Florida Evolution Bill amended again, passes House committee

| 63 Comments | 1 TrackBack

Let’s don’t and say we did. That’s what kids used to say when someone suggested doing something that the others didn’t want to do. And that is the point of special laws or standards that single out evolution for special treatment. Let’s find a way to say we are doing it, but still not require it, or fudge quite a bit.

At first glance the bill, as amended by the Florida House of Representatives yesterday, looks like a strong endorsement of teaching evolution. And state Representative Hays, the bill’s main sponsor in the House, says

Don’t try to read something in there that isn’t already there. It’s direct and to the point. Any good science theory that is a valid theory should be able to withstand a critical analysis.

Source

But it singles out evolution for odd special treatment, so a closer look is in order.

                An act relating to evolutionary theory

  Council/Committee hearing bill: Schools & Learning Council
2 Representative(s) Pickens and Hays offered the following:
3
4 Amendment (with title amendment)
5 Remove everything after the enacting clause and insert:
6
7 Section 1. Paragraph (u) is added to subsection (2) of
8 section 1003.42, Florida Statutes, to read:
9 1003.42 Required instruction.–
10 (2) Members of the instructional staff of the public

11 schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education
12 and the district school board,shall teach efficiently and
13 faithfully, using the books and materials required that meet the
14 highest standards for professionalism and historic accuracy,
15 following the prescribed courses of study, and employing
16 approved methods of instruction, the following:
17 (u) A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the
18 scientific theory of evolution.
19

20 The State Board of Education is encouraged to adopt standards
21 and pursue assessment of the requirements of this subsection.
22 Section 2. This act shall take effect October 1, 2008.
Page 1 of 2
Strike-all to HB 1483 FINAL#2.doc
HOUSE AMENDMENT FOR COUNCIL/COMMITTEE PURPOSES
Amendment No. 01 (for drafter’s use only)
23

24
25 —————————————————–
26 TITLE AMENDMENT
27 Remove the entire title and insert:
28
29 A bill to be entitled
30 An act relating to evolutionary theory; amending s.
31 1003.42; requiring instruction in, and the critical
32 analysis of, the scientific theory of evolution; providing
33 an effective date.

In short: teachers,
subject to the rules of the State Board of Education
and the district school board, shall teach
[ insert lots of high sounding words ]
A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the
scientific theory of evolution.

The language is vague and subject to interpretation - and

11… subject to the rules of the State Board of Education
12 and the district school board

Two big reasons to have standards are: don’t be vague about what to teach and don’t be subject to the local district. Florida has new, not yet implemented science standards for all grades. These standards were prepared in a process established by the state BOE. The standards, and the BOE, support teaching evolution. Several local districts are known to strongly oppose teaching evolution, or at least those districts oppose teaching evolution if they are not allowed to tear it down with specious claims and arguments (Index to Creationist Claims). These claims and arguments are known as scientific creationism, or intelligent design, or weaknesses of evolution, or critical analysis of evolution. Those latter words mean to creationists that they can do what they want to do, namely teach those claims without identifying them as creationism. But those claims are precisely the content of books on “scientific creationism”.

Less than 1 % of a thorough presentation of evolution is possible in a standard biology class, then on to critical analysis says the bill but only of evolution. The degree of power of the local district rather than the BOE to define the terms “thorough presentation” and “critical analysis” is left unclear, but the local school board is a much more potent force in the daily life of a school teacher than the distant BOE.

What about “books … that meet the highest standards?” What books might a local board select for critical analysis? It happens that the Discovery Institute, (Disco) who wrote the original bill, (Academic freedom bills) also wrote and sells a book called Explore Evolution just for the occasion. One stop shopping at Disco - what more could schools want?

The House and Senate versions of the evolution bill look rather different. What do they have in common? Both single out evolution for odd special treatment. The Senate bill leaves decisions about what is scientific (regarding evolution) to teachers and students while the House bill gives local boards considerable defacto authority to make those decisions. Thus both bills take the science curriculum out of the hands of scientists.

Legislators should know that an evolution bill is not simply useless; it is pernicious. Creationists are well organized to take advantage. They have a large body of material, known as scientific creationism and by other names, which adherents insist is scientific although the contrary has long been clear. Any bill which singles out evolution for special treatment not given other scientific topics is a signal to creationists to teach this material as if it were science. This material can be very confusing and misleading, making it very difficult for students to understand either science or nature.

1 TrackBack

Note that the interpretation by the staff analysts for the Florida House itself is dramatically more ominous than even the critical interpretation on The Panda’s Thumb. ... Read More

63 Comments

But what else do you expect school boards to spend all their excess money on, if not paying out lawsuit settlements?

If you would kindly consider a few points that I take the liberty of putting forward:

1) The argument is sometimes made, that failure to embrace evolution (and by that, the arguer almost invariably means, Common Descent - Darwinism), is a factor in poor science performance. History does not pass a verdict either way. Science reached high points without this theory.

2)The claim is made that the abovementioned theory of evolution is scientific fact, all done, sold, hammer down. History all but proves that whenever people start on the done, sold, hammer down, there are grounds for suspicion. Science history is packed with such cases.

3) There is one sense in which the purpose of science is to investigate. (In another sense, investigating mathematically proven laws such as F = MA, is probably pointless.) Any area of science shutting itself off from investigation, by definition, is not following standard procedure, and disqualifies itself from being a member of the fold.

Philip, if you have some scientific evidence that will overthrow “Darwinism”, then by all means present it. If not, I suggest you get busy and do some science.

Hint- Blathering on a blog is not doing science. You will not win your “war” here. GET BUSY.

Philip Bruce Heywood Wrote:

If you would kindly consider a few points that I take the liberty of putting forward:

We are still waiting for you to answer David Stanton’s questions over on the other thread. And you are still avoiding “entropy barriers”.

So why don’t you offer a few points on these questions? What’s the problem?

Philip,

You write like a freshman philosophy student at some small, second-rate state college while holding an empty pipe in his mouth.

You are silly, very dull poseur pontificating on things you misunderstand - and yet about which you are transparently dishonest - to your intellectual (and moral) betters.

Sincerely,

– Another person who will scroll by any posts with your name from this time on.

Rick R.: I have been researching this topic for at least 5 mins, and currently run the world’s leading and only Origins Science site classified mainstream science, bible-based. (The majority of respected scientists, from before Galileo through to beyond Planck, were creationist in some measure.) If you can find the time to research it for at least that long, you might discover that pulling assumptions out of the blue - the imprimatur of the two contributors beneath you - can be counterproductive.

M.Elzinga I see is still burning to tell us all about entropy. The previous occasion, he had nothing to write at all; and when I took some trouble to explain it, he then forgot that I had done so. Now that he has my humble, poor explanation to consult, he may be inspired to break forth into a MONA LISA of explanatory creativity. We are still waiting on your explanation of entropy, O Michaelangelo.

But of course, you could consult with Tupelo. His sculpture of DAVID in words, elevates one as does Sebastian Bach’s brilliantly structured music. …. Sorry, I have to go, my pipe spilled and set fire to the cat.

All of this is as if there were no peer review that has already carried out the “critical analysis” that these people want high school students to engage in. Are we going to have critical analysis of Proust, Dostoyevsky, or James Joyce as well using semiotic, post-feminist, and structuralist readings in comparative readings? Or to do close analyses of Schonberg, Webern, and Berg’s free atonal works when students only know what scales, keys, meter, tempo, and dynamics are as band performers? Of course we aren’t going to. They don’t know enough. How are you going to create any meaningful critique of something before you’ve even given its full explanation? You need to learn the system and its support before you can adequately critique it. There is no doubt that we investigate with science. It is a powerful tool. Then use it and see what it does. Don’t try to pretend that some invented critiques of the method based on a priori religious assumptions that are also scientifically irrelevant, philosophically bankrupt, logically or factually errant, and religiously motivated (specified complexity will do for all of those four categories) are worhtwhile for students.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 23, column 2, byte 1981 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Philip, I read your last long-winded post on the ‘fossil snake with two legs’ thread. Honestly, 3 paragraphs to say “if evolution is true, how can a horse become a cow?” (Stupid creationist claim #4376)

A moron with a thesaurus is still a moron.

PBH, you must be glad that evolutionary biology is a very active research area, and sad that the public is subject to so much propaganda against just learning basic natural history.

Ah, PeterE., that was exactly what I was going to say, when my pipe set fire to the cat. Masterful.

9 1003.42 Required instruction.–

(2) Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board,shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historic accuracy, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction, the following:

A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution.

(Line numbering removed for ease of reading)

So students in Florida high schools are going to learn the techniques and results of genetics (including bacterial, viral, eukaryotic, transcription and pseudogenes), stratigraphy, radiodating, taxonomy, cladistics, retroviruses, paleontology, biogeography and the significance of plate tectonics, plant and animal anatomy, dendrochronology, population genetics, behaviour and population dynamics, along with assorted other areas such as the chemistry, physics and statistics required to provide background knowledge.

Those are smart kids that you have there.

PBH

M.Elzinga I see is still burning to tell us all about entropy. The previous occasion, he had nothing to write at all; and when I took some trouble to explain it, he then forgot that I had done so. Now that he has my humble, poor explanation to consult, he may be inspired to break forth into a MONA LISA of explanatory creativity. We are still waiting on your explanation of entropy, O Michaelangelo.

But it’s you who brought up the idea of an ‘entropy barrier’. Presumably you know, at least in your own mind, what this is. Please elucidate instead of using the avoidance mechanism of retreating to snark.

Richard Simons:

9 1003.42 Required instruction.–

(2) Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board,shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historic accuracy, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction, the following:

A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution.

(Line numbering removed for ease of reading)

So students in Florida high schools are going to learn the techniques and results of genetics (including bacterial, viral, eukaryotic, transcription and pseudogenes), stratigraphy, radiodating, taxonomy, cladistics, retroviruses, paleontology, biogeography and the significance of plate tectonics, plant and animal anatomy, dendrochronology, population genetics, behaviour and population dynamics, along with assorted other areas such as the chemistry, physics and statistics required to provide background knowledge.

Those are smart kids that you have there.

Not to mention all the professional development those limited numbers of teachers will have to do. Not only must they become experts in their subject area, they will have to learn all the other subject areas. Job security, though. Kids will have to stay in high school until they are at least 35 to get it all down before being able to adequately critique various aspects of evolutionary theory. Oh, and public schools will need big research budgets. You can’t actually understand the finer points unless you are actively engaged in the relevant research.

OOOh, as a teacher, I like where this is heading…maybe grade levels will be determined by science mastery rather than English class…the future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades!

Just get them to include the lesson plan. Let everyone see what they want to teach and how they are going to teach it and then we can evaluate just what they are trying to do.

Simple, so why don’t the dishonest creationists involved in these efforts ever do something as straight forward and simple as that. They could demonstrate that what they were doing has relevance in the science class, but they never bother.

Maybe eventually kids will only study sexual activity and evolution so they can all talk about nested hierarchy in the hospital while dying from some form of VD.

Or maybe the evos can all be isolated to an island equipped with a lab and and find some cures for the varieties of STDs their ethics and philosophies have promulgated.

So far they have blessed us with viagra and overnight abortion pills.

I long for the day when we return to the occurrence of say an A. L. Tennyson on the board of the Royal Academy, etc. and pee wee myers is living in a dog pound.

April 18th …the Great Awakening.

Richard Simons:

along with assorted other areas such as the chemistry, physics and statistics required to provide background knowledge.

Those are smart kids that you have there.

It would be nice to start with these but the curriculum in Florida places Biology at the 9th grade level. Our students don’t even have a grasp on Algebra yet. I wouldn’t trust them to calculate permutations much less understand random mutations.

I’ve had these kids in class and honest to goodness this was one of the conversations…

Student: Sir, how big is a planet?

Me: Planets vary in size. They can be as small as the moon, like Pluto, or a thousand times bigger than Earth, like Jupiter.

Student: But how big is a planet? Could it fit in the classroom?

It took everything i had not to laugh, but i realized that a lot of these kids have no critical thinking ability.

Philip,

Congratulations, you seem to be improving. Your writing is getting better and you are actually near to being on-topic. I also must agree when you write that you have been studying this topic for 5 minutes.

Now Philip, if you had been studying evolution for 30 years rather than for five minutes, you might understand that the evidence for evolution is just as convincing as the evidence for F = ma. You would also know that no science is “bible-based”. You would also understand why those who have been studying evolution for 30 years get a little annoyed when you pretend that you are the only one who understands anything.

It is certainly true that there is more to learn. This is true for any theory. However, there is more evidence for evolution than there ever has been for any theory in the history of science. It has earned the right to be taught in public schools at every level. It does not deserve to be singled out for special treatment by misguided religious fanatics who are trying use public funds to convert children to their own narrow religious position in defiance of all of the evidence. Science has not cut itself off from investigation by any means. The theory of evolution continues to be one of the most studied fields in all of science and advancements are being made daily. If you read the scientific literature you would know this.

You yourself admit that evolution has occurred, so what exactly is your problem? I have asked you several times to explain what you think is wrong with modern evolutionary theory, you have not done so. I have asked you to present some rational alternative hypothesis, you have not done so. I have asked you to provide some evidence for your hypothesis, you have not done so. I must respectfully conclude that you have nothing to contribute to this discussion. If your level of knowledge of hox genes is any indication, you really don’t have the slightest clue what you are tallking about. You will accomplish nothing here other than making a fool of yourself.

Real scientists will not be persuaded by arrogance or pontification. Real scientists will only be persuaded by the evidence. You have offered only innuendo and hyperbole. Why don’t you push your bible-based science in your tax-free church and leave the real science to real scientists? If you were at all interested in any rational discussion, you would have answered at least one of my questions.

HAHAHA!, Oh keith, you really got me laughing there.

Syphillis was discovered well before Darwin. Don’t make the absurd comment that Darwin caused syphillis.

So, can you remind me what the treatment for syphillis was before the discovery of antibiotics? Oh, with a simple google check i can see that they treated syphillis with toxic mercury.

I’m sorry but i would much rather move to an island where we have antibiotics than stay in your toxic mercury wastedump. Then again you can always pray that the syphillis disappears. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a praying man but God also gave me a brain to think. Oh, and we’re taking Francis Collins and his human DNA sequence to the island with us.

keith: April 18th …the Great Awakening.

Wait, Keith, I’m not quite sure I understand - you’re saying I have to eat 3 oranges a day to get into heaven?

I have to say! That seems a little suspect to me!

Richard Simons: If you were to stir up just a little of that grey matter God gave you, read the entries on this page, add 2 and 2, you would have found my (simplified, pictorial)exposition on Entropy, over on PZ’s most recent page, dealing with Having a Something-or-other Paul Someone-or-other’s Day. You seemed to treat Professor Shine’s observations on snake fossils with contempt, over on PvM’s page on Creation Myth’s; and I have no reason to believe you will treat Lord Kelvin’s thermodynamics any differently. But I hope I am mistaken.

Peter Dunkleberg; I am intrigued to know in what places on good old mother Earth there is propaganda against learning basic natural history, and what form this propaganda takes? I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. If you are implying by that that Common-Descent Darwinistic Evolution is necessary to learning about nature - why, how did people such as Linnaeus and Fabre ever cope? I haven’t grasped the significance of your statement.

What I am observing, via PANDA’S THUMB, is isolation from other disciplines of science. I have had people say - and they meant it - that science isn’t governed by immutable laws. I have yet to find anyone with a clear idea of, yes, entropy, the requirements of physical chemistry, and so on. They just seem to think that if nature does it, nature does it. Common Descent Darwinism by definition can’t happen, according to the laws of physics. And the geologic record backs the physics. New developments in physics are showing how evolution was achieved. Unless people find out about the remainder of science, things are going to look rather odd, bye-and-bye.

PBH said:

History all but proves that whenever people start on the done, sold, hammer down, there are grounds for suspicion. Science history is packed with such cases.

History says exactly the opposite. This is the old creationist trick of talking about raw numbers instead of the proportions, which is what matters. “700 dissenting scientists” might seem like a lot until one considers that they are less than 1% of the total. Likewise, talking about 10 or so famous cases of science being wrong, at least temporarily (ie plate techtonics) might seem like a lot until you consider what an insignificantly small proportion of incidents it is relative to the totality of what science says.

When was the last time you dropped an apple and it flew up? When was the last time 2+2=5? When was the last time you woke up and it was yesterday? When was the last time you stepped on stone and it was soft and smelled like mint? When was the last time we found a precambrian rabbit? The fact is that when theories get to the “done, sold, hammer down” stage, they remain that way 99.9% of the time. This idea that consensus can only be reached by fiat, and not because we might actually be onto something, is relativistic projection of the worst kind. That’s the ultimate irony with creationists - they want to be moral absolutists, and scientific relativists.

Philip wrote:

“If you are implying by that that Common-Descent Darwinistic Evolution is necessary to learning about nature - why, how did people such as Linnaeus and Fabre ever cope?”

Once again, you miss the point completely. Linnaeus coped rather poorly it turns out. He may have been able to name quite a few species, but he could not account for how they changed over time. He could also not establish a rational basis for classification. That requires knowing that there is a tree of life and determining the branching order in the tree of life. Modern genetics and cladistics have come a long way in making taxonomy a natural system based on evolutionary relationships.

Apparently you want science to keep investigating until everyone agrees that your bible-based views are correct. That is not going to happen. If you want to convince anyone of anything you must provide the evidence. Quite frankly, no one can figure out exactly what your problem is.

Apparently you think that “lower” life forms (i.e. disease microbes) can evolve without any help but that “higher” life forms require a quantum computer or else they will go extinct. Please, enlighten us as to where the dividing line between “lower” and “higher” life forms is found. Enlighten us as to why the same mechanisms of random mutation and natrual selection that operate on microbes are not sufficient for “higher” life forms. Please explain why “lower” life forms lack a quantum computer and why “higher” life forms have access to one, if they are all part of the same tree of life. Pleasae explain why the theory of evolution is so unimportant to learning about nature if the tree of life is the source of the quantum computer that makes all life possible. And please, please, please explain how the tree of life can carry out photosynthesis. One could go on at length, but why would one?

As usual, the packaging (that is, the terminology) giving immediate lip service to “good science” in a bill that makes no scientific sense, leaves us reading the tea leaves trying to figure out the various motiviations.

I think some people sincerely believe that evolution cannot withstand critical analysis, because their god told them so. But most likely, these people being politicians and highly sensitive to political considerations, understand very clearly the underlying purpose, which is to find a way to circumvent the US Constitution by permitting 9th grade teachers to preach in science class under the guise of “analysis”. Who knows, with a little luck some test case can be confected and presented before some creationist judge. But in the meantime, being deliberately vague and hazy about exactly what CAN be presented in science class should obfuscate the boundaries of “legal” enough to discourage expensive and time-consuming protests for some while to come.

Shifting the locus of responsibility around is an interesting tactic. It’s up to the BOE - uh, no, it’s up to the local school boards - uh, no it’s up to the teachers themselves - uh, no, golly, we don’t have any definitive legal precendent. Whoever “we” are, it’s clearly not OUR fault, read the law!

I think, someday soon, “critical analysis” will be legislated for ALL sciences, so as not to single out evolution except (of course) in daily practice. Worst comes to worst, this will debilitate ALL science instruction, a price creationists will gladly pay to get Jeezus into the classrooms.

Counting all the peripheral math and physics people who supported Einstein’s early efforts it seems about 4 people completely overturned Newton’s physics between 1904 and 1917.

So I would say a few hundred people working on alternative hypotheses in science is quite relevant, particularly when you review their education, work , and credentials.

Or you can rely on public drunks like doggins and igloo boy in Minnesota, chief of the zebra fish experts.

Tick Tock April 18th The Great Awakening.

David Stanton said: “Philip wrote:

Apparently you want science to keep investigating until everyone agrees that your bible-based views are correct. That is not going to happen. If you want to convince anyone of anything you must provide the evidence. Quite frankly, no one can figure out exactly what your problem is.”

I’d hazard a guess what his real problem is … “Original Sin”.

It seems to me that if evolution is true then the Garden of Eden story is false. If the Eden story if false then no Tree of Knowledge, no temptation by the snake, no original sin and no divine punishment as a result. Which in turn means no original sin to be later redeemed and that Christ died in vain as a result.

Which means no eternal life for Philip and his ilk.

That seems to be their problem … as others have said, not liking the consequence of evolution, so they dispute the fact of evolution.

keith: Tick Tock April 18th The Great Awakening.

Actually…on April 18, I commemorate the “Great San Francisco Earthquake & Fire”. It’s a good day to update your disaster supplies.

“Counting all the peripheral math and physics people who supported Einstein’s early efforts it seems about 4 people completely overturned Newton’s physics between 1904 and 1917.”

No, they didn’t. Classical mechanics is still used to measure the motions and forces acting upon rigid bodies, particles, etc. between Planck-scale and cosmological scale.

It appears that your understanding of physics is about as deep as your understanding of evolution.

This is just a be nice to our mythology bill. It is completely unnecessary.

Someone asked the sponsor if there were any cases of persecution for questioning evolution in Florida. They couldn’t name a single case.

It makes the whole state standards procedure a mockery. Why bother with the dog and pony show when the legislature is going to pass bills declaring what science and reality are?

There is no enforcement of the state standards, no will and no mechanism anyway. The local school boards and schools, can, do, and will just ignore it if they want to and teach anything in science classes. What happens in Florida, Arkansas, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas that has been reported in the news.

Tyler DiPietro:

“Counting all the peripheral math and physics people who supported Einstein’s early efforts it seems about 4 people completely overturned Newton’s physics between 1904 and 1917.”

No, they didn’t. Classical mechanics is still used to measure the motions and forces acting upon rigid bodies, particles, etc. between Planck-scale and cosmological scale.

It is very rare that a new observation or a new theory would completely overturn an established paradigm. The theory of relativity did not overthrow Newtonian mechanics, but added to it. The work of Mendel and the finding of the DNA added to the theory of evolution, but they did not overturn the basic principles.

So, I agree with Tyler DiPietro

Regards

Eric

Tony Whitson Wrote:

The bill, in effect, with regard only to biological or chemical evolution restricts the ability of the State Board of Education or the district school board to define and regulate curriculum content.

There is a way to fight back, but it takes some organization and determination on the part of parents and students.

I know of a situation that developed with a dysfunctional fundamentalist teacher who wouldn’t stick to the curriculum and continued to proselytize and denigrate other religions. For some incomprehensible reason, the administrators would not take any action (perhaps cowardice about rocking the boat or incurring a lawsuit).

Then the students came up with a strategy. They systematically avoided signing up for his class even though it was part of the required curriculum. They signed up for alternative classes and passed the word on to the students coming along behind them to avoid his class. The parents also got involved in advising students to avoid his class, and insisting to the administration that they would not tolerate having their kids put in his class.

After only a single semester, he didn’t have enough students to justify a section with him as teacher and he was reassigned. His reassignment was a disaster for him because he had padded his resume to indicate he was qualified to teach in the other area. He couldn’t handle it. Finally the administration had to step in and discipline him.

He is still a fundamentalist schumuck, but he now sticks to the curriculum even though he is a terrible teacher. Students still avoid signing up for his section of the course by building conflicts into their schedules that get them out of his course.

Each semester he has to be assigned to “other duties” to keep him busy (he has tenure for some strange reason due to the stupidity of the administration).

It’s not the ideal solution, but it worked.

Philip Bruce Heywood:

[snip]

1) The argument is sometimes made, that failure to embrace evolution (and by that, the arguer almost invariably means, Common Descent - Darwinism), is a factor in poor science performance. History does not pass a verdict either way. Science reached high points without this theory.

[snip]

Common descent and Darwinism refers to two different things. common descent refers to the general idea of species evolving from previous species (on back to common ancestors, or a common ancestor). Darwinism refers to the mechanisms of evolutionary change, in particular, to process involved in what is called natural selection.

Second, different areas of science tend to function independently regarding the areas of study that they cover and that are interrelated to each other. Geology, for example, covers geological features and geological processes of the earth. Science can reach high points in all kinds of areas without the theories in other areas of science. This says nothing whatsoever about the validity and usefulness of scientific theories in their relevants fields of study, which means your remark is merely irrelevant and pointless, yet you are using it illogically to try to denigrate evolutionary theory (i.e., you’re insinuating a fallacious argument).

Darwinism refers to the mechanisms of evolutionary change, in particular, to process involved in what is called natural selection.

When used by an anti-evolutionist, “Darwinism” seems to mean whatever aspects of evolution are rejected at that time by the particular anti-evolutionist. So it’s exact meaning, if it has one, can change from one argument to the next.

Henry

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Pete Dunkelberg published on April 11, 2008 9:20 PM.

Ben Stein: Front Man for Creationism’s Manufactroversy was the previous entry in this blog.

Expelled: Now with added anti-Semitism is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter