Evolution
Much has been written about the Senate bill regarding the teaching of evolution in our public education system (or, as the bill says, teaching regarding "the origins of life" -- which, based on the discussion, seems to mean evolution). I don't have time to add to that dialogue at this time, but I will link to a D-News article that describes my position on the bill.
In short, proponents of the bill claim it has nothing to do with religion or faith. Okay. Since we're just dealing with scientific education and nothing more, the relevant inquiry becomes what alternative theory or theories has/have sufficient recognition in the scientific community (the relevant community, if we're just talking about science education) to warrant such a disclaimer as the bill would require?
Much has changed since I received my degree in biology 17 years ago. But, I'm not aware that any other scientific theory describing the diversity of species has gained any degree of support in the scientific community that would warrant passage of the bill.
In short, proponents of the bill claim it has nothing to do with religion or faith. Okay. Since we're just dealing with scientific education and nothing more, the relevant inquiry becomes what alternative theory or theories has/have sufficient recognition in the scientific community (the relevant community, if we're just talking about science education) to warrant such a disclaimer as the bill would require?
Much has changed since I received my degree in biology 17 years ago. But, I'm not aware that any other scientific theory describing the diversity of species has gained any degree of support in the scientific community that would warrant passage of the bill.
posted by steve u. at 1/25/2006
Subscribe
10 Comments:
I have read the amended Buttars bill. I don't have a significant problem with the actual language of the bill. I do have a problem with the way the bill has been conceived and promoted, which appears to be your position as well. I have written about the problems with the major theories here and here.
We should teach science in science class and avoid teaching scientifically unsupported conclusions. I think the DNews article also makes a good point as to how much the legislature should micromanage classroom instruction. The legislature certainly should exercise appropriate oversight to ensure that the Board of Education is doing the right things, but doesn't this bill go a little too far?
Finally! Someone in Utah's legislature with some courage! The intelligent design bill reminds me of a hornet's nest on my street in second grade. I always wondered if I could hit it with a rock. Well, one day I tried. On my second throw I nailed it, and promptly received about 10 well-deserved stings.
Even if you're the majority, it doesn't mean you should waste your time throwing rocks at hornets' nests. As an active member of the Mormon Church, I read about our history of persecution by majority religions, and covenant never to do the same. Recently Mormon Church leaders have been preaching a doctrine of "inclusion", while stating absolutely nothing about "intelligent design." Maybe Senator Buttars needs to start reading his general conference Ensigns a bit more carefully!
I would just like to add my support to Sen. Urquhart's position. Evolution is the only scientifically acceptable, proven "theory" on the origins of life. I have a degree in Microbiology, and evolution is one of the most important aspects of Microbiology. Why do people think we have to have a yearly flu vaccine? Because the flu virus "evolves" every year. Why is there a methicillin resistant staph aureus bacterium that can be found in every hospital? It evolved a resitance to the anitbiotic. Evolution is the fundamental basis of science. It has been proven scientifically in the past, and can still be proven today.
It's just too bad that a majority of Senators on the Hill, like Buttars never passed a science class.
With all due respect to your microbiology degree, I think Sen. Buttars and his supporters would tell you that, sure the virus mutates every year, but it still remains a virus -- in fact, it still remains a flu virus. It doesn't evolve into a different species. Bacteria change their behavior and become resistant to antibiotics, but they still remain bacteria. I develop calluses on my fingers when I practice the guitar frequently, but I am still a homo sapien.
In other words, they will argue that there is no empirical evidence for macro-evolution, where different species evolve. Some ID promoters even agree with macro-evoultion, but they note the mathematical impossibility of it occurring within the framework provided by Darwin. They then take a leap of faith, saying that this "proves" the existence of an intelligent external designer, although, science tells us that it merely raises new questions.
If you're going to argue against Sen. Buttars and his supporters, at least inform yourself about their position rather than accepting the media sound bites about it.
Scott (RU),
You raise an interesting point -- evidence of speciation. Having read and enjoyed your posts on the issue, I'd appreciate your input. Though significant evidence of speciation is laid out through cladistics, it seems that many who reject evolution as the guiding theory of biology dismiss actual species and, instead, as was said in Senate committee, reject it because mythical creatures of their imagination don't exist, like a "dat" -- a cross between a dog and cat (no slight intended to Catdog). The many transitional species that have been identified, and the phylogenetic evidence linking those species, seem to be dismissed, oddly, because they actually exist(ed). Having existed, they simply are identified as independent species, rather than being identified as a transitional part-this part-that. Of course, no species ever existed as a "transition." At the time, it simply existed.
I did not intend to represent the views my previous post as my individual view; I just wanted to state what the Buttars bill supporters' views are (at least as I understand them), because one of the previous posters was essentially arguing against a straw man. Steve, I appreciate your willingness to go on record publicly stating in a coherent and intelligent manner why you oppose the bill. There has been so much demagoguery on both sides of the debate that it's good to see a legislator that can rise above it.
Senator, let me add to the congratulations. I find Senator Buttars machinations to be disingenuous at best, and I am pleased you called him on it. I also blogged about this.
My comments here are somewhat moot, since the Buttars bill has been sent back to the pliocine, however, I did want to add a quick point about speciation and evidence for speciation. First, the microbiologist is on the right track in terms of evidence for evolution within species. It has been shown in lab and in the wild, that there is no difference between the types of variation that occur between individuals of one species and between two different species. In both cases, the the variation is just a frequency of various characteristics. There is no magical point at which the variation stops and in many cases, the concept of species is blurred as a result. As for the non-sensical arguments that there are many cats, and many dogs, but no species that exists with half of the characters of a cat and half of those from a dog, it is the Buttars bill supporters who need to understand the science they are attacking. Buttars always looks forward, ignoring the fossil record, when he says that you will never see a dat. However, for any two related species, the theory of evolution predicts that at some point in the PAST there existed a common ancestor. And this particular prediction is borne out in the fossil record of early mammalian carnivores with teeth and skull characters intemediate to what evolved into distinct groups, cats and dogs. The theory of evolution does not predict that at some point in the future a common descendent will evolve without interbreeding. One caveat, the microbiologist repeatedly claims that evolution has been proven, althought this is not actually correct. The theory of evolution has been continualy supported by evidence, however this does not constitute proof in science, as all theories are only provisionally true until some evidence contradicts them.
Lastly, thank you very much Steve Urquhart for your work in getting this garbage legislation SB 96 tossed out with the trash.
Thank you, Senator Urquhart, for taking an unpopular but correct position and defending honesty in education.
I'm just shocked and disheartened that something like 28 members actually voted for this nonsense bill. Thanks Sen Urquhart for clearly supporting real science and rejecting the insertion of religi -- err, non-science, into the curriculum.
<< Home