Oklahoma: Fark All-Star

[jne]

http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/01/antievolution-legislation-oklahoma-003647?the-circus-moves-by-rail

[Townsend]

Dammit...again?

[grahambino]

quote:Originally posted by Townsend

Dammit...again?

and you're surprised by this?

its sickening.

Now, students, On the 8th day, God created guns, like the one in my holster.  Go ahead you feelin' lucky punk?

[TURobY]

What are the chances of this getting passed? Any ideas?

I wrote Adelson, urging him to oppose this.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies

I'm a big fan of that.

"Darwins theory is...  the theory has been proven by... but archeological evidence for all the gaps are still incomplete and present a challenge to modern scientists...  however, it is nearly universally accepted in the scientific community as the best explanation for complex life.  Though if you can form and support a better theory and present it you could be a great asset to medicine, farming, and many other fields (and rich)! "

"Many different cultures think various gods, goddesses, birds or other animals, celestial bodies, people, or events created or recreated life in various stages of development and/or directed its path.  Scientific evidence fails to support these various contentions and they are of no aid to science in medicine, food production, exploration, or any other endeavor as they fail to explain key elements.  Lacking explanatory basis and scientific evidence, mostly relying on oral tradition and backwards science (ie. proving the story they are presented instead of formulating a theory from the evidence) these issues are a matter of belief and not really associated with science. But you should be aware that some people hold faith on a higher plateau than logic and fact and thus will be more than happy to accept the progress science brings but will refuse to intelligently discuss the topic."

Is there an alternative theory to the chemical origin of life?  Besides a deity snapping his/her fingers?  If there is another scientific explanation or a reason why the current theory is faulty, then by all means present it.

I assume that's the discussion they want.  

In all honesty, I would like to assume a good science teacher discusses the flaw in all the scientific theories.  Points out that what once was considered fact (earth flat, bats are birds, mustard seed the smallest, elements desire to be together) is now proven false.  And a good teacher would explain how and why that process of scientific theory works (best theory wins, disprove the theory and/or have more support for a different theory and the old one dies out).

Religion is not science.  It is more often than not the anti-science.  As Martin Luther said, "Logic is the mortal enemy of faith.  It should be cast out of all good Christians."  I really don't think that goes along with the science curriculum I want my kid to learn.  You teach what you want in church, but lets leave science to scientists.
- - -

And on the other token... if they are encouraged to highlight the holes in scientific theory in an effort to encourage religious theory (obvious the intent), are teachers going to be encouraged to also point out the flaws in logic, contraventions, faults, contradictions, and absurdity in the religious view on the same topics?  If they need a volunteer for guest lecturing on the topic I'll spend some time on it (if they provide me with a full time security detail to protect me).  

In short:

Keep science to the scientist and religion to the preachers.  By all means point out the flaws in the theory, that's how science moves forward.  But doing so to encourage a less supported theory is regression.

[cannon_fodder]

Reading the text of the bill:

quote:prohibiting penalizing of students for holding certain position on scientific theories . . . directing State Department of Education to provide certain notification . . . to be declared an emergency measure . . . .

. . .

D. Neither the State Board of Education, nor any district board of education, district superintendent or administrator, or public school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a school district in this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.

. . .

F. This act only protects the teaching of scientific information, and this act shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion. On the contrary, the intent is to create an environment in which both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the facts and observations of science, and the assumptions that underlie their interpretation.

Are we currently not allowed to point out the flaws in scientific theory?  Or, as I assume, is this the first step in the argument that "God snapped his fingers" is a "scientific" theory and thus should be taught in school.

If the intent isn't to include discussion of religion in the curriculum, then why is this law needed?

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


Is there an alternative theory to the chemical origin of life?  Besides a deity snapping his/her fingers?  If there is another scientific explanation or a reason why the current theory is faulty, then by all means present it.

Ahem. The site linked (a site specifically against creationism/ID) it says this specifically:

"Evolution has nothing to say about "how life started" one way or the other."

[cannon_fodder]

I understand that perfectly.  The Chemical Origin of life theory does have something to say about how life started...  it is NOT a Darwin theory, it is more modern than that (nad Darwin was not a chemist).  Basically it states: organic compounds in a warm saline inland sea combined to form "life."  

Darwin starts with the assumption that there is life, and wondered how it evolved to form different creatures.

The new law addresses:

quote:biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

Evolution,
The Origin of Life,
Global Warming,
and Human Cloning.  

4 separate theories.  I am aware of various alternative theories to evolution, global warming, and the debate on human cloning.  I am not aware of any alternative theory to the origin of life other than the "god snapped his finger" theory.  

I did not mean to imply that Darwin had anything to do with with the theory of chemical origins to life.  If Darwin had a theory to how life ultimately began I am not aware of it.

[sgrizzle]

Origin of life theories that coincide with evolution
-Warm saline (mud)
-Lightning strike
-Planet seeding (Richard Dawkin's Theory)
-Random protein bonding


So yeah, one of the theories of the origin of life supported by evolution is that life was put on earth by a higher life form.

[jne]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Origin of life theories that coincide with evolution
-Warm saline (mud)
-Lightning strike
-Planet seeding (Richard Dawkin's Theory)
-Random protein bonding


So yeah, one of the theories of the origin of life supported by evolution is that life was put on earth by a higher life form.

Zeus?

[RecycleMichael]

I just don't think human cloning will catch on. Making people the old-fashioned way is just way more fun.

[DolfanBob]

If we indeed evolved from apes.
Why are there still apes ?

Take your hands off of me you Damn filthy ape ! Charleton Heston.

[cannon_fodder]

First - Planet seeding does not necessarily presuppose a "higher being"  (I assume you use it as a euphemism for some persuasion of a god or gods).  The seeding could have occurred at random after a meteor hit Mars or a comet collided with the Earth bringing microbial life from another planet (as was believed of a Marsian meteor found on Earth with fossils in 1996).  And, as Dawkin's is using the argument to point out, if such a being existed and planted the seeds for life (which has now been picked up on to PROVE that Dawkins believes in a god) then he turns the argument to where did the "higher power" capable of intelligent thought come from?

The answer to that question is nearly always "he has always been there."  Which has no scientific value whatsoever.  One may a well surmise that life has always existed on Earth and move.  No knowledge is ultimately gained from the line of "reasoning."

The frame work in which Dawkin's brings up planet seeding is in the context of Darwinian evolution.  EVEN IF a super man dropped life onto Earth the evidence still exists to show that it evolved from there.  Thus, the context of a God creating life has no reflecting on evolution but-for creationism dropping life as-is on planet Earth (which is seldom raised any longer as a frontal assault on evolution).  And furthermore, the question of where life springs from remains unanswered by the hypothesis of planet seeding.  

Thus, Dawkin's argues, the God snapped his fingers argument fails to answer any of the questions posed.  It does not answer how life started. It does not address how or if life evolves.   It merely explains how life got to Earth (the question the Origin of Life Theories are attempting to answer is how life began, if it began somewhere else it merely punts the question).  

And finally, the three theories addressing the issue that you mention (mud, random protein bonding, and lightening strike) are really much more intertwined than that.  The most common theory is that random protein bonding of organic compounds occurred in a saline inland sea (which was indeed probably muddy) and a "spark" such as lightening sent life into motion.  In any event, all three theories, together or separate, are deviations on a theme.  Essentially... reactions between organic chemicals led to life.

Whereby, my original point about the only theory that I am aware of for the origin of life is the Chemical Theory.
- - -

DolfanBob
If we indeed evolved from apes.
Why are there still apes ?[/i]

I can only hope this is in jest.  Otherwise it exhibits exactly the kind of ignorance that keeps Oklahoma near the bottom of the educational rankings and perfectly illustrates why we don't need any more handicaps.  For educational purposes let me give a very brief answer:

1) APE is a generic term for a sub family of primates.  It includes most of the larger developed primates (Gorilla, Orangutan, Chimp, Gibbon, Siamangetc.) but most people reference only the Great Apes.  The generic term APE may or may not include humans (hence asking why there are still Apes in the context of explaining humans is paradoxical).  

2) The "apes" from which Homids and ultimately the genus Homo evolved from no longer exist.  Evolution is not an end game... there were not apes from which humans evolved and apes remained the same.  But like most creatures deviation caused the line to branch (hence a family "tree') and from some common ancestor the "apes" have evolved and branched.

3) As Daniel Quinn said, if you found yourself on a planet run by jelly fish and asked them for their creation story it would end with "and then there was jelly fish."  Automatically assuming they were the highest order of intelligence and the intended end game of their planets evolution.  Evolution doesn't have an end game and doesn't intend anything.

Lack of understanding of the theory is so pervasive the arguments against usually serve as a strong argument in favor of more evolution education.  Maybe with a better understanding, the proper faults of the theory could be explored and perhaps a better theory COULD be derived.  Unfortunately, entering the conversation merely to attack the theory with little or no understanding of the theory and its pitfalls nets predictable results.

[Townsend]

your brainpan must be massive

[TeeDub]

I love Jesus, and he loves me.



We all know where life began.