Challenging evolution: 4 US states consider controversial educational bill

[claud3]

01 February, 2013, 18:04



Consequences of evolution


Four US states have put forward bills encouraging the teaching of theories of the origins of life other than evolution. Montana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Colorado are advancing curricula that have been dubbed a creationist plot by many scientists.
Six so-called ‘anti-evolution’ bills have been introduced in the four states since the beginning of the year, reported the National Center for Science Education, a group monitoring the teaching of science in the US.

One of the bills presented to the Missouri House of Representatives suggested that evolution and Intelligent Design should be treated equally in Missouri's public elementary and secondary schools, as well as in introductory science courses in public institutions of higher education.

The theory of Intelligent Design is a form of creationism that implies that certain features of the universe are best explained by a creator or higher power. The term was adopted as a replacement for ‘creation science,’ which was ruled by the Supreme Court in 1987 to represent a particular religious belief after it outlawed creationism.

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) asserts that “creationism isn't science,” and strongly defends the teaching of evolution as the only theory of the origins of life. Although the so-called ‘Academic Freedom’ bills do not emphasize religion, NCSE scientists believe that it is a disguised attempt by creationists to insert their beliefs into school curricula.

The Missouri bill features a glossary defining the legislation’s main terms, such as ‘analogous naturalistic processes,’ ‘biological evolution’ and ‘biological intelligent design.’ This part of the bill closely resembles a bill authored in 2004 that also called for the equal treatment of evolution and Intelligent Design in public schools. The 2004 legislation was widely criticized by scientists, and did not pass.

Another bill written in Missouri has dubbed biological and chemical evolution ‘controversial,’ stating that no education administrative staff should prohibit public school instructors from teaching students objectively about the supposed scientific strengths and weaknesses of the competing theories.

Oklahoma legislators have also authored two bills challenging the teaching of evolution in schools. One bill, pre-filed with the state senate, encourages teachers to "find more effective ways to represent the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies." Another, pre-filed with the state house, specifically cites “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning” as being scientifically controversial.

A Colorado bill mentions “biological and chemical evolution, global warming, and human cloning” as alleged controversies, which need to be approached “intelligently and respectfully.”

Montana, the last state of those considering so-called ‘Academic Freedom Acts,’ is drafting a bill which will require the teaching of ‘Biological Intelligent Design’ alongside evolution in public schools.

The battle between creationists and those who support Darwinian evolution has a long history in the US. Private schools have no restrictions in how they teach science, while public schools must follow state-defined curriculum.

A June 2012 Gallup poll asked some 1,000 Americans nationwide about their thoughts on the origin of human life. The survey revealed that 46 percent of Americans believe God created human beings. Numerous creation science advocates continue to hope that the Intelligent Design theory will make its way into US public schools, though they have not been very successful so far.

Controversy erupted in 2011 when the state of Texas said it would discourage the teaching of evolution in classrooms, following the 2009 approval of new education standards ordering schools to consider ‘all sides’ of the debate. However, the state’s Board of Education approved school material favoring Darwinian evolution.

In 2004, Intelligent Design was taught alongside Darwinian evolution in one school in Pennsylvania, but the district court ruled the ‘ID policy’ unconstitutional, and ordered the school not to teach it in science classes.

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-creationis...education-216/

I would never understand why they can not just teach both in all schools and let the kids chose which is right or wrong

[Valefor]

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-creationis...education-216/

I would never understand why they can not just teach both in all schools and let the kids chose which is right or wrong

It's surreal that this is actually considered an issue in a first world country. By all means teach both, but creationism needs to stay out of the science classroom. Creationism is a myth, whilst the theory of evolution is as much a fact as the 'theory' of gravity.

[keefy]

I had a teacher in Religious studies and she believed the whole Adam and Eve thing and I will never forget this because I laughed out loud and got into trouble she said "men have fewer ribs than women becasue God took a rib from Adam and made Eve."

Children are impressionable and will often believe what adults tell them.

[claud3]

100%.. But people have the right to chose a path of belief in their own way and not have people telling them that it's wrong to believe that...

We have enough wars in the world over belief and i know it has been happening since the dawn of time... But we have woke up a bit and accepted it and i hope i am right in saying that...

Because everyone has a right to believe what they want as an individual

[Valefor]

I had a teacher in Religious studies and she believed the whole Adam and Eve thing and I will never forget this because I laughed out loud and got into trouble she said "men have fewer ribs than women becasue God took a rib from Adam and made Eve."

100%.. But people have the right to chose a path of belief in their own way and not have people telling them that is wrong to believe that...

We ahve enough wars in the world over belief and i know it has been happening since the dawn of time... But we have woke up a bit and accepted, i hope

That everyone has a right

Anyone can believe what they want, but that doesn't mean creationism should be taught in a science class.

[spyrde]

well I AIN'T A MONKEY

[claud3]

Anyone can believe what they want, but that doesn't mean creationism should be taught in a science class.

In some schools yes, where a strong belief in APE to MAN is the main truth... But others want to teach creationism and i say let them

We all have to share and accept belief as what it is, hope for many around the world... And a blanket for those that want some meaning in their lives

Belief is hard to get your head around and understand what it is truly for

But it helps people exist and go on... I am not a believer at all, but to take it away from people that no matter if it its creationism or APE to MAN

it makes them feel naked and in worse ways lost and no since of life direction

[weskurtz81]

In some schools yes, where a strong belief in APE to MAN is the main truth... But others want to teach creationism and i say let them

We all have to share and accept belief as what it is, hope for many around the world... And a blanket for those that want some meaning in their lives

Belief is hard to get your hard around and understand what it is truly for

But it helps people exist and go on... I am not a believer at all, but to take it away from people that no matter if it its creationism or APE to MAN

it makes them feel naked and in worse ways lost and no since of life direction

Doesn't seem unreasonable to allow both to be taught. Let people choose what they want to believe, it's not harming anyone.

[keefy]

It shouldnt be taught as a science thats the main debate.

[claud3]

yes a debate, but so is Evolution as well

They are both science debates... But evolution is fact and creationism is not... But one can not out way the other, if both are science based

then the case is underground teaching of creationism and it spilling out to the wider world

So if it is out in the open, then humans have the right to either chose that belief as science or not... Or believe both

[Sylar]

i dont think that man being made from dust or w/e and women being made from a rib has anything to do with science, its more religious beliefs. They can teach what the want in schools, i grew up in a school where we sang christian songs and alsorts but i still choose what i want to believe in and so can everyone else.

personally i dont believe in it but i wont challenge or belittle anyone who does, one of my closest friends is a christian and he goes to church every sunday and i dont take the piss because i dont believe in god, acceptance is the way forward

[claud3]

the human body is a science and a study... Therefore both fall with in that

[Chickenooble]

Creationism is a myth, whilst the theory of evolution

Let me ask you guys this:

Where in the theory of evolution is there an explanation for the origin of life?

[keefy]

IT doesn't. ITs the theory that life on the planet is related somewhat to each other, in other words we all share DNA, the proof is that when we profile our DNA and compare it to other creatures there are sequences that match, now this may only be 10% 5% 1% or less but it is there and goes some way to proving we all eveolved from something at some time many millions or maybe billions of years ago.

There is a Brian Cox program that goes into more depth about it, I watched it last Sunday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qh3bb

[DayWalker]

meh- dead on arrival.

nice try colorado springs!

PS- there's nothing to "teach" regarding creationism. "god wanted it that way" is not a valid lesson plan.

[carlosb]

Creationism is not a science. You can believe it if you'd like I have no problem, but it just can't packaged as a science. The other thing is that Intelligent Design is heavily backed and created by Christians. What is their response if some Muslim group wanted something called Even better Design taught as an alternative? Then some other religion then some other and so on. Thus, the best way to draw the line is which ones can actually be called a real science.

[*goo]

Creationism is a story, not a real world theory. It belongs in religious education, not in a science class.

To allow it to ever be considered for the science classroom they should first have to provide some evidence for the claim.

It should probably go further back than that to be fair. Proof of 'god' should be a primary requirement before trying to prove anything else the bible says.

[Chickenooble]

Life, at some point, had an origin. I'm not talking about life on Earth... but all life. Either some divine being created it or there was just the right conditions at the right time to create the first acids and cells of life, which somehow had the ability to multiply, thrive and survive in an incredibly hostile universe... or something else happened. Since no explanation has any proof, all are equally valid in my opinion, and all should be given equal consideration.

I don't care if Creationism is taught in a science classroom when discussing the origin of life, as long as no explanation is spoken in absolutes. Also, it's important to remember Intelligent Design and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.

[darksora]

Personally don't mind if both are taught as long as creationism is kept to religious education. Not sure how it fits a science lesson :/

Personally my head hurts when I think of how everything began. Something cannot just be there, it needs an origin. Then that origin needs its own etc.
If there is a god, then something must have created god and so on. I can't accept the concept of "nothing".

[DayWalker]

wanna learn about creationism? there's a church for that.

[keefy]

I think it is useful to learn creationism to know about it, to be honest I know little about it other than it is "God's doing" but maybe that assumption is wrong.

[Completely Average]

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-creationis...education-216/

I would never understand why they can not just teach both in all schools and let the kids chose which is right or wrong

Evolution is taught in SCIENCE class.

Care to tell me precisely how much proper scientific evidence you have to support "intelligent design"? Intelligent Design is a theory based on ignorance. It basically goes like this. "I don't understand it, I can't explain it, therefore God must have done it".


Scientific theories should only be taught if there is real scientific evidence to support it. "The Bible says..." is NOT scientific evidence, and neither is "I can't explain it, therefore it must be God". If you could show me some solid, provable scientifically sound evidence to support Intelligent Design, then I'm open to consider the subject being taught in a science class. Until then it should be limited to churches, because that is where religion belongs.

Let me ask you guys this:

Where in the theory of evolution is there an explanation for the origin of life?

There isn't an explaination of the origin of life in the Theory of Evolution. That is why it's called the Theory of Evolution, and not the Theory of the Origin of Life.

They are related subjects, but not the same subject. Evolution is the process of how one lifeform changes to become another. If you're looking for the origin of life, a Chemistry class would be a good place to start.

[Chickenooble]

Intelligent Design is a theory based on ignorance. It basically goes like this. "I don't understand it, I can't explain it, therefore God must have done it".

So it's ignorant to attribute the Origin of Life to something, like Intelligent Design, because it can't be proven.
But it's not ignorant to attribute the Origin of Life to something, like Abiogenesis, because it can't be proven.

Gotcha.

[*goo]

When did abiogenesis enter the conversation?

Or are you simply saying that because someone doesn't believe (sorry, 'take it on faith') 'the man in the sky' did it, they must hold the 'alternative' view of abiogenesis?

[keefy]

So it's ignorant to attribute the Origin of Life to something, like Intelligent Design, because it can't be proven.
But it's not ignorant to attribute the Origin of Life to something, like Abiogenesis, because it can't be proven.

Gotcha.

TIs not the fact that it has not been proved thats ignorant its the fact that some invisible man in the sky made everyone and everything in 7 days and he only did it 10,000 years ago when there are plenty of things older than 10,000 years old being found all the time.
But of course God put those there to test us