Will Texas Face Court Challenges to the New Science Standards?
| April 15, 2009 | Posted by DonaldM under Intelligent Design |
Now that the moaning and hand-wringing are over, there’s talk of mounting some legal challenges to the new science standards in Texas. At issue aren’t the standards themselves, but the personal motivations of some of the Board members who advocated for these standards.
Now the issue is whether there is enough prima facie evidence to challenge the Constitutionality of the wording now, or wait for the textbook review process in two years.
“They have shown clear religious motivations that certainly raise some questions,” Quinn said. “But if the board requires phony religious arguments in the science textbooks, I can’t imagine somebody won’t challenge it.” Publishers may end up producing a textbook for Texas and other conservative states and a separate version for other states—because under the new guidelines, a Texas textbook “will be poison in states that value education,” [Dan Quinn, a spokesman for the Texas Freedom Network].
I guess Quinn isn’t bothered at all by the motivations of atheists or philosophical naturalists who want to teach students that no matter how complex and specified biological systems might appear, the design is only apparent and not actual because nature posses all the creative power to produce it through chance and/or necessity. If Quinn is really concerned about motivations, he ought to check the philosophical and worldview motivations of those who want to promote naturalism as science in science classrooms. He has nary a peep about any of that.
So here’s a few questions for Mr. Quinn and anyone else sweating bullets over the “religious” motivations of those who question the way science is taught in public school classrooms: What does a worldview free science classroom look like? How do you sucessfully divorce science from any and all philosophical underpinnings? And if you can’t do that, how do you decide which philosophical considerations are necessary for science and which aren’t?
While we’re on the subject of motivations, perhaps Mr. Quinn might take note that William Wilberforce fought for over 20 years in the early 1800′s to end the slave trade in England motivated almost entirely by his “religion” (Christianity). Should England have repealed the anti-slave trade act because of those “religious” motivations? Or can we only call motivations into question when it involves how we teach science? If so, Mr. Quinn, what’s your specific criteria for determining those motivations and deciding that no matter how good the standards might be, if they were inspired by the “wrong” motivations, we just can’t let them stand.
193 Responses to Will Texas Face Court Challenges to the New Science Standards?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sorry, italicised quotes above from “Joseph”.
Alan I have been all over the world- France included.
I have spent quite a bit of time in Central and South America.
IOW I would bet I have been exposed to more cultures and values (as if you have any) than you have.
iconofid:
In your dreams.
Been there done that and found nothing tat would indicate that A) gene duplications are random events and B) that they do what you think they do.
And it is very telling that YOU cannot produce ANY evidence to support your position.
None, nada, zip, zilch, zero.
All you have is minor oscillating variations as seen in the beak of the finch, the peppered moth, anti-biotic resistance and every other example of “evolution”.
As for science I doubt you even know what tat is…
iconofid,
What part of transcription and translation- complete with proof-reading, error-correction and editing, strikes you as being cobbled together via an acumulation of genetic accidents?
And
How can we test the premise that a bacterial flagellum, for example, arose from a population that never had one via an acumulation of genetic accidents?
The point is that YOUR position doesn’t have anything to offer besides “it evolved”.
Joseph says:
“In your dreams.”
You don’t agree that you have a unique genome? Then I repeat, which of your ancestors have you oscillated into?
“Been there done that and found nothing tat would indicate that A) gene duplications are random events and B) that they do what you think they do.”
Really? In reference to A, what did you find out about how gene duplications happen? And which of these processes would you perceive as being non-random?
And it is very telling that YOU cannot produce ANY evidence to support your position.
My position that gene duplications can produce novelty?
You asserted that “There isn’t any evidence that naturalistic evolution can do anything other than slight, oscillating variations.”
I pointed you to the literature, and you assert that there’s no evidence that gene duplications can do “what I think they can do”.
Is this position (that there’s no evidence that gene duplications can produce novelty) one that all I.D. supporters hold?
In the post after the one I’m replying to, you seem to want to change the subject. I’d be happy to address the points you’re raising there, but after we’ve finished with this subject.
So, I want a strong commitment before I discuss specific research. Is it the I.D. position that there’s no evidence that gene duplication can produce novelty?
Oops!
Messed up tags.
iconofid,
What literature demonstrates that gene duplication can produce new body plans complete with new body parts and protein machinery?
What litertaure demonstrates that mutation and selection can produce something more than slight oscillating variations?
iconofid,
What part of transcription and translation- complete with proof-reading, error-correction and editing, strikes you as being cobbled together via an acumulation of genetic accidents?
And
How can we test the premise that a bacterial flagellum, for example, arose from a population that never had one via an acumulation of genetic accidents?
I need a strong commitment before I discuss anything else with you.
iconofid:
It is not.
It is the position of ID that not all mutations are random. And perhaps the ONLY mutations that are random are point mutations that occur as copying errors.
IDist understand that with a duplicated gene that new gene also requires a binding site.
And even then all that could be hoped for is another transcription of an already existing component.
So you would have this extra protein floating around ready to get in the way of the existing system.
So if a gene duplication leads to novelty I would say we should take a closer look because it may be directed by some underlying program.
Joseph writes :
Gene duplication is the result of unequal crossing over. There is no evidence suggesting unequal crossing over is anything other than random with regard to fitness.
This is trivially true. Not all unequal crossing over events result in gene duplications—only those that involve the promoters will result in genes that can be immediately transcribed.. Further recombination, however, can result in the cobbling together of new genes from non-transcribable fragments produced by unequal crossing over and promoter sequence fragments.
It’s not the duplication itself that leads to novelty, but subsequent mutation to the copy resulting in neofunctionalization or escape from adaptive conflict. Neofunctionalization is discussed in this paper:
Lynch M, M O’Hely, B Walsh & A Force (2001). The probability of preservation of a newly arisen gene duplicate. Genetics 159(4): 1789- 1804
Escape from adaptive conflict is discussed here:
Des Marais DL & MD Rausher (2008). Escape from adaptive conflict after duplication in an anthocyanin pathway gene. Nature 454: 762-765
From the abstract:
Joseph concludes:
Or may just be due to RM& NS.
Dave Wisker:
IOW our ignorance sez it is random.
And seeing that variation provides fitness- see the plight of bananas because tey lack variiation- what does one mean by “random with regards to fitness”?
IDist understand that with a duplicated gene that new gene also requires a binding site.
Without said binding site the new gene is useless- so it is hardly trivial.
Perhaps you guys should read “Not By Chance” by Dr Leee Spetner.
That would help you understand the telic position.
As studies have shown just to get two specified mutations would take more time than evolution has.
And even then the change is so subtle that it doesn’t help you.
But I do understand that all your hopes rest with evo-devo and more magical mystery mutations.
I find it curious that Joseph declined to ever answer Alan’s questions regarding Joseph’s claim to have been a research scientist and to have studied marine biology.
One has to wonder why that is.
As for Spetner’s book, I read it some time ago and was not impressed in the least. He dealt only with enzymes and enzyme specificity, as if all proteins are enzymes. Beyond that, it was the usual IDcreationist boilerplate.
His discussion with Gert Khortof was very enlightening – for one thing, Spetner was forced to admit that information-increasing mutations do in fact occur.
Well, that is not exactly what ‘studies’ have shown. Seelke – a YEC, not an ID advocate – in his high school-level ‘experiments’ found that you it takes an inordinate amount of time to get two specific sequential mutations. Claiming that this is relevant to evolution is to set up a rather unsophisticated strawman.
Sorry.