Quantcast

Oklahoma bill would mandate educators question evolution in classes

By
Sunday, January 30, 2011 22:55 EDT
google plus icon
Topics:
 
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

Educators in Oklahoma would be forced to openly question in their classes the legitimacy of the scientific theory of evolution should a new bill become state law.

“It’s a simple fact that the presentation of some issues in science classes can lead to controversy, which can discourage teachers from engaging students in an open discussion of the issues,” state Rep. Sally Kern, a Republican, said in defense of the bill she filed recently.

The legislation (HB 1551) titled the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act” singled out “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning” as topics that are controversial and thus questionable.

It is the second of such anti-evolution proposals in Oklahoma and the fourth filed nationwide so far this year.

In response to a similar bill that died in committee in 2009, Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education called any claims that evolution is controversial as “just plain dishonest,” adding that they are “phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don’t like evolution.’

“Evolution as a process is supported by an enormous and continually growing body of evidence,” the OESE said in its criticism of SB 320 [PDF].

The group continued, “Evolutionary theory has advanced substantially since Darwin’s time and, despite 150 years of direct research, no evidence in conflict with evolution has ever been found.”

Kerns, a former schoolteacher whose district includes Oklahoma City, has waged relentless attacks on science education, specifically targeting evolution, in recent years.

According to the National Center for Science Education, 2006 was her banner year for she sponsored two of four anti-evolution bills in the state. However, Kern’s HB 2107, which called for “academic freedom” on “biological or chemical origins of life,” died at the end of the 2006 legislative session without a final vote.

Kern’s new bill has yet to receive a hearing in the Oklahoma House since the next session starts on February 7.

 
 
 
 
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
 
  • Anonymous

    Rather than question evolution per se, teachers should explain how natural selection inhibits major evolutionary change from occurring on a gradual step-by-step basis thus accounting for the long periods of stasis paleontologists have discovered throughout the fossil record.

    http://www.charlesdarwin.org

  • Anonymous

    Checked the site – interesting…

    A few years of critical analysis lead me to the conclusion that Mutation and Natural Selection as a process is conservative…no one really expects good outcomes from mutation in the real world, and selection overwhelmingly eliminates such outcomes. (How many people want an extra dose of radiation, to be exposed to an agressive mutagen, or hear their newborn has a genetic anomoly – that’s what people KNOW about M & NS.) As to chemical evolution, origin of life processes, there’s been no conclusive demonstration to date that any natural process had lead or even can lead, to a functioning metabolism. Currently most students simply don’t get all the pertinent science on this issue. What they do get is the taylored interpretations of selected bits. What’s actually happening is more akin indoctrination…A Law like the one being proposed in Oklahoma would open the door to true academic freedom not to mention critical thinking and actual education.

  • Anonymous

    “I am well aware that there is scarcely a single point discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts on both sides of each question, and this cannot possibly be done here.”

    Charles Darwin
    The Origin of Species
    1859

  • Anonymous

    There’s a book out entitled “Genetic Entropy”. It’s written by a geneticist with hands-on experience in experimental science. His proposition is that the human genome (probably all genomes) is deteriorating, demonstrably, and that the deterioration is going on below the a level natural selection can account for. The idea has known validity and loads of implication for the current theories in bilology…It’s the sort of information students are never exposed to in puplic school.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you. I also found several recent articles by researchers in genome and nucleic acid research that said there needed to be a new concept of evolution, as genome research called into question (stronger language was used) the adaptation theory and that the “Tree of Life” concept was very outdated and undercut by the reality of genome research and needed replacement by a forest or network concept. There was also a bald statement that genome research proved there was no evolutionary development of increasing complexity in genetic/DNA structures.
    I remember studying physics and reading the physics concept of the law of entropy and that most physicists and other “pure” or “hard” scientists disparaged the theory of evolution as non scientific and not subject to or provable by scientific methodology.
    here is one of the articles
    http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.abstract
    This is one of mice as model organism for studying human genome, due primarily to its close genetic match and physiologic similarities with humans where it matters (chimps are not as close in function, though superficially genetically closer- ie they are not subject to the same diseases and are metabolically vastly different)
    http://www.genome.gov/10005834
    I do not know a single elementary teacher or high school teacher, who knows enough or understands enough to explain anything, much less the current state of science in regard to evolution. It is held as an article of faith by most, more fervently and with less reason than many creationists (and there are some rather questionable viewpoints there also). One example is pretty stupid, but it was on the science test in 3rd grade in Las VegaS NV recently. The answer was “Dolphins are more intelligent than humans”. Talk about brainwashing by the brainwashed…..

    .

  • Anonymous

    No Christian I have ever met believes that stupidity. Straw dog comes to mind

  • Anonymous

    what makes you think that wikipedia is accurate? did you check the sources? A lot of misinformation in that ……proves nothing

  • Anonymous

    Darwin was the product of generations of inbreeding and continued the practice. Your question and its implication proves what? The genetic research that shows that there is NO evolutionary trend to increasing complexity? Here is an evolutionist based geneticists take:

    http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.abstract

  • Anonymous

    Copernicus was a Christian, a cleric, before he made his observations, which he made from the church walls….

  • Anonymous

    All were believers because they wanted to be. You don’t seem to know history. There are stupid power hungry people in every age and every religion, even the theory of evolution. Doesn’t invalidate the core beliefs or the believers. Copernicus was a cleric, and was supported, never punished or criticized for his scientific studies. Galileo was under house arrest and forced to “recant” but not for doubting God….he never doubted God…..
    To criticize Darwin and the subsequent twisted theory of origin, does not require an offering of my theory of origin. Many physicists disparage evolution as nonscience. Darwin didn’t offer an original or logical theory and the “modern synthesis” bears little relationship to the theory Darwin claimed. Many recent genome/genetic scientists, evolutionists all have published articles calling for a new concept because there is indication from their research that there is no “Tree of Life” and that there is NO evolutionary evidence for increasing complexity.. I posted the link in other answers.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve read Gould. Recent genetic research calls some of his conclusions into question. He was a popular science writer and was roundly criticized by other evolutionists, such as Dawkins, and criticized many others in his turn.
    “Duh” is not an argument or fact or conclusion. Mice being cheap and fast reproductively is an added benefit, not the sole or main reason for their use. If so, any research using mice would not be applicable to humans or valuable. Here is a link to a evolution based genome research article that states my original posting about mice/human closeness.

    http://www.genome.gov/10005834

  • Anonymous

    http://www.genome.gov/10005834 This states my original position re mice/human ….. evolution based genomic research

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    Here are two.
    1. Partial quote link below
    “Over the past century, the mouse has developed into the premier mammalian model system for genetic research. Scientists from a wide range of biomedical fields have gravitated to the mouse because of its close genetic and physiological similarities to humans….”
    http://www.genome.gov/10005834

    2.
    Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
    1. Eugene V. Koonin*
    + Author Affiliations
    1. National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
    1. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: 301 496 2477 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 301 496 2477 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (Ext 294); Fax: 30 480 9241; Email: koonin@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    • Received January 9, 2009.
    • Revision received January 30, 2009.
    • Accepted February 4, 2009.
    Abstract
    Comparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Darwin in the Origin of Species in 1859 and expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later. Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models of evolution explain some of these universals, suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future

  • Anonymous

    Yes CS Lewis was a well known apologist for Christianity. Prior to that, he was a leading mythologist, logician and philosopher and self described agnostic/atheist. He stated that he came late to a full understanding and belief in Christianity, but I have not my CS Lewis library with me at this time and I have found wikipedia to be less than reliable.
    I will check out your Einstein quotes. I apparently was wrong about that but I was sure that I had read statements from Einstein that he did believe in the personal God of Christianity.
    Whether or not Einstein did, in fact believe or not believe in God, he was a true genius and was not hampered from original research, by preconceived ideologies such as Darwinists and atheists generally are. I did study physics for a while and the theory of evolution was considered to be non scientific (could not be repeated or confirmed under controlled conditions) and fantastical and somewhat at odds with the scientific discoveries (ie physics, quantum mechanics,, atoms, electrons, DNA, quarks, fractals, astronomy)…
    Did not the researchers who are credited with the discovery of the double helix posit 3 explanations for the origins of man, the only credible one to them was Creation by God?..,

  • Anonymous

    Might help more.
    http://www.genome.gov/10005834 “Over the past century, the mouse has developed into the premier mammalian model system for genetic research. Scientists from a wide range of biomedical fields have gravitated to the mouse because of its close genetic and physiological similarities to humans, as well as the ease with which its genome can be manipulated and analyzed.
    Also
    Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
    1. Eugene V. Koonin*
    + Author Affiliations
    1. National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
    1. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: 301 496 2477 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 301 496 2477 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (Ext 294); Fax: 30 480 9241; Email: koonin@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    • Received January 9, 2009.
    • Revision received January 30, 2009.
    • Accepted February 4, 2009.
    Abstract
    Comparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Darwin in the Origin of Species in 1859 and expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later. Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models of evolution explain some of these universals, suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future

  • Anonymous

    No mechanisms are taught to students. There is no science being taught in elementary or high school that supports evolution. It is stated as a proven fact. Some paleontology “evidence” is taught and the “Tree of Life” (a particularly Biblical phrase BTW) is taught, the “missing link” is still taught, but it is not science or the results of scientific methodology. It is (bad) history and there is a lot of evidence that is not taught or acknowledged that calls the “facts” into question.
    Recent genomic research states baldly that the entire Tree of Life concept and natural selection and adaption and increasing complexity are not proven and that the science may actually disprove these concepts.
    Evolution as taught is less than science and should be questioned and all evidence and theories should be discussed.

  • Anonymous

    I am away from my library or I could give you sources, but here are some examples
    The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
    • The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
    • Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon’s wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon’s prosperity was entirely feasible.
    • It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon’s palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
    • Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology

  • Anonymous

    Since all the archeological digs I know of were conducted by atheists and/or non religion affiliated groups, you would be wrong. To what Church would you be referring?

  • Anonymous

    I agree that evolution is a “belief” and that belief has not been validated by DNA. There is a lot of discussion and evidence as to what and how DNA compares between mice, humans and chimps. ie chimps have 1 more chromosome than humans, that mice have 5-6 less, yet mice have genomes that match humans closer in physiological systems and are subject to many of the same diseases or can have human diseases induced. Depends on what you are comparing and how you interpret it. Mice have had extensive genome mapping and the differences between mice and human mapping seem to be in smell primarily. I could not find in current research that chimps have been mapped yet but the consensus was that comparison with humans, while superficially sharing DNA areas, resulted in vastly different physiologic functioning, making mice far more compatible to human genetic coding and far more valuable to study human genetic structure.
    Here are some links
    http://www.genome.gov/10005834 “Over the past century, the mouse has developed into the premier mammalian model system for genetic research. Scientists from a wide range of biomedical fields have gravitated to the mouse because of its close genetic and physiological similarities to humans, as well as the ease with which its genome can be manipulated and analyzed.”

    Quote from Livermore Lab I know of only a few cases in which no mouse counterpart can be found for a particular human gene, and for the most part we see essentially a one-to-one correspondence between genes in the two species. The exceptions generally appear to be of a particular type –genes that arise when an existing sequence is duplicated.

    Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
    1. Eugene V. Koonin*
    + Author Affiliations
    1. National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
    1. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: 301 496 2477 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 301 496 2477 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (Ext 294); Fax: 30 480 9241; Email: koonin@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    • Received January 9, 2009.
    • Revision received January 30, 2009.
    • Accepted February 4, 2009.
    Abstract
    Comparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Darwin in the Origin of Species in 1859 and expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later. Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models of evolution explain some of these universals, suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future.

  • Anonymous

    “The hare does not have a stomach with three or four chambers, as is typical for all animals that chew the cud, however, it chews the cellulose food twice, so that the nutrients which were not consumed the first time will be digested. The stomach of the hare is different to that of cattle which have three or four chambers, however, it functions in a similar manner.
    The hare excretes two different kinds of droppings. In addition to normal excrement it passes another kind of “pellet”, called Caecotroph, which the hare eats again. The hare does not just chew the food twice, but as in ruminating cloven-hoofed animals, bacteria breaks down the cellulose. The production of Caecotroph was mentioned for the first time in 1882 in a French Veterinary Journal. Since this time many zoologists have described this function as “chewing the cud”. Likewise in “Grzimeck’s Tierleben”, Book 12, pages 421 and 422, hares and rabbits are classed as animals that chew the cud. The classification of the hare as a ruminant is mainly based on the production of Caecotrophs and the bacterial breakdown of cellulose. These are the most important functions of ruminants.”

  • Anonymous

    The hare does not have a stomach with three or four chambers, as is typical for all animals that chew the cud, however, it chews the cellulose food twice, so that the nutrients which were not consumed the first time will be digested. The stomach of the hare is different to that of cattle which have three or four chambers, however, it functions in a similar manner.
    The hare excretes two different kinds of droppings. In addition to normal excrement it passes another kind of “pellet”, called Caecotroph, which the hare eats again. The hare does not just chew the food twice, but as in ruminating cloven-hoofed animals, bacteria breaks down the cellulose. The production of Caecotroph was mentioned for the first time in 1882 in a French Veterinary Journal. Since this time many zoologists have described this function as “chewing the cud”. Likewise in “Grzimeck’s Tierleben”, Book 12, pages 421 and 422, hares and rabbits are classed as animals that chew the cud. The classification of the hare as a ruminant is mainly based on the production of Caecotrophs and the bacterial breakdown of cellulose. These are the most important functions of ruminants.

  • Anonymous

    Zoologists have stated that the hare chews the cud. See below. Re mice/humans/chimps see next post.
    “The hare does not have a stomach with three or four chambers, as is typical for all animals that chew the cud, however, it chews the cellulose food twice, so that the nutrients which were not consumed the first time will be digested. The stomach of the hare is different to that of cattle which have three or four chambers, however, it functions in a similar manner.
    The hare excretes two different kinds of droppings. In addition to normal excrement it passes another kind of “pellet”, called Caecotroph, which the hare eats again. The hare does not just chew the food twice, but as in ruminating cloven-hoofed animals, bacteria breaks down the cellulose. The production of Caecotroph was mentioned for the first time in 1882 in a French Veterinary Journal. Since this time many zoologists have described this function as “chewing the cud”. Likewise in “Grzimeck’s Tierleben”, Book 12, pages 421 and 422, hares and rabbits are classed as animals that chew the cud. The classification of the hare as a ruminant is mainly based on the production of Caecotrophs and the bacterial breakdown of cellulose. These are the most important functions of ruminants.”

  • Anonymous

    There is no “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. The 1st amendment states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
    Jefferson responded to an appeal from a very small Baptist sect who felt they were being discriminated against by the establishment of a religion by the state in which they resided. In that letter Jefferson stated he believed in a “wall of separation between church and state” .

    “Separation” has nothing to do with preventing religious wars. The establishment clause was to prevent the Congress from doing to the various sects what was done in England-the establishment of a religion dictated by the government and preventing the free exercise of religion. Education (and science for that matter) in the colonies and subsequently the US, was in the hands of the (protestant) churches. Schools were established by protestant clerics and the churches sponsored and conducted all public education until early in the 1900′s

  • Anonymous

    Galileo wasn’t a godless heathen. He believed in God and the Bible. His observations were considered by some power hungry, control freaks to be heretic. Not all who claim to believe in God and the Bible are telling the truth; there are idiots, liars and subverters everywhere. Galileo was required to renounce his “heresy” and he was under house arrest. There were a lot of abuses in the establishment church, but that does not define Christianity in its essence, just the Christian equivalent of the Pharisees, a blot on the history of Christianity, but not its essential character. .

  • Anonymous

    My understanding of the scientific method is that evolution cannot be tested or proven by that means.
    As far as the fossil record, that is not currently a strong evidence of evolution. Universal flood explains some of it and it is too limited to prove with a preponderance of the evidence, or even clear and convincing evidence that there is an evolution from the simple to the complex. Recent genomic research actually states there is no consistent evidence of evolution to increasing compexity and that there is no quantitative evidence of natural selection or adaptation.
    I have a problem with the assumption that there has been 300 billion years of evolution or even 1 million. 60,000 might be feasible for man at least. Archeological evidence currently dates farming and the sudden appearance of man in the archeological record to between 14k and 60k years and in the area called Anatolia (I believe I read that area is now known as Turkey. An aside, scientists at the UC, Boulder, CO have stated the parting of the Red Sea was feasible and could easily have happened within hours and suddenly restored to drown an army. though I have many questions about that. Re carbon dating, many evolutionists have stated carbon dating of the fossil record as proof of a very long period of evolution. I am happy to reject it. Following is the abstract of a recent study questioning the current evolutionary model from the standpoint of genomic research.
    Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
    1. Eugene V. Koonin*
    + Author Affiliations
    1. National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
    1. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: 301 496 2477 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 301 496 2477 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (Ext 294); Fax: 30 480 9241; Email: koonin@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
    • Received January 9, 2009.
    • Revision received January 30, 2009.
    • Accepted February 4, 2009.
    Abstract
    Comparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Darwin in the Origin of Species in 1859 and expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later. Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models of evolution explain some of these universals, suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future”

  • Wyrdless

    I’ve met plenty of Christians who think the world was made in 7 days and
    that the bible is literally true, every word. If you haven’t met anyone who
    thinks this way, just look up “creation museum” and you will find out that
    they put dinosaurs on the arc. That foolishness got state funding,
    Millions of dollars.

    As far as “a rich man getting into heaven is as likely as a camel going
    through the eye of a needle”, tons of Christians think it means the literal
    eye of a sewing needle. My co-worker comes to mind.

  • Anonymous

    “The Good Lord is subtle, not malicious” Albert Einstein

  • Anonymous

    In Job it does not say the earth is supported on pillars. The reference to pillars is to people, as” in “pillars of society”. In context, it is obvious that the “pillars of the Earth” were princes and kings. Besides, it was well known at that time that the earth was spherical and “suspended over nothing” (also a Biblical phrase). Even atheists say that it was obvious to the people of the Biblical times that the earth was spherical and this fact could be and was ascertained with simple geometry (see Ebon musings).
    Re Darwin, his letters to his contemporaries and publisher reveal that he delayed publication to put distance between his writings (which some had questioned as borrowed, if not outright stolen from others) and others who had the same or better or more complete theories before him. He went to great lengths to try to establish his priority, even though his contemporaries quite clearly preceded him and tried to correct him.

    Re the hare, the most important function of ruminants includes the hare in that group, as numerous zoologists have stated. Even without the extra stomach(s), the hare chewing the cud is physiological the same as all the other ruminants.

  • Anonymous

    Thomas Jefferson was not “removed from the history books”. There was a small section of world history that had a list of influential people in the Enlightenment which included Jefferson. The “removal” was just delisting him in that particular category and adding others. His place in American history was not disturbed.

    “Corporate Silicon Valley”? You mean Steve Jobs and/or Bill Gates? who started from nothing, created wealth for themselves and 1000′s of others? Who have pledged their money to charity, and at least in the case of Bill Gates, is/was a major supporter of progressive, liberal organizations like Acorn? Who almost singlehandedly created the technological revolution that put cell phones and computers in the hands of even the poorest of our country?

    Progressives/socialists/liberals created propaganda techniques and eugenics in the 20′s,(used by Nazis) segregated the integrated executive branch, and are currently calling for the overthrow of the American way of life and are in league with the Muslim brotherhood (code pink in CA) and you think the right and religious are “brainwashing”? The left has been at it since the early 1900′s and is in full revolutionary mode in California. I’ve seen them at work in CA in their “support” of Egypt.
    CA hasn’t had anything resembling education in 50 years. Your incoherence and lack of logic is an indictment of education.

  • Anonymous

    I did, many times to many people herein. The main point is even die hard evolutionists say that the “modern synthesis” needs to be changed because genome research (using mice because physiologically mice are closer to humans than chimps) proves that natural selection and adaptation are not the reason or means of evolution.
    Here are two links–there are several articles within this link that state various things about mice chimps and humans. There are many more ….all from “evolutionists” calling for new theories of evolution and calling into question the theory as taught in school.

    http://www.genome.gov/10005831

    http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full

  • Anonymous

    ? “literally”?
    There is nothing logical about your statement.
    I didn’t apply 1st amendment to evolution. I didn’t label it a religious belief among scientists. I didn’t say I wanted to say god did it in science class. That is your twisted interpretation.

    These are discrete independent statements.
    Evolution is a religion to some, many of whom call themselves scientists.
    The big bang theory is a prevailing current scientific theory of origins and has a lot of support in the non biological scientific community.
    The poster to whom I was replying re the 1st amendment was in error saying that the 1st amendment called for the separation of church and state and therefore prevented creationism from being taught in school. I pointed out that the 1st amendment only stated that Congress could make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
    I do want evolution to be questioned. Evolutionists want it questioned. Elementary and high school teachers are not qualified to teach evolution as fact. Evolutionary biologists have called into question everything that is being taught as fact.

  • Anonymous

    The big bang theory is one which is widely accepted among the nonbiologists…..

  • Anonymous

    “The hare does not have a stomach with three or four chambers, as is typical for all animals that chew the cud, however, it chews the cellulose food twice, so that the nutrients which were not consumed the first time will be digested. The stomach of the hare is different to that of cattle which have three or four chambers, however, it functions in a similar manner.
    The hare excretes two different kinds of droppings. In addition to normal excrement it passes another kind of “pellet”, called Caecotroph, which the hare eats again. The hare does not just chew the food twice, but as in ruminating cloven-hoofed animals, bacteria breaks down the cellulose. The production of Caecotroph was mentioned for the first time in 1882 in a French Veterinary Journal. Since this time many zoologists have described this function as “chewing the cud”. Likewise in “Grzimeck’s Tierleben”, Book 12, pages 421 and 422, hares and rabbits are classed as animals that chew the cud. The classification of the hare as a ruminant is mainly based on the production of Caecotrophs and the bacterial breakdown of cellulose. These are the most important functions of ruminants”

  • Anonymous

    It was well known at that time that the earth was spherical and “suspended over nothing” (also a Biblical phrase). Even atheists say that it was obvious to the people of the Biblical times that the earth was spherical and this fact could be and was ascertained with simple geometry (see Ebon musings).

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t say rats I said mice. According to the NIH, the human genome project uses mice because of the close genetic relationship. (Chimps don’t get the same diseases and are more dissimilar to humans behaviorally, genetically and physiologically than mice.) That mice are cheap is an added bonus not the main reason. Ethics don’t even come into play. By the way, the genomic studies call into question, per the evolutionists conducting the studies, the entire concept of the Tree of Life, natural selection and adaptation, and state that a new synthesis is needed.

    “Because the mouse carries virtually the same set of genes as the human but can be used in laboratory research, this information will allow scientists to experimentally test and learn more about the function of human genes, leading to better understanding of human disease and improved treatments and cures. (See: Background on Mouse as a Model Organism)” ” http://www.genome.gov/page.cfm?pageID=10005831

    “Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models of evolution explain some of these universals, suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future. ”

    http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full

  • Anonymous

    Actually there is evidence that all humans are descended from a single mother (scientists/geneticists determined that) Even atheists cite that as “proof” that Adam and Eve were not contemporaries when they concede that there was a single mother. (See Ebon musings) Since the theory of evolution changes with new facts and observations (new theories are posited) perhaps soon there will be proof that there was a single father also.

  • Anonymous

    True believer you are. It takes a lot of faith and assumptions to believe Darwinism. Which sect do you believe in? There is the Tree of Life, natural selection, survival of the fittest, adaptation, network or forest of life, kin selection, punctuated equilibrium………

  • Anonymous

    NIH, NAR (nucleic acids research), Stephen Gould, Dawkins…..proud self labelled Darwinists all…..
    “”gets questioned YES “stands up in science? if you mean “upheld” NO. questioned & Changed YES

    “Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models of evolution explain some of these universals, suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future.
    http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full

  • Anonymous

    All the more reason to question evolution….
    From what I have observed, reading each of the latest studies on evolutionary biology, is that each new “fact” requires a new theory of evolution. Stephen Gould tried to account for altruism by positing kin selection and the sudden appearance of”evolved” species or major “advances” by positing punctuated equilibrium. Now we have genome researchers baldly stating that there is no quantitative evidence of increasing complexity, nor natural selection, nor adaptation, nor survival of the most fit, nor the Tree of life.
    How can any elementary or hs teacher be “schooled” in evolution? What is evolutionary “fact”? what is the prevailing theory now? There appear to be more “sects” of evolution than there are sects of religion. Evolution is one big question and requires many assumptions to fit the “facts” to the theory. At best it is bad philosophy and as such should not be taught as science. The “facts” or results of observation and experiment can be examined and offered but should not be taught as ” scientific proof” of evolution. Evolution cannot account for morality or intelligence or altruism, or fractals or especially origin. Currently, that is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Non biologists (ie physicists) when they address the issue of origin, sometimes subscribe to the Big Bang theory. Physics in general seems to undermine the theory of evolution. If we taught logic and philosophy in lower schools evolution, ID, Big Bang, creationism, Socrates, Plato, John Locke, Rousseau to name a few, could all be discussed and weighed, and critical thinking developed. As science continues to question and discover, we will have more to weigh.

  • Anonymous

    Major evolutionary genomic researchers disagree with you (except they do assume the common ancestor dates you use) They state we use mice because they are closest to humans genetically and physiologically. The cost is merely an added benefit
    “”Because the mouse carries virtually the same set of genes as the human but can be used in laboratory research, this information will allow scientists to experimentally test and learn more about the function of human genes, leading to better understanding of human disease and improved treatments and cures. (See: Background on Mouse as a Model Organism)” http://www.genome.gov/page.cfm?pageID=10005831

    Other quotes in this link indicate that chimps are not physiologically or genetically as close to humans as are mice, at least in terms of their usefulness for research. They are not subject to all the same diseases and are behaviorally and physiologically more different.

    Another link goes into more detail on how genomic research calls into question the Tree of Life, natural selection and adaptation. http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full

  • Anonymous

    Evolution is at best bad philosophy.. I never said “god did it” . As philosophy, creationism may if examined side by side with the philosophy of evolution, prove to be philosophically and logically more valid, as it requires the fewest assumptions and may account for more, such as morality, love, altruism, intelligence, which evolution cannot.

  • Anonymous

    Wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate… “and shall be cast from the argument”
    Here are two links from evolutionary genomic researchers who dispute most of what you stated. The first deals with the close genetic relationship of mice and humans and the second disputes the tree of life, natural selection and adaptation.
    http://www.genome.gov/page.cfm?pageID=10005831
    http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full

  • Anonymous

    “other’s beliefs”…..that is my point, that evolution is a belief system, not science and that my teachers held it as a belief system, unquestioned. My “beliefs” have no logical place in the argument of whether or not evolution is science or belief, whether it is proven or not. It does take a lot of courage to question such an oppressive entrenched and violently unreasoning system as evolution has come to be in what passes for scientific education these days.
    Here are two links to notable evolutionary researchers. The second states that genomic research proves that there is no quantitative evidence of increasing complexity, nor tree of life, nor natural selection, nor adaptation.
    1. http://www.genome.gov/page.cfm?pageID=10005831
    2. Comparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Darwin in the Origin of Species in 1859 and expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later. Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models……..”
    http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full

  • Anonymous

    Genetic research that disproves or at least undermines evolutionary theory does exist and suggests that a new theory or synthesis is needed.
    Check out the more recent and exciting genomic research.
    “Comparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Darwin in the Origin of Species in 1859 and expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later. Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models of evolution explain some of these universals, suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future. http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/4/1011.full

  • Anonymous

    It’s called evolution.

  • Anonymous

    Notice how the paper kept using ‘evolution?’ There is no such thing as creationism or ID, except in the mind of the willfully ignorant.

  • Anonymous

    The term is evolution.

  • Anonymous

    Nice try but 99.9% of scientists believe in Evolution. And the core concept of the theory has not changed. You try to sound intelligent on here as if your Christian Science believes are real scientific thought; however, you are wrong. Posing this bs as “evidence” only furthers your ignorance. Evolution isn’t a “belief” as you say. It’s scientific fact. You won’t ever get that so don’t even bother replying to this post because all I see in your perverse arguments is circular religious points poised as evidence.

  • Roberthe

    “others’ beliefs…” was a phrase I used to elicit some parity of exposure from you and took into consideration your disregard for the theory of evolution. As of yet you have repeatedly ignored my request to share your position vis-a-vis how so many species appeared on Earth which makes me consider 1) you don’t have a clearly delineated position but dislike the theory of evolution; 2) you have a position but are unwilling to share it, perhaps because it will open you up for counter-attack; 3) you have a position you are willing to share but get caught up in the process of writing and never get around to it. There probably are other options that I haven’t divined but I’m not going to try to ferret them out.

    I’m not interested in playing bait-and-switch with you, Hands. Either state your position unequivocally or let this thread sink into its senescence. Latching on to “others’ beliefs” and focusing on that phrase rather than replying to any of the substantive critique of your earlier posts is something I might expect from a high school debate; as such I have no interest in participating further unless you respond to what I have previously written.

    Regardless, I appreciate your passion and your diligence and wish you well, regardless of our differences.

Google+