Home » Darwinism, Education, Intelligent Design, News » Turns out some Texas media DID believe Texas bans discussion of evolution

Turns out some Texas media DID believe Texas bans discussion of evolution

Yesterday, I asked, surveying the jalapeno-spiked madness around Texas textbooks, “Why not just ban discussions of evolution in textbooks?”:

What if all theories about changes in life forms over time advanced in textbooks had to go by content-based names like genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, symbiosis, and natural selection? The explanations would have to make way more sense, thus be open to evidence-based objections in given cases.

Maybe the people running around in dinosaur suits shouting about the dark ages would then have to get jobs or read a book or something, I don’t know. Maybe that’s the big problem.

Well, it turns out that one “just-the-facts, ma’am” public medium in Texas actually believed that Texas did ban such discussions! Here’s the screen capture.

It was hastily corrected. Of course it wasn’t true and couldn’t be true. And people wonder why all these media companies are losing money …

Anyway, one observer noted  that Zack Kopplin,  student crusader for Darwin in Louisiana (now at Rice U), was there:

I also talked to anti-creationist Zack Kopplin, who, like Dr. Lozanne, is a nice person. Zack is a history major from Rice University, which does seem appropriate considering the creation/evolution battle is primarily about interpreting history. Anyways, I tried to get his thoughts on teaching the fundamentals of epigenetics. I told him I was teaching it to my students, and that our company has higher standards for math and science than any state in the nation. Even so, he was not in favor of including epigenetics in the Texas textbooks. He was also unable to give me a reasonable answer and made up a reason to excuse himself.

Well, epigenetics is to Darwin’s darlings what relativity and quantum mechanics are to Newtonian physics, only worse, much worse. Newtonian physics was useful within its scale. Darwin’s magical mechanism of natural selection is more like phlogiston, which supposedly produced fire the way Darwinism supposedly produces mind from mud.

And if nothing really happens that way, what becomes of Darwin’s magical mechanism? It’s phogliston, the substance that need not exist!

Also, it tells you something that people like Zack are thought by many to be some kind of shining hope. In that case, the nineteenth century is just not dead enough yet.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

12 Responses to Turns out some Texas media DID believe Texas bans discussion of evolution

  1. Well, epigenetics is to Darwin’s darlings what relativity and quantum mechanics are to Newtonian physics, only worse, much worse.

    Of course it isn’t, news!

    Without epigenetics there would be no multicellular life, no regulatory genes, no common descent, no Darwin, no us!

    The extraordinary thing about gene expression, especially during development, is that it is actually a means by which slight changes to the genome can translate into substantial changes to the phenotype – thus providing more heritable variance in reproductive success, precisely the thing on which adaptive evolution depends.

  2. Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/10395212

    ,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”.
    Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences.

    ,,You can pick up the rest of the high points of Dr. Nobel’s talk at the two minute mark of the preceding video I referenced, or you can watch the entire video here:

    Rocking the foundations of biology – video
    http://www.voicesfromoxford.or.....iology/184

    Here is a more recent talk by Dr. Nobel:

    Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology – Denis Nobel – July 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzD1daWq4ng

    Here is the paper that accompanies the preceding video:

    Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology – Denis Noble – 17 MAY 2013
    Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,,
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....4/abstract

    Tonight’s Feature Presentation: Epigenetics, The Next Evolutionary Cliff – video
    Excerpt: Just keep this one thing in mind as you watch. For everything you see in this animation, evolutionists have no scientific explanation how it evolved.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ation.html

    “The Mysterious Epigenome: What Lies Beyond DNA” – Woodward – May 2012 – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....7_28-07_00

    Non-Random and Targeted Mutations (Epigentics to the level of DNA) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTChu5vX1VI

    Genie In Your Genes – video
    http://www.genieinyourgenes.com/ggtrailer.html

    Upgrade Your Brain
    Excerpt: The Research; In his book The Genie in Your Genes (Elite Books, 2009), researcher Dawson Church, PhD, explains the relationship between thought and belief patterns and the expression of healing- or disease-related genes. “Your body reads your mind,” Church says. “Science is discovering that while we may have a fixed set of genes in our chromosomes, which of those genes is active has a great deal to do with our subjective experiences, and how we process them.”
    One recent study conducted at Ohio University demonstrates vividly the effect of mental stress on healing. Researchers gave married couples small suction blisters on their skin, after which they were instructed to discuss either a neutral topic or a topic of dispute for half an hour. Researchers then monitored the production of three wound-repair proteins in the subjects’ bodies for the next several weeks, and found that the blisters healed 40 percent slower in those who’d had especially sarcastic, argumentative conversations than those who’d had neutral ones.
    http://experiencelife.com/arti.....our-brain/

  3. Liddle at 1, tell Zach, not us.

  4. You were the one expressing the view, news.

  5. Yes, Elizabeth, tell Zack, plus all the other anti-intellectuals blinded by their ideology. Even little Christian homeschool kids know about epigenetics through audio programs like Jonathan Park, yet a whole generation of government-schooled kids won’t have a clue unless real scientists start stepping up and speaking out.

    http://www.jonathanpark.com/

  6. What on earth are you talking about?

    Why all the fuss about epigenetics all of a sudden?

    What’s this problem it’s supposed to present for some “ideology”?

    What ideology?

  7. Sorry you’re so confused Elizabeth! Praying God will give you wisdom.

  8. It would be more helpful if you would answer my question.

    What problem do you think epigenetics presents for whatever ideology you think it presents a problem for?

  9. You might browse through this thread: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....mfortable/

    Or this one: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ty-claims/

    Or even this one: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ary-cliff/

    All discuss problems that epigenetics presents for Darwinian evolution.

  10. Without epigenetics there would be no multicellular life, no regulatory genes, no common descent, no Darwin, no us!

    And because Darwin’s theory is true, epigenetics must be subsumed somehow within the theory. See, no problem!

    QED

  11. How about this one:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....mfortable/

    Where I asked someone to explain to me why epigenetics is a problem for evolution. I still haven’t got an answer, and it’s not apparent from any of threads Barb linked to.

    If anyone that wants to make something out of epigenetics could tell me (a) what they mean by term and (b) why it’s a problem for evolutionary biology I’d be much obliged.

  12. Mung,

    It’s not about Darwin, but this is another example of how silly it is to call evolutionary biology “Darwinism” or “Darwin’s theory”. Darwin believed in epigenetic inheritance.

Leave a Reply