Creationists notch big win in Tennessee
Visitors check out the displays at the Museum of Creation and Earth History in Santee, California. The museum contains exhibits that depict the story of Creationism and refute the theory of Evolution.
/ Getty ImagesTennessee's Republican-dominated House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a bill that would protect teachers who want to challenge the theory of human evolution.
Thursday's 70-28 passage of HB 368 was hailed by sponsor Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, who said the proposal was designed to promote "critical thinking" in science classes.
That's one way of seeing it. However, the Tennessee Science Teachers Association is on record describing the bill as "unnecessary, anti-scientific, and very likely unconstitutional." Although the document is worded so as not to promote any particular doctrine, the thrust of the proposed law would elevate creationist theories about human evolution to the same status accorded by most educators to Darwin's research.
House Minority Leader Craig Fitzhugh, D-Ripley, was quoted by the Chattanooga Times Free Press drawing a connection between the proposal and the the trial of teacher John Scopes for teaching evolution depicted in the film "Inherit the wind."
"I remember ... where Spencer Tracy at the end, he had that book called 'Origin of Species' and looked at it in one hand and had the Holy Bible in the other. He glanced back and forth and he put them both together and walked out of the room. This has never been a problem for me. So I guess I'm having a little bit of a problem in wondering why we're doing this."
The bill's provisions call upon state schools and administrators "to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues." It also contains a provision saying that "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."
Presumably, that would also extend to teaching about alternative theories to global warming, a hot-button issue among conservative groups.
Tennessee's Senate Education Committee is slated to vote on a similar bill by the end of the month.
Popular in SciTech
- Watch: NASA captures Okla. tornado from space Play Video
- Microsoft announces Xbox One
- The 7 weirdest things made by 3D printing
- Microsoft announces Xbox One 16 Photos
- Storms that spawned deadly Oklahoma tornadoes seen from space (video)
- Power of Okla. tornado surpassed Hiroshima bomb
- Weird pirate ant comes with an "eye patch"
- Amazon proposes a colossal biospherelike Seattle campus
If you want to challenge the ideas of evolution you have to do a MUCH better job of understanding the science than 99.9% of the creationists out there. Challenging a straw man will get you nowhere.
The first thing to understand is that evolution (like gravity and the big bang) is NOT one monolithic thing. If you get nothing else from my writing, please understand that! The word refers to several different things! First, it is a set of observations. When scientists refer to the "fact" of evolution, they are talking about the observations. But the word also refers to a set of explanatory theories and hypotheses around the mechanisms that generate diversity. This is where most "Intelligent Design" theorists take their stand. It's bunk that no legitimate biologist believes, but even that is beside the point. Somehow when this "controversy" makes its way back to the popular mind, the distinction between the observations and the explanatory theories are blurred. Together with a few intentionally propagated myths, people are led to believe that the factual observations are in question. Incorrect!
Evolution is a fact! While the modern _understanding_ of evolution may still have a few questions, the fact that we share common ancestors with the other life on Earth has so much evidence behind it that you could spend a lifetime thumbing through it and just barely scratch the surface -- and with the biotechnology revolution, it keeps piling up faster and faster. When someone says that evolution is undeniable, it's not dogma. It's a recognition of the fact that in order to deny the observation that we share common ancestors, you would have to go through those mountains upon mountains of evidence and at the very least give some rough explanation. In Darwin's time, this might have been a feasible undertaking, though even then the evidence was tremendous.
These days, the mountains of evidence are beyond overwhelming. This leaves only three escape routes for believers in the Christian/Muslim creation myth: (1) God created the evidence to deceive, (2) the facts of evolution are physical manifestations of his work but the force behind it is his creative force (most
"Intelligent Design" theory), or (3) actively maintained ignorance.
Ignorance may win you a battle or two in the culture war, but until you understand what I ACTUALLY MEAN by the assertion that "evolution is a fact", you can't possibly win the war.
If we cannot manufacture life, or anything that can become life, in the most advanced laboratories in the world, how can we believe that life could have come from nothing in an uncontrolled, chaotic environment? I mean, electric spark, really? So an amino acid might form from all that ammonia, forget about how it got there and where it all went, but have we forgotten the proven principles of diffusion and chirality? How did the magically made amino acids stay in one place long enough to become proteins? Where did all the right handed amino acids go? How come nobody can overcome the diffusion problem? How come nobody has been able to spark a soup of anything to create only left handed amino acids or proteins?
For those of you ignorant evolutionists who still cling to these impossibilities, why do you think the idea of directed panspermia (xenospermia) even came about? Because honest scientists of far greater skill and intellect came to the conclusion that natural selection (Darwinism) and mutations (neo-darwinism) were impossible. One even stated that it is more likely for a tornado to blow through a junkyard with the outcome being a perfectly formed jet airplane, than for evolution to occur through natural selection and mutations. Yet, these crazy ideas are still being forced upon our brainwashed society, and anyone who raises any opposition is branded an idiot.
True science observes facts to arrive at conclusions, not start with conclusions and ignore all facts that are in direct opposition.
First evolution does not cover how life began. That would be abiogenis. Abiogenis discusses the origin of life from inorganic matter. Evolution would be the process that life takes after the fact. Plenty of "evolutionist" believe in God.
Second, scientist have created life, although primitive and synthetic, it has happened. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/ And this is relatively recent in the outline of human scientific realm. After all, we are only going on about 150 years with electricity.
Third evolutionist theory has been around for about two hundred years and has a pretty good track record as compared to thousands of years with creationist theories. What you need is a preponderance of the evidence to have a legitimate theory. So the observations, or facts as you state, are abundant. First there were observations, then fossil records. You have all these bones popping up that look humanoid and you start to reason and hypothesis. Then Darwin came up with his theory and it was a hunch, then DNA came around and that added to the theory. Then we map the human genome and that adds to it and so forth. And all the time, with every bit of the puzzle it takes away from Creationist theories. So please elaborate as to what facts science ignores? And which true science supports your position.
And here is something on amino acids that you mention. http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html Although it doesn't solve all the wonder of abiogenis like I mentioned earlier, it is another piece of the puzzle. Another piece along these grounds would be the Murchison meteorite. Some controversy about this but leads to more speculation.
I could go on longer. I'm not denying you your belief in believing that God provided the spark, but science has shown abundantly that evolution is here, and is testable and not just in humans. Especially since the age of DNA, and with humans, the mapping of the human genome. Here is Ken Miller talking about human chromosome 2. Ironically, Ken Miller is a practicing Roman Catholic. I suggest you take a peek at this video. I think that you will find it interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk It shows another piece of the puzzle, or more preponderance of the evidence that weighs in the favor of evolution.
And for the record, we didn't evolve from apes. We share a common lineage. However I am of the impression that you think that Adam and Eve were made from dust. That's OK. But please explain why women and men have hairy bodies? Or why some people have blue eyes? How about curly hair as opposed to straight. Or blond, red, or black hair. How about wide noses, or the different shape of many Asian eyes as opposed to other groups? That's evolution!
Finally, what separates your beliefs, from that of an Aborigine, or Native American, or Hindu on their beliefs of how life on Earth, in this instance, Man, got his start. If they said that man was created from a beetle, after THEIR Deity, created the planet, how would you rebut that argument?
And your tornado analogy is flawed as well.....Because evolution would start with a single cell and then build upon that; millions of years. It's not spontaneous.
On the other hand if God did in fact create us, He could have used evolution as a tool to do that. It was His show, after all.
Bottom line is, I just don't know. I wasn't there at the beginning... But it sure is fun to watch lawmakers, educators and the legal system get riled up about it. :-)
The scientific method is based on the idea that science can be challenged by opposing evidence or even a lack of evidence. Unfortunately for the children of Tennessee (and our country in general as it becomes more and more fundamentalist), "DOES NOT! lalalalalalalala" isn't opposing evidence.
Evolution, Physics, Mathematics, etc...are all science. Readily observable and reproducible.
Teach evolution in Biology (another SCIENCE) and teach Creationism, to those who feel thy need more religion, in an optional Theology class...
Please, show me one shred of evidence that Atheism is, in fact, a religion. Otherwise, do some research before you open your big mouth.