As of now, there are no legitimate alternatives. ID argues from negative evidence.
Just because my theory is wrong doesn't make your theory right. And right now, there is not much evidence that my theory is wrong.
The DI and Bad Grammar
Josh Rosenau takes the Discovery Institute to task for bad grammar. The original article is here. His commentary is here. Here are my thoughts.
As silly as it may sound, there are scientists who are still researching gravity. This isn't as absurd as you might think. While no one doubts that mass attracts mass and apples fall down, not up, scientists are still debating the nature of the underlying physical laws and fundamental particles that cause gravitational attraction.
Yup. That's why they call it gravitational theory.
Except when it comes to neo-Darwinism. Then scientists are supposed to shut up, not ask questions, not challenge anything. That isn't science. It isn't even what Darwin himself envisioned for science.
Given that a perusal of any biological journal contains many articles that are tests of evolutionary theory, how is this true? In 1972, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould revolutionized the the field of evolutionary biology by introducing Punctuated Equilibrium (punk-eek). This was done by careful hypothesis testing of the evidence. This practically caused a paradigm shift. How is this not science?? Onward.
It looks as is Darwin would have been sorely disappointed in what is considered a fair consideration of the evidence these days. In Florida there was recently a vigorous debate over how evolution should be taught. Dogmatic Darwinists are insisting that Darwinian evolution be presented without any sort of critical analysis, as if it were 100% above reproach, as if it were a natural law that left no doubts.
This simply is not so. After reading the arguments of those who were opposed to the teaching of evolution in the schools, it was clear to me that most of them knew nothing of the theory! Would you want someone like me, a trained biologist, making policy on physics or English education? And what is a fair consideration of the evidence? As John Derbyshire pointed out in a National Review article:
George’s [Gilder's] own Discovery Institute was established in 1990; the offshoot Center for Science and Culture (at first called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) in 1992. That is an aggregate 30 years. Where is the science? In all those years, not a single paper of scientific standing has come out of (nor even, to the best of my knowledge, been submitted by) the DI or the CSC.
The DI seems to continually think that arguing from negative evidence is good scientific method. It is not. The author of this piece, Robert Crowther, also mentions the "Scores of Scientists" who reject evolution. As far as that goes, see this post. Even Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box supports evolution.
As silly as it may sound, there are scientists who are still researching gravity. This isn't as absurd as you might think. While no one doubts that mass attracts mass and apples fall down, not up, scientists are still debating the nature of the underlying physical laws and fundamental particles that cause gravitational attraction.
Yup. That's why they call it gravitational theory.
Except when it comes to neo-Darwinism. Then scientists are supposed to shut up, not ask questions, not challenge anything. That isn't science. It isn't even what Darwin himself envisioned for science.
Given that a perusal of any biological journal contains many articles that are tests of evolutionary theory, how is this true? In 1972, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould revolutionized the the field of evolutionary biology by introducing Punctuated Equilibrium (punk-eek). This was done by careful hypothesis testing of the evidence. This practically caused a paradigm shift. How is this not science?? Onward.
It looks as is Darwin would have been sorely disappointed in what is considered a fair consideration of the evidence these days. In Florida there was recently a vigorous debate over how evolution should be taught. Dogmatic Darwinists are insisting that Darwinian evolution be presented without any sort of critical analysis, as if it were 100% above reproach, as if it were a natural law that left no doubts.
This simply is not so. After reading the arguments of those who were opposed to the teaching of evolution in the schools, it was clear to me that most of them knew nothing of the theory! Would you want someone like me, a trained biologist, making policy on physics or English education? And what is a fair consideration of the evidence? As John Derbyshire pointed out in a National Review article:
George’s [Gilder's] own Discovery Institute was established in 1990; the offshoot Center for Science and Culture (at first called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) in 1992. That is an aggregate 30 years. Where is the science? In all those years, not a single paper of scientific standing has come out of (nor even, to the best of my knowledge, been submitted by) the DI or the CSC.
The DI seems to continually think that arguing from negative evidence is good scientific method. It is not. The author of this piece, Robert Crowther, also mentions the "Scores of Scientists" who reject evolution. As far as that goes, see this post. Even Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box supports evolution.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Meanwhile Over in Texas...
The Dallas Morning reports that there is a peculiar aspect of the School Board race going on in District 11 between Barney Maddox and Pat Hardy:
If Dr. Maddox, a Cleburne urologist, succeeds in unseating Ms. Hardy, a Weatherford educator, the whole political balance of the state board could shift. And that's when God shows up in the science books. Dr. Maddox is on record as referring to the theory of evolution as "a myth" and "a fairy tale."
That will come as news to the vast majority of scientists, who tend to use words like "foundational principle" and "overwhelming evidence" when discussing evolution. Nevertheless, seven members of the 15-member State Board of Education have sought to muddy the water by introducing creationism into science classrooms in Texas. A victory by Dr. Maddox would give them a majority.
It seems that Mr. Maddox' general education may be no better than his education in evolution:"...The campaign flier says: "Barney Maddox believes social studies textbooks should devote more space to American presidents than Marilyn Monroe and that the vicious attack of 9-11 should be portrayed as an aggressive act by terrorists, not an American conspiracy."
Ms. Hardy said she's floored by something so preposterous. She said she doesn't know of a single textbook giving Marilyn Monroe more play than the presidents or even hinting that the 9-11 attacks were an American conspiracy.
Give the newspaper kudos for pointing out that Ms. Hardy is a "rock-solid Republican and dyed-in-the-wool Southern Baptist who firmly believes God is behind all of creation." We need more people like her and fewer like Mr. Maddox.The Florida Debate as an Example of the "Wedge Strategy"
Tony Plakas of the SunSentinel argues that the debate over the science standards in Florida is a perfect example of how the Discovery Institute has used the Wedge Strategy to gain access to the public schools. He writes:
Ironically, members of the public who fought to keep the standards as presented, without the wedge, met a disciplined opposition who employed a scientific method. In fact, as noted by one speaker, it was proponents of evolution, so moved to message against the motivations of their detractors, who instigated a deity debate. In a masterful display of political prowess, evolution opposition gained ground promoting only academic freedom, cognitive inquiry, the scientific process, and of all things, choice!
You gotta hand it to 'em. They played the game well.
Ironically, members of the public who fought to keep the standards as presented, without the wedge, met a disciplined opposition who employed a scientific method. In fact, as noted by one speaker, it was proponents of evolution, so moved to message against the motivations of their detractors, who instigated a deity debate. In a masterful display of political prowess, evolution opposition gained ground promoting only academic freedom, cognitive inquiry, the scientific process, and of all things, choice!
You gotta hand it to 'em. They played the game well.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Toumai is 7 Million Years Old
The Toumai fossil, otherwise known as Sahelanthropus tchadensis, has been verified as being between 6.8 and 7.2 million years old. The other argument that is raging is whether or not Toumai really is a hominid. The story notes:
"The radiochronological data concerning Sahelanthropus tchadensis ... is an important cornerstone both for establishing the earliest stages of hominid evolution and for new calibrations of the molecular clock," [Michel] Brunet wrote in a study which will appear in the March 4 edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
If Toumai really is that old, it pushes the split date for humans and chimpanzees back to at least 8 mya and implies that it happened pretty fast, in evolutionary terms.
"The radiochronological data concerning Sahelanthropus tchadensis ... is an important cornerstone both for establishing the earliest stages of hominid evolution and for new calibrations of the molecular clock," [Michel] Brunet wrote in a study which will appear in the March 4 edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
If Toumai really is that old, it pushes the split date for humans and chimpanzees back to at least 8 mya and implies that it happened pretty fast, in evolutionary terms.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
AIG asks "Are We Anti-Science?"
The website Answers in Genesis asks the question "Are we anti-science?" Peter Galling, of AIG, writes:
Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of biblical creationists and Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).
Uh, wait just a minute. I was fine until he said that the starting point can only be accepted by faith. I do not have faith in the universe around me. I observe the universe around me. Scientists observe the universe around them and formulate hypotheses and theories explaining how that universe works. Such a position does not require faith in anything. It simply requires the understanding that the processes that go on around us operated in the past the same way they operate now. If they did not operate that way, evidence would have been left to that effect. Lets go on.
On the other hand, examine the origins science of Charles Darwin (and others like him). Darwin made observations, yes; he then borrowed the already-existing idea of natural selection and mixed it with a view he assumed was true (based on his rejection of the Bible): uniformitarianism. Thus, by combining observations, scientific ideas, and anti-God philosophy, Darwin published a speculation on how all of life could have descended from a common ancestor.
Darwin's use of uniformitarianism was not in response to rejecting the Bible (which he did not do). Furthermore, his understanding of deep time as well as uniformitarianism is what led him to establish his idea of natural selection. Additionally, how did uniformitarianism become anti-God? Mr. Galling does not say. To label a theoretical perspective of science anti-God is deeply troubling.
Thus, Answers in Genesis argues that evolutionary ideas are origins science, not operational science; evolution is, itself, a religious worldview, just as creation is part of a religious worldview, which affects how scientists do origins science. It is impossible to escape the presuppositions that give rise to one’s theory on origins. Those who portray evolutionism as solid science (contrasting it with [construed as blind] “faith” in creationism) ignore the fact that scientific data must be interpreted through a worldview.
How did origins science, which is based on predictions about what will be found in the historical record become a religious worldview??? By this definition, much of geology, astrophysics, astronomy, archaeology and palaeontology operates in a religious worldview. In fact, by this definition, crime scene investigation is a religious worldview, because it assumes that the gun used to kill the victim operated the same in the past as it does now.
This article betrays a serious misunderstanding of science. To the question "Are we anti-science," the answer must be "No." You can't be anti-science when you don't understand science in the first place.
Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of biblical creationists and Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).
Uh, wait just a minute. I was fine until he said that the starting point can only be accepted by faith. I do not have faith in the universe around me. I observe the universe around me. Scientists observe the universe around them and formulate hypotheses and theories explaining how that universe works. Such a position does not require faith in anything. It simply requires the understanding that the processes that go on around us operated in the past the same way they operate now. If they did not operate that way, evidence would have been left to that effect. Lets go on.
On the other hand, examine the origins science of Charles Darwin (and others like him). Darwin made observations, yes; he then borrowed the already-existing idea of natural selection and mixed it with a view he assumed was true (based on his rejection of the Bible): uniformitarianism. Thus, by combining observations, scientific ideas, and anti-God philosophy, Darwin published a speculation on how all of life could have descended from a common ancestor.
Darwin's use of uniformitarianism was not in response to rejecting the Bible (which he did not do). Furthermore, his understanding of deep time as well as uniformitarianism is what led him to establish his idea of natural selection. Additionally, how did uniformitarianism become anti-God? Mr. Galling does not say. To label a theoretical perspective of science anti-God is deeply troubling.
Thus, Answers in Genesis argues that evolutionary ideas are origins science, not operational science; evolution is, itself, a religious worldview, just as creation is part of a religious worldview, which affects how scientists do origins science. It is impossible to escape the presuppositions that give rise to one’s theory on origins. Those who portray evolutionism as solid science (contrasting it with [construed as blind] “faith” in creationism) ignore the fact that scientific data must be interpreted through a worldview.
How did origins science, which is based on predictions about what will be found in the historical record become a religious worldview??? By this definition, much of geology, astrophysics, astronomy, archaeology and palaeontology operates in a religious worldview. In fact, by this definition, crime scene investigation is a religious worldview, because it assumes that the gun used to kill the victim operated the same in the past as it does now.
This article betrays a serious misunderstanding of science. To the question "Are we anti-science," the answer must be "No." You can't be anti-science when you don't understand science in the first place.
"Expelled" Being Agressively Marketed
Variety has an article on the marketing of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed detailing the efforts of all involved:
Producers of the $3.5 million film, which has been enthusiastically backed by anti-evolution think tank the Discovery Institute, have harnessed some big guns to get the film's message out. They've hired Motive Entertainment, the marketing brains behind "The Passion of the Christ" and "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe," to spread the intelligent design gospel and tapped powerhouse PR firm Rogers & Cowan to handle the film's media campaign.
I will try to see the film, if nothing else, to see if the criticisms of the implied Darwinism=Nazism link are warranted.
Producers of the $3.5 million film, which has been enthusiastically backed by anti-evolution think tank the Discovery Institute, have harnessed some big guns to get the film's message out. They've hired Motive Entertainment, the marketing brains behind "The Passion of the Christ" and "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe," to spread the intelligent design gospel and tapped powerhouse PR firm Rogers & Cowan to handle the film's media campaign.
I will try to see the film, if nothing else, to see if the criticisms of the implied Darwinism=Nazism link are warranted.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Serious Global Warming
A report on Foxnews states that the end of the earth has been predicted:
[Smith] cites a recent study emanating from the University of California, Santa Cruz. It proposes taming an asteroid to swing by the Earth every few thousand years, slowly nudging the Earth into higher solar orbit, enough to outpace the sun's own outward growth.
Or we could just get on the stick and figure out a way of getting out there. Colonizing Mars clearly won't work in the long run.
----------------
Now playing: George Winston - Corrina, Corrina
via FoxyTunes
The sun will slowly expand into a red giant, pushing the Earth farther out into space, but not far enough. Our home planet will be snagged by the sun's outer atmosphere, gradually plunging to its doom inside the fiery stellar furnace.
"The drag caused by this low-density gas is enough to cause the Earth to drift inwards, and finally to be captured and vaporized by the sun," explains astronomer Robert Smith of the University of Sussex in southern England.
It turns out that we only have around a billion years of life left, which is sobering when you think that life on the earth has been around for 3.6 billion years. That fact alone seems to have built in a bit of immediacy to the whole picture. In fact, the process might be slowed down:[Smith] cites a recent study emanating from the University of California, Santa Cruz. It proposes taming an asteroid to swing by the Earth every few thousand years, slowly nudging the Earth into higher solar orbit, enough to outpace the sun's own outward growth.
Or we could just get on the stick and figure out a way of getting out there. Colonizing Mars clearly won't work in the long run.
----------------
Now playing: George Winston - Corrina, Corrina
via FoxyTunes
Monday, February 25, 2008
Redesigning "Design"
Kenneth Miller, speaking in front of the AAAS, argues that there is design in nature, just not the way ID folks would have you believe. The story notes:
He points out that structural and molecular biologists routinely speak of the design of proteins, signaling pathways, and cellular structures. He also notes that the human body bears the hallmarks of design, from the ball sockets that allows hips and shoulders to rotate to the “s” curve of the spine that allows for upright walking. “There is, indeed, a design to life – an evolutionary design,” Miller said. “The structures in our bodies have changed over time, as have its functions. Scientists should embrace this concept of ‘design,’ and in so doing, claim for science the sense of orderly rationality in nature to which the anti-evolution movement has long appealed.”
My guess is that he is going to get slings and arrows for this position but he argues this in Finding Darwin's God and is somewhat convincing. One cannot shake the lingering thought, however, that he is letting ID in the back door.
----------------
Now playing: Return To Forever - The Romantic Warrior
He points out that structural and molecular biologists routinely speak of the design of proteins, signaling pathways, and cellular structures. He also notes that the human body bears the hallmarks of design, from the ball sockets that allows hips and shoulders to rotate to the “s” curve of the spine that allows for upright walking. “There is, indeed, a design to life – an evolutionary design,” Miller said. “The structures in our bodies have changed over time, as have its functions. Scientists should embrace this concept of ‘design,’ and in so doing, claim for science the sense of orderly rationality in nature to which the anti-evolution movement has long appealed.”
My guess is that he is going to get slings and arrows for this position but he argues this in Finding Darwin's God and is somewhat convincing. One cannot shake the lingering thought, however, that he is letting ID in the back door.
----------------
Now playing: Return To Forever - The Romantic Warrior
Friday, February 22, 2008
Michael Behe Ruminates on Charles Darwin's Birthday
The Morning Call has a piece profiling Lehigh biochemist Michael Behe's reaction to Charles Darwin's birthday and Darwin Day at Lehigh. Behe is famously known for his book Darwin's Black Box and for his testimony at the Dover trial in 2005. He is critical of evolutionary theory. As the story notes:
That puts him at odds with the rest of Lehigh's biochemistry department, which states on its Web site that Behe's views have ''no basis in science,'' while Darwin's theory of evolution is backed up by ''findings accumulated over 140 years.''
With regard to the theory's longevity, Behe had, perhaps, the best comeback of the day:
''This party is like a group of scientists [around 1905] having a birthday party for Newton because they want people to think that they're not associated with this new guy Einstein."
I don't think he is correct, but is still a nifty one-liner.
That puts him at odds with the rest of Lehigh's biochemistry department, which states on its Web site that Behe's views have ''no basis in science,'' while Darwin's theory of evolution is backed up by ''findings accumulated over 140 years.''
With regard to the theory's longevity, Behe had, perhaps, the best comeback of the day:
''This party is like a group of scientists [around 1905] having a birthday party for Newton because they want people to think that they're not associated with this new guy Einstein."
I don't think he is correct, but is still a nifty one-liner.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Exalting Stupidity
Susan Jacoby, writing for the International Herald Tribune, addresses why Americans have an almost inherent dislike for intellectualism. Although there has always been a distrust of academics, the article notes:
But now, Jacoby said, something different is happening: anti-intellectualism (the attitude that "too much learning can be a dangerous thing") and anti-rationalism ("the idea that there is no such things as evidence or fact, just opinion") have fused in a particularly insidious way.
Not only are citizens ignorant about essential scientific, civic and cultural knowledge, she said, but they also don't think it matters.
She pointed to a 2006 National Geographic poll that found nearly half of 18- to 24-year-olds don't think it is necessary or important to know where countries in the news are located. So more than three years into the Iraq war, only 23 percent of those with some college could locate Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel on a map.
As she notes, this cuts across ideological, political and religious lines and is certainly a factor in the whole creation/evolution mess. Not good.
The Florida Fight Rages On.
Tampa Bay Online is reporting that both sides of the evolution debate are gearing up for war. Supporters of the evolution standards are annoyed that "scientific theory of" was added to the standards and opponents are annoyed that the "Academic Freedom" revision was not included. It used this language:
"Evolution is a fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence and teachers should be permitted to engage students in a critical analysis of that evidence."
This does not strike me as being a problem, since if students really did engage in such analysis, they would find out how rock-solid the theory is. But among all of the sabre-rattling comes this ray of sunshine:
Although many opponents insisted otherwise, the Rev. Brant Copeland, a Presbyterian pastor from Tallahassee, suggested that the debate remains one between science and religious interpretation.
"Evolution is a fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence and teachers should be permitted to engage students in a critical analysis of that evidence."
This does not strike me as being a problem, since if students really did engage in such analysis, they would find out how rock-solid the theory is. But among all of the sabre-rattling comes this ray of sunshine:
Although many opponents insisted otherwise, the Rev. Brant Copeland, a Presbyterian pastor from Tallahassee, suggested that the debate remains one between science and religious interpretation.
Copeland urged the board to adopt the standard as written by the experts.
"Children should learn science in science class, not religion in science class," Copeland said. "As a Christian, I am not threatened by what science can tell us about God's marvelous and ever-changing creation."
Stay tuned.
Journalists and Science
Scholars & Rogues takes on the journalism world and finds it wanting. They relate the following from Reuters:
The Reuters headline writer says “Florida will teach evolution, but only as a theory” (emphasis mine). Clearly, the headline writer also has no idea what a theory is. Michael Peltier, the writer, has this to say:
The panel includes the word “evolution” in state science standards for the first time, but it is relegated to a place among a host of ideas, including Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. By contrast Isaac Newton’s law of gravity is taught as undisputed fact.
“Relegated” to a place including the Theory of Relativity???!!! That’s like a musician’s being relegated to Carnegie Hall, or an actor’s relegation to the Royal Shakespeare Company! I can only hope I’m so relegated one day. As for “Newton’s law of gravity” being taught as “undisputed fact,” I would say that is true only in bad classrooms. Science has no undisputed facts. There are simply things that are so probable that they are treated as facts, and if they are undisputed at this time, then it is because no one has produced credible evidence to reduce their probabilities.
When are publishers and/or editors going to insist that their writers have at least rudimentary knowledge of science? Math? Anything at all?
It is not surprising to find that journalists have the same understanding of science as the the general public. I teach this in my Anthropology 110 course and, despite (presumably) reading the textbook, students still miss the question on what a theory is.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
"An Evolutionary Dead End"
Florida Today columnist John Glisch writes a somewhat dour editorial on the potential impact of the Board of Education vote. The column came out pre-vote but still should be read. He writes:
You don't need a Ph.D. to see excellence in science education is a must and phony attempts to get religion in the science class door would be crippling. That's especially true in Florida, which in 2005 earned an "F" for its inadequate teaching of evolution from the Thomas A. Fordham Foundation that studies education reform.
He is absolutely correct.
You don't need a Ph.D. to see excellence in science education is a must and phony attempts to get religion in the science class door would be crippling. That's especially true in Florida, which in 2005 earned an "F" for its inadequate teaching of evolution from the Thomas A. Fordham Foundation that studies education reform.
He is absolutely correct.
Someone at the St. Petersburg Times Seems to Know
This opinion piece from the St. Petersburg Times has this little nugget.
The board's compromise adds the term "scientific theory" not just to evolution but to other areas of science, including the theories of atoms, cells and electromagnetism. This was done for one purpose: to allow the confusion over the term "theory" to cloud the legitimacy of evolution as the only accepted scientific explanation for life's origins. The scientific theory of plate tectonics doesn't inspire the same religiously grounded backlash.
Scientific theory is not a guess or a mere hypothesis. It is a framework that explains observable facts. In biology, evolution is the unifying theory that continues to be reinforced and verified by ever more sophisticated research. There is no credible alternative scientific theory. Other options, such as intelligent design or creationism, are a matter of personal beliefs or religious teachings. They could be discussed in an appropriate educational setting, but they do not belong in a science curriculum.
Yay!Florida Approves Science Standards
The Florida Board of Education approved the standards teaching evolution in schools. Mark Caputo of the Miami Herald writes:
For the first time ever, evolution is to be taught clearly and explicitly in Florida classrooms now that the state Board of Education approved a batch of new science standards Tuesday that mention the ''E'' word. But there's a catch: The subject will be taught as ``the scientific theory of evolution.''
Doesn't ANYONE down there know what the word "theory" means? From Wordnet.com, here we go:
theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
At this point, Florida needs to figure out how to move forward.
For the first time ever, evolution is to be taught clearly and explicitly in Florida classrooms now that the state Board of Education approved a batch of new science standards Tuesday that mention the ''E'' word. But there's a catch: The subject will be taught as ``the scientific theory of evolution.''
Doesn't ANYONE down there know what the word "theory" means? From Wordnet.com, here we go:
theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
At this point, Florida needs to figure out how to move forward.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Frog From Hell!
A fossilized frog has been found in Madagascar. The story, from the BBC, states:
The creature would have been the size of a "squashed beach ball" and weighed about 4kg (9lb), the researchers said. They added that the fossil, nicknamed Beelzebufo or "frog from hell", was "strikingly different" from present-day frogs found on the island nation.
The researchers are puzzled as to how it got where it did but it is suggested that a land bridge at Antarctica (which was warmer than now) would have provided the conduit. Here is the image of what the frog probably looked like from National Geographic and how it compares to a modern frog. 
----------------
Now playing: George Winston - Rain
via FoxyTunes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)