Creationists have gotten clever, but there's still no debate over evolution

[marmar]

from the Christian Science Monitor:



Creationists have gotten clever, but there's still no debate over evolution
Creationists and intelligent design proponents have gotten clever. Instead of pushing for creationism to be taught in science classes, they're merely asking that schools fairly present 'the scientific evidence' against evolution. The only problem? There isn't any.

By Steven Newton / January 19, 2011


Oakland, Calif.

As 2011 gets under way, those who care about the integrity of science education are bracing for the latest round of state legislation aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Every year, a host of these bills are filed across the country. In 2008, one was passed in Louisiana, despite protests from scientists and educators. In Oklahoma, State Senator Josh Brecheen (R) has vowed to introduce a bill in the coming legislative session that requires schools to teach "all the facts" on the so-called fallacies of evolution.

The tactics of creationists have evolved since 1925, when Tennessee’s Butler Act forbade the teaching of evolution, and high school biology teacher John Scopes was put on trial for doing so. (Creationists believe that God created the physical universe and all organisms according to the account in Genesis, denying the evolution of species.)

But creationists’ tactics have also evolved since 2005, when a federal court in Pennsylvania established that teaching intelligent design (ID) in public schools is unconstitutional. The judge in the case ruled, "ID is not science" and derives instead from "religious strategies that evolved from earlier forms of creationism." (Intelligent design holds that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.")

The favored strategy of intelligent design proponents and creationists now is to try to undermine the teaching of evolution by arguing that “evidence against evolution” should be taught, in order to foster a spirit of critical inquiry among students. Arguing that students ought to be exposed to an alleged scientific debate over evolution, intelligent design proponents call for a radical rewriting of textbooks and curricula. .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0119/Creationists-have-gotten-clever-but-there-s-still-no-debate-over-evolution

[DCKit]

1. "The evidence is in the Bible, and if you question the Bible, you infringe on my right...

to practice the religion of my choice."

Yeah, we can guess where this is going.

One can only hope that the corporate Supremes don't see an advantage to U.S. "evolving" into a fascist, kleptographic theocracy, or we may well find ourselves there.

[yurbud]

5. if new evidence arises that disproves it, a scientific theory can change. A religious text cannot.

[d_r]

2. good article

[starroute]

3. I know of one actual fallacy -- the over-emphasis on competition

There's more and more evidence suggesting that the original Darwinian concept of "survival of the fittest" was misguided, at best. For single-celled organisms, evolution seems to proceed mostly by the free swapping around of useful genetic material -- sort of the genetic equivalent of open source software. Even for multi-celled creatures there's a certain amount of DNA exchange, thanks mainly to viruses, and there's also a great deal of cooperation and co-evolution on both the species level and the ecosystem level.

On the whole, it seems that organisms which cooperate more effectively, while displaying a balanced mix of altruism and self-interest, are inevitably the "fittest."

So I'd be perfectly happy to see that taught in the schools as a fallacy of Darwinian evolution. But somehow I don't think the religious right would appreciate it.

[Prophet 451]

6. Ah but that's not a falsification of evolution

That's quibbling with specific details of the process (which is fine and scientifically important). They aren't interested in modifying the theory to better fit the evidence, they're only intersted in falsifying the theory so we can go back to Goddidit.

[Kurovski]

4. K&R

I hear Fred Flintstone weeping.

[DCKit]

7. And Dino's in the doghouse. Again. nt

[plumbob]

8. kick