Comments on: State Considers Banning ‘Evolution’

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 06:25:52 +0000

Robin is right. We have a First Amendment that bars the government from controlling the flow of information through the press to the public at large. Allowing said government to control the flow of information through the schools goes against the philosophy undergirding press freedoms. The State must not be allowed to arbitrate science.

By: witheld

witheld — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:45:23 +0000

Yet another anecdote that argues for allowing consumers of public education to vote with their feet. We wouldn’t put up with such nonsense in tertiary education; why do we put up with it in K-12? Progressives should wake up. School choice—combined with equitable per pupil funding and characterized by true portability—could be a slame dunk issue for the Left.

By: Mercado

Mercado — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:54:00 +0000

The proposed guidelines don’t merely substitute a weasel word for “evolution”. The central concepts of evolution are omitted. See http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/31evolution.html “Georgia copied almost all the biology standards developed by the American Association for the Advancement for Science. These sections related to evolution were left out of the state’s proposed curriculum: …”

By: tristero

tristero — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:47:41 +0000

To argue the merits of biological facts about the origin of species with fundamentalist “Christians” is a waste of breath, for Darwin and evolution isn’t the issue and never was. Rather IDiocy and creationism are merely disguised attempts to foist a bleak and oppressive moralistic agenda on the rest of us.

By: Mr Spectator

Mr Spectator — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:06:19 +0000

Delphis, Sorry, mild irony. I’ll get me coat.

By: msg

msg — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:37:55 +0000

The ban on the teaching of “evolution” in Tennessee, scene of the original Scopes “Monkey” Trial, was lifted in 1967. 35 years later a large and diverse group of academically-trained intellectuals are snickering and patting themselves on the back at the antics of a bunch of silly “creationists” stripping the curricula of Georgian schools of that same teaching. There is a tone on what is purportedly the side of the enlightened here that is woefully infantile, and an eagerness to dissect minutiae that borders on the escapist. Creationists, or fundamentalists, or what have you, are not being silly, and they are not mistaken in an intellectual sense. They are fighting for their lives, using whatever means they have at hand. These people not only have the ear of the President of the United States, it would appear they have his soul. You laugh at them at your peril.

By: liberal

liberal — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 04:30:46 +0000

Chris Stephens wrote, I’m saying that it is important to understand the difference between natural selection and evolution. That seems to me something people should be able to get in high school biology. Amen! The conflation of evolution with natural selection is extremely annoying. And you're absolutely right -- a lot of the evangelical nutters think evolution per se is objectionable -- "I'm not descended from an ape."

By: clew

clew — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:37:14 +0000

I have a different difference with your argument, Robin. I agree that having to go to school, one way or another, limits the liberty of a child; but a decent curriculum completely justifies that, in my view, by increasing the liberty of the adult the child is going to become. I have known a few people whose educations were so cramped by their parents’ beliefs that they had a terrible time catching up with their peers, necessary to get jobs and get away from those same parents. So I think there’s both a libertarian and a social interest in making sure that kids are taught enough to make informed and free choices when they grow up. What that “enough” is will change all the time.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:19:46 +0000

That’s odd. That is not my webpage in the link thingy up there. Hmm.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:11:46 +0000

I’ve got to disagree with you, Robin. Parents and school board members are a valuable tool for keeping public education grounded and tailored to fit particular communities, but when it comes to science, the vast majority of parents and administrators just don’t know enough to make good decisions. Science isn’t like literature or History. It’s more analogous to math, and though there are pockets of debate within scientific disciplines (just like mathematics), they are utterly dwarfed by the huge areas of consensus. You just can’t delegate via committee of laypersons which particular tenets are worthy of teaching. Why? Because they haven’t had enough training to really understand how science works and what the best ways to teach it are. Just as we wouldn’t dictate what to teach medical or law students based on the suggestions of non-medically non-legally trained individuals… we can’t do that for science education in public schools. If we can agree that the best science education for children is that which gives them the most effective methods and substantive courses, then we must advocate programs based on good science. How do we achieve that? We ask the experts. You claim that if programs are lacking something, children can seek out the information elsewhere, but the same is true for the “alternatives” to evolution not recognized by mainstream science. As you say, it’s no abuse to ask that a child get their Creationist/ID information from their local church or bookstore. So why teach creationism/ID in the classroom just because some people have religious objections to it? If some non-heliocentrists or astrologists objected to the astronomy being taught, we wouldn’t hesitate to tell them “tough luck.” So, we say tough luck to the creationists, too.

By: robin green

robin green — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:34:11 +0000

The “Texas Freedom Network” – and anyone who believe in freedom – should be against curriculums imposed by the state, not for it. There is certainly value in having a recommended curriculum drawn up by educational experts. But parents – and, when they are old enough, students – should together have the ultimate say in what is taught, and should be able to exercise this right by moving between schools and by voting on school curricula (the libertarian way and the democratic way, respectively). As neither myself nor my parents saw any point in me studying woodwork or metalwork at school, I should not have had to study it. You might say that it is child abuse to restrain a child from knowing about certain topics, and thus a state-imposed curriculum is warranted to protect children from ignorance and the resulting likelihood of poverty. But this is misperceiving the issue. Refraining from imposing learning on a child does not equate to denying that child information. The child is still free to seek out that information themselves, and not-for-profit organisations and television companies, for example, are still free to put out educational materials if they feel children are lacking knowledge or understanding of certain subjects. In this respect, I find myself far more libertarian than most people, even, I suspect, most so-called “libertarians”. (Hardline capitalist libertarians think that, like with everything else, those with the most money should have the most choice in education. I think that that freedom should be available equally to all families.)

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:25:18 +0000

For you evolutionists: (I am one) “All the berries died, so the finches grew different beaks and survived by eating nuts.” implies “If greenhouse gases get too strong, humans can evolve and change to breathing CO2.” My complaint is the way evolution is described, or the examples it uses, underemphasizes how many times it fails. And the radical nature of the science. The vast majority of species do not adapt, and become extinct. And that is the reality of evolution.

By: Chris Stephens

Chris Stephens — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:57:41 +0000

Hi Smokey, Oh, I didn’t mean to sound offended. I’m not. It is just common to confuse two different claims (claims that creationists, for instance, sometimes mix up), and I thought it was worth emphasizing why they’re different. At any rate, let me try again. It is one thing to say that all (or almost all, we don’t have to quibble about that for the moment) life on earth is related – and that we all evolved from a common ancestor. Notice, right away, that is something that (many? most?) creationists will object to. They don’t think we have a common evolutionary ancestor with say, chimps or dogs. But the evidence indicates we do. Notice, I haven’t yet mentioned the primary mechanism of such change (natural selection). I’m saying that it is important to understand the difference between natural selection and evolution. That seems to me something people should be able to get in high school biology. Creationists often confuse disagreement amongst biologists (e.g., Gould v. Dawkins) about natural selection as evidence that there’s disagreement about the tree of life hypothesis – that all life on earth is related. That is why I think it is important in this context. So again, if you had said that the primary mechanism of evolution (change in gene frequencies) is natural selection, that would be fine. But you seem to be saying something else.. Once again, in your reply, you seem to be saying (near the end) that evolution is a mechanism of selection – but that gets things backwards, though maybe we’re just having a terminological dispute here…. If so, fine.

By: Smokey

Smokey — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:38:24 +0000

Chris Stephens, I’m not sure I understand your objection. I didn’t say that I think that evolution and natural selection are one and the same, I meant that I think they are equivalent terms for the purposes of a school curriculum. This is as much a political as a scientific matter, and the meaning of evolution which is politically objectionable is clearly that meaning which is equivalent to “descent with modification by natural selection”. When we talk about teaching “evolution” in school, that is what we mean, no? I think it is less critical that students come out of high school cognizant of the relative importance of drift and founder effect, or the difference between allopatric and sympatric speciation, than that they understand the basic mechanism of selection, i.e. “evolution”. I’m sorry if my careless use of language has offended your sensibilities.

By: Chris Stephens

Chris Stephens — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:07:15 +0000

OK, Ok, I know this probably moot since I hope they’ll have enough sense not to follow through on this… but one more issue: “Biological changes over time” seems like a really bad alternative for ‘evolution’. It would be one thing if they just wanted to use a synonym, as some commentators above suggested, like “change in gene frequencies over time”. But “biological changes” is horribly vague, and includes all kinds of stuff that we don’t normally think are evolutionary changes: example: I’m getting fatter. Isn’t that a biological change? Indeed, whole populations of people can get fatter or taller because of changes in diet without there being changes in gene frequencies (computed per capita). Seems like it might be useful to keep these changes distinct from evolutionary ones, where there is actually change in gene frequency…