Skip to comments.
US states divide over creationism [the view from the UK]
Nature Magazine ^
| 09 November 2005
| Geoff Brumfiel
Posted on 11/10/2005 4:22:26 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Pennsylvania school rejects intelligent design, just as Kansas embraces it.
Despite fierce opposition from scientists and teachers, the Kansas State Board of Education has adopted teaching standards that support intelligent design, the idea that an intelligent creator shaped the course of evolution.
"This is just the latest in a series of troubling decisions by the board," Kathleen Sebelius, the Democratic governor of Kansas, said in a statement. "If we're going to continue to bring high-tech jobs to Kansas and move our state forward, we need to strengthen science standards, not weaken them."
At the same time, things have moved in the opposite direction in Dover, Pennsylvania, which is home to the highest profile court case against intelligent design.
The Dover school board has been in court since September (see 'School board in court over bid to teach intelligent design'), after adopting standards that criticize evolution and, say parents, violate the separation of church and state.
On 8 November, eight of the nine members of the school board were voted out by the community. They were replaced by people who oppose the teaching of intelligent design in science class.
Critical assessment
In Kansas, this is the second time in six years that there has been a vote to change education standards in favour of what scientists see as a pro-religion agenda. In 1999, the school board voted to eliminate teaching evolution, cosmology, and some aspects of geology (see 'Kansas kicks evolution out of the classroom').
The following year, a vigorous campaign by scientists and teachers cost conservatives a majority on the elected board and led to the standards being overturned.
But now the new standards, adopted by a six to four vote on 8 November, require the teaching of specific criticisms of evolution in high school classrooms. These talk about a lack of evidence for a "primordial soup" in which life originated and "a lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code".
"This is a huge victory for students in Kansas," says Casey Luskin, a programme officer in policy and legal affairs at the Discovery Institute, an intelligent-design think-tank in Seattle.
Luskin says that the standards will help students to recognize legitimate scientific criticisms of evolution. He notes that they make no direct reference to intelligent design: "Critics say that the school board is bringing religion into the classroom, but they're not."
Open door
Not so, says Jack Krebs, vice-president of Kansas Citizens for Science, which opposes the new standards. Krebs fears that the standards will embolden teachers in conservative schools across the state to begin teaching intelligent design. "This decision is going to open the door for anyone who's leaning towards creationism," he says.
The decision had long been expected, and some scientific groups have already stated their opposition to the changes (see 'Kansas backs lessons critical of evolution').
The National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association recently withheld the copyright for the national science standards on which Kansas' standards are based, as a protest against the changes.
Krebs says he hopes that still more support will be rallied in the months ahead. "I think it will be critical to get the religious and academic communities aroused and involved," he says.
Meanwhile the trial in Dover awaits a decision. Although the ruling, expected in December or January, may no longer have a direct effect on the school that started the case, the legal precedent it sets could influence the way schools teach evolution nationwide.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; kansas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
The links within the article don't work unless you're a subscriber. But if you're here, you know the background, so it's the main article that's worth reading. If it appears in Nature, it's worth posting.
To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
2
posted on
11/10/2005 4:23:44 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
To: PatrickHenry
3
posted on
11/10/2005 4:30:16 AM PST
by
King Prout
(many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
To: PatrickHenry
Good News.....This Morning on the radio it was reported that all of the Dover, Creationist/ID school board members, were voted out by an embarrassed electorate.
4
posted on
11/10/2005 4:36:44 AM PST
by
Vaquero
("An armed society is a polite society" R. A. Heinlein)
To: Vaquero
oops, it says that in the body of the thread...sorry
5
posted on
11/10/2005 4:43:50 AM PST
by
Vaquero
("An armed society is a polite society" R. A. Heinlein)
To: PatrickHenry
The Brits have always had a unique perspective on this. When visiting Westminster Abbey for the first time back in the '70s, I was amazed to find a particular within in the floor in a prominant position in England's National Church. It was Charles Darwin.
6
posted on
11/10/2005 4:46:25 AM PST
by
Pharmboy
(The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
To: Pharmboy
And some creationist type will come along and claim that the Church of England is Apostate or isn't really Christian, hence the explanation for finding a positive Chruch-Darwin connection.
7
posted on
11/10/2005 5:53:32 AM PST
by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: doc30
Definitely could happen. And I unfortunately left out the word "grave" from my original post.
8
posted on
11/10/2005 5:56:55 AM PST
by
Pharmboy
(The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
To: doc30
Everyone knows that Anglican, Roman Catholic, Methodist, PCUSA and other effete mainstream churches are not really Christian.
9
posted on
11/10/2005 6:01:15 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: js1138
Everyone knows that anyone who doesn't believe a 6-day creation in Genesis and a 6000 year-old universe isn't a Christian and, in fact, is an atheist.
10
posted on
11/10/2005 6:36:57 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Pharmboy
I was amazed to find a particular within in the floor in a prominent position in England's National Church. It was Charles Darwin. I've been there, and I've seen it. I think (but don't really know) that Darwin always regarded himself as Christian. He studied for the ministry, and was certainly devout as a young man. He did seem to have some doubts late in life.
Those who are always popping into these threads to babble that eeee-villl-uuuuu-shun is the direct road to atheism, sodomy, mass murder, communism, etc. can never quite deal with the exemplary life of Darwin. Or the thousands of biology teachers, scientists, etc. who don't exhibit the "inevitable" consequences that the anti-evos imagine will follow from learning science.
Not that such things are evidence for or against Darwin's work. A scientific theory stands or falls on the evidence for or against the theory. Darwin's biography is irrelevant. But he seems to have been a worthy gentleman of his generation.
11
posted on
11/10/2005 6:39:37 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: PatrickHenry
Indeed...well stated. And, if I remember correctly, Charles' dad was an important clergyman in the COE.
13
posted on
11/10/2005 7:13:09 AM PST
by
Pharmboy
(The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
To: Dimensio
Everyone knows that anyone who doesn't believe a 6-day creation in Genesis and a 6000 year-old universe isn't a Christian and, in fact, is an atheist. There's something about this country that makes every guy with a Bible think that he is an expert on Scripture.
Witness how American churches have historically splintered along minor points of theology.
More established, sober churches, don't seem to have much of a problem with many scientific theories, such as evolution. It seems like it's only the Churches of "Me and you, and I'm not so sure about you" that are up in arms against science.
14
posted on
11/10/2005 7:13:24 AM PST
by
Palisades
(Cthulhu in 2008! Why settle for the lesser evil?)
To: Palisades
There's something about this country that makes every guy with a Bible think that he is an expert on Scripture.
It seems to be more than that. Not just scripture, but theology in general. And also biology and physics (thermodynamics in particular).
I personally cannot fathom what possibly causes some religious people to turn to the outright and blatant dishonesty as well as the extreme arrogance (I haven't studied any higher level science, but I know enough to overthrow 150 years of research in biology!) that I see from too many creationists in these discussions.
15
posted on
11/10/2005 7:17:38 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
I personally cannot fathom what possibly causes some religious people to turn to the outright and blatant dishonesty as well as the extreme arrogance (I haven't studied any higher level science, but I know enough to overthrow 150 years of research in biology!) that I see from too many creationists in these discussions. A weak faith, in my opinion. You don't see the Pope freaking out over the TOE, for example.
Part of it might be that they would rather focus on fighting a scientific theory, than going out and doing the hard work associated with Christianity, such as feeding the poor, caring for the sick etc.
I wonder, would Jesus be spending his time fighting to get intelligent design into schools, or would he be down at the homeless shelter caring for society's worst-off?
16
posted on
11/10/2005 7:22:08 AM PST
by
Palisades
(Cthulhu in 2008! Why settle for the lesser evil?)
To: PatrickHenry
But he seems to have been a worthy gentleman of his generation.That could be true...dont know.
What constitutes being a christian vs being a Christian is totally different though.
Mat 7:13
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
There will be many christians going to hell someday.
17
posted on
11/10/2005 7:25:26 AM PST
by
wallcrawlr
(http://www.bionicear.com)
To: PatrickHenry
19
posted on
11/10/2005 7:43:53 AM PST
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
To: All
I have been stuffing myself with basic and evolutionary books for the last 6 months and I though some of you (on both sides) might be interested in what I think about these books (in no particular order).
1.The Evolutionary Biology of Plants, by Karl J. Niklas, 1997. I bought this book because plants receive short shrift in most evolution books and are almost unmentioned in the Creo literature. This book is not too expensive, if you buy a used one, and has a lot of great information in it not available in other texts. He spends a lot of time on "Adaptive Walks" which was both interesting and a little too much. But his chapters on the emergence of plants onto land are quite good. Niklas' style is a bit thick, so it is not easy to read. I would recommend this book if you have an interest in plants, but not as a primary book.
2.Molecular Evolution by Wen-Hsiung Li, 1997. This book is very expensive (close to $200), so I borrowed it through my local library. Physically it is shoddy and there is nothing in it that justifies such a high price. The first third of the book is a review of molecular biology and population genetics and other related subjects. When Li does get into examples they are both overwhelming and very good. His description of the human apolipoproteins is perfect, but it his own work. He has few examples, but they are all very good ones and described in great detail. This is also a weakness - there are few examples and many others are not mentioned. In addition, this book is now old. Most information in it is now 10-15 years old and he has missed the great pile of new stuff that has come out since this was written. I recommend it if you can get it free or real cheap. I hope a new edition comes out, but it would have to be completely rewritten since the amount of new data is overwhelming. Somewhat of a disappointment to me.
3.Lehninger, Principles of Biochemistry, by D.L. Nelson and M.M. Cox, 2005. Since Lehninger is no longer personally involved in book writing, the task has been taken over by Nelson and Cox. They have kept what made the old Lehninger's so powerful and added a big pile of new stuff, especially 3D models of proteins. They have done a great job. This book is expensive (over $100), but I managed to get one for about $50 that was almost like new. While evolution is only treated in passing, the evidence in this book buttresses evolutionary theory in a powerful way. You can also get a lot of peripheral stuff that I think is probably superfluous. Highly recommended.
4. Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas Futuyma, 1998, 3rd edition. This is the classic Evolution book. Every person on both sides should read it. I got an almost new one for about $40, so it's not too expensive. It does need updating since the information is now 10 years old, but the examples are very good and he covers all aspects of evolution. He spreads his examples out over many groups and, as a result, the detail is not that good. He even has an appendix "Contending with Creationism". It could have come right from a CREVO thread here at FR. In addition he discusses "optimal design" periodically (p.5) "The respiratory pathway crosses the path that food follows from pharynx to esophagus. This is not an optimal design [choking hazard]; it makes sense only in light of a history in which the nares of primitive fishes were recruited for breathing". Highly recommended for both evo types and Creationoids who want to make sense and not look silly.
I have two other books I am in the process of digesting Biology of the Prokaryotes and Molecular Genetics of Bacteria that I will review later if I think people may be interested.
The problem with science has always been that as soon as a book is published it is out of date by a few years. And in the rapidly moving areas of molecular biology those few years can be big. These books can help interested people a great deal, but keeping up to date will have to be done in a high tech library, if you have one available.
20
posted on
11/10/2005 8:00:03 AM PST
by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
