|
Post by lakhota on May 30, 2011 1:01:53 GMT -5
17-Year-Old Challenges Michele Bachmann on Law Allowing Creationism To Be Taught In Public School Science Classes"Louisiana students can't compete with kids across the country and around the world if we're not being taught evolution," said Zack Kopplin, 17. Most high school students are concerned about their grades or getting into a good college, but 17-year-old Zack Kopplin is focusing on conducting a national campaign to challenge a congresswoman on her basic understanding of the separation of church and state. Kopplin, a student from Baton Rouge Magnet High School, is working tirelessly to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), a piece of legislation that Kopplin said is a way to sneak the teaching of creationism into Louisiana public school science classrooms. Initially presented under the guise of "academic freedom," LSEA singles out evolution for specific criticism. The bill allows local school boards to approve supplemental classroom materials specifically for the critique of scientific theories. The text of the bill suggests that this is all designed to aid critical thinking, and calls on the Board of Education to "assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories." And what are the areas in need of "critical thinking," you ask? Coincidentally, the hot button issues the Religious Right have turned into legislative crusades: evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. Kopplin is horrified his state has adopted the pro-creationism law. "It is embarrassing," he said, "The New York Times covered this law, and I have friends and family around the country who called me up and asked me about it. No one should be embarrassed by their state." Beyond the personal humiliation of living in a state that teaches a fairytale about a sky daddy alongside real things like carbon dating, genome-mapping and gravity, Kopplin fears for the future of Louisiana's educational system. "This hurts Louisiana students' chances of getting the good science-based jobs we want. Research centers, like Baton Rouge's Pennington Center, are not going to hire Louisiana kids because they won't know whether we were taught the science we need to work there," he said, adding that in a world constantly making rapid advancements in scientific understanding, Louisiana can't afford to backslide into the dark ages. "Louisiana students can't compete with kids across the country and around the world if we're not being taught evolution," Kopplln said. More: www.alternet.org/environment/151120/17-year-old_challenges_michele_bachmann_on_law_allowing_creationism_to_be_taught_in_public_school_science_classes/?page=entire
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on May 30, 2011 1:03:32 GMT -5
Thank you, Zack! Please keep the pressure on! You're not alone!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 19:04:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2011 13:00:50 GMT -5
Yes, there is a lengthy discussion about this topic on page one.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on May 30, 2011 13:29:22 GMT -5
...hooray! ...another duplicate thread!
|
|
|
Post by commentator on May 30, 2011 13:36:56 GMT -5
Since I generally avoid this board I didn't see the other thread. It is good to see some publicity attach to a rational teenager instead of the individuals with faith so weak that they cannot reconcile their belief in God with the reality that surrounds them.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on May 30, 2011 19:44:16 GMT -5
Since I generally avoid this board I didn't see the other thread. It is good to see some publicity attach to a rational teenager instead of the individuals with faith so weak that they cannot reconcile their belief in God with the reality that surrounds them. So a duplicate thread with a bash against religion too. I have a sincere belief in God and "the reality that surrounds" me gives me more faith. Keep on making stupid comments though.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on May 30, 2011 19:58:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on May 30, 2011 20:04:08 GMT -5
Yes, there is a lengthy discussion about this topic on page one. Please identify which thread I have duplicated?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 31, 2011 1:57:15 GMT -5
Somebody should point out to Mr. Kopplin that genome mapping and carbon dating aren't a part of the high school curriculum in any state, and that gravity has nothing to do with the theory of creationism. If they have time left over, perhaps they can enlighten him that genomics, carbon dating, and creationism aren't mutually exclusive theories.
Is this what passes for fifteen minutes of fame these days? A grandstanding adolescent gets news coverage because he's an atheist?
Or is this AlterNet just another for non-articles?
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on May 31, 2011 2:04:44 GMT -5
Well, Virgil, point it out to him. Show him how smart you Canadians are.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 31, 2011 2:32:25 GMT -5
"Smart" is passe, Lak. The new approach is sit back and condemn "allow[ing] local school boards to approve supplemental classroom materials specifically for the critique of scientific theories" (perish the thought that scientific theories should be critiqued! ). Some article will write an op ed praising my freethinkiness. Glory shall be mine!
|
|
|
Post by commentator on May 31, 2011 8:35:24 GMT -5
Scientific theories are critiqued all the time - by scientists.
I first heard about carbon dating in high school. Carbon dating has flaws but it is a useful tool in some circumstances.
Evolution is a theory just like gravity is a theory and just like relativity is a theory.
If the kid referred to in the OP is really an atheist, too bad for him.
Unless you impose your definition of "day" onto God, there is no conflict between the Bibical story of the creation and evolution.
For you anti-evolutionists, which story of the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis is "literally true"?
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on May 31, 2011 11:40:31 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 31, 2011 20:07:00 GMT -5
The processes you're talking about are the expression of existing genes, tough. Evolution aims to address the creation of new genes through random mutations and natural selection. Currently, there are seven major "problems" (e.g. major deficiencies or major unknowns) in the theory of evolution. Six are: - irreducible complexity - when mechanisms require hundreds or even thousands of processes to work concurrently and cannot be incrementally decomposed into a chain of smaller mechanisms, each of which must benefit a precursor organism in a Darwinian sense and must propagate for thousands of generations
- irreducible cyclicity - when 'loops' form in evolutionary dependencies that cannot be reliably decomposed. For example, when certain flowers rely on a highly-adapted insect to reproduce, but the insects can not reproduce without a highly adapted pollen produced by the flower.
- entropy - evolutionary dynamics only "work" if the rate at which destructive mutations and loss of genetic information due to inbreeding, random happenstance, etc. does not exceed a threshold vis a vis positive mutations (and the success with which they can be propagated). Mathematical models show that with our current understanding of Darwinian evolution, the rate of information loss vastly exceeds this threshold. Without modifications to the current model, the world is in essence losing information faster than it's gaining new information.
- time inconsistency - evolution as a Darwinian process should be a steady or near-steady process. The fossil record, however, shows that evolution "turns on and off", alternating between periods of virtually no change and then sudden massive shifts over the period of a few thousand years. Current evolutionary theory has no accepted reason for this phenomenon.
- loss of biodiversity - in line with the predictions of entropy-based models, the biodiversity of Earth is rapidly diminishing. Most biologists blame human influences and/or climate change, but this is largely because no other (scientific) explanations can be given.
- origins of life - a question for which the theory of evolution provides no answers. Increasingly contrived laboratory experiments have also failed to shed light on the answer. The widely accepted theory is that if you took all the ingredients out of your fridge and hurtled them together a billion billion times, one of those times would make you a perfect triple-decker dagwood sandwich.
These are a few of the outstanding problems, but there are of course dozens more. Among them: how genes can 'skip' links in the evolutionary chain, how diversity is maintained when mathematically "dominant" evolutionary forces all favor homogeneity (experiments confirm this), how complex genes can form when all intermediate forms are highly unstable, etc., etc. As I've said, evolution may play a role in the development life on earth. It may be one of the dominant forces. But with the current state of the art (and trust me, I was at a lecture on "evolutionary photosynthesis" just last week), saying "it evolved" is only marginally more useful than saying "it magically appeared". That is, evolution doesn't tell you how it evolved, or why, or what it will do next. ETA: Because many people confuse the two, I should note that adaptation is not the same thing as evolution.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 31, 2011 20:46:52 GMT -5
I wouldn't really characterize these processes as gene "creation". But in the sense that the degenerate products are novel, I suppose it could be called that. ...which also happen to be the populations most susceptible to problems with inbreeding. I find it odd. I've seen several documentaries about large cats (usually lions) that are on the verge of extinction because of inbreeding. These are isolated populations of a few hundred individuals per pocket. Hopefully one of the pockets will transform into something substantially different than a lion before being wiped out. Again, all the cases of this I've seen have been instances where existing genes are either expressed differently (for instance, the bacterium would produce fewer enzymes for specific receptor sites) or are transferred between different species. I consider this adaptation. If I were to claim that God deliberately "tweaked" a strain of bacteria to make it a pestilence, you'll note that my claim is no more or no less useful for determining how to develop a new antibiotic, how to determine what mutation will occur next, or how to stop new strains from developing. Thus, an example where evolution would degrade the long-term viability of a specie.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 19:04:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2011 20:56:19 GMT -5
Well, heck, I am not smart enough to post behind Virgil, but I sure like seeing people meet their match....
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on May 31, 2011 21:20:09 GMT -5
Yeah, me too...
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 1, 2011 9:05:55 GMT -5
Well, heck, I am not smart enough to post behind Virgil, but I sure like seeing people meet their match.... I hear ya krickitt....this went way beyond my pay grade. Can't hang with the big dogs on this one so I'll be sittin' here with my eyes glazed over.
|
|
|
Post by commentator on Jun 1, 2011 9:09:14 GMT -5
If you don't believe in evolution, take penicillin when you have MRSA.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 1, 2011 12:12:30 GMT -5
My comments address that, comm. You might try reading them.
|
|
|
Post by commentator on Jun 1, 2011 14:36:42 GMT -5
My comments address that, comm. You might try reading them. Why? Your comments are generally a compendium of misdirection and illogic. My invitation stands.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 1, 2011 19:42:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 1, 2011 20:14:43 GMT -5
It's really sad to see public education dumbed down even more than it already is.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 1, 2011 20:37:51 GMT -5
...I'm not... ...and since this thread will stand alone, I'll repost what I posted in the other one: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...to my knowledge, there are two principle explanations/theories of the beginning of our known universe... one is the big bang and one is intelligent design... ...this thread even demonstrates that fact, since no one has presented a significant third option... ...so, what's the big whoop if LA teaches their kids that there are two principle explanations/theories of the beginning of our known universe? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 1, 2011 20:38:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 1, 2011 21:49:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 2, 2011 11:52:16 GMT -5
<<< In this thread, I have seen not only evolution, but astronomy, geology and cosmology attacked as well. >>> ...and you know, I must be dumb as a stone because I've seen two-way traffic on attack attempts, and they're all indirect fire at best... ...the bottom line is that this whole thread must tread on the OP issue of it's being LA's business what they teach in LA schools... ...if you don't like it, either move to LA and vote... or move away from LA and let your departing dollars cast their own "vote," so to speak... ...as to your Nascar book, sounds interesting...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 2, 2011 14:13:23 GMT -5
This is something invented by creationists. They often cite the human eye as an example. It only takes looking through nature to see countless examples of simpler & more complex versions of eyes. If the eye is irreducibly complex, then why are there so many simpler versions in nature?
They evolved simutaneously & began a symbiotic relationship where each relies on the other for survival.
As toughtimes pointed out, a mutation in itself is not necessarily negative or positive, taking sickle cell as an example of a mutation that was both negative & positive. So, you can't say positive mutations are oddities whereas negative mutations are a result of entropy - all are just mutations.
Evolution does not have to be a steady-state process, so this is a ridiculous argument against evolution. Massive shifts in evolutation are often the result of a change in climate or the characteristics of a population.
Haven't heard this as an argument against evolution, I haven't even heard there was a loss of biodiversity (you have a link citing this fact?). Ok - I read a little about this, just the increasing number of extinctions that have been happening. Most of these are related to man as we take away creature's habitats. Mass extinctions have occured in the past (dinosaurs) & nature kept on going. I fail to see how man killing off entire species of animals disproves evolution.
As explained in the previous thread, evolution doesn't seek to explain the origins of life. This is a different scientific field. Not understanding the origin of life doesn't disprove evolution, but merely shows we don't understand the origins of life.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 2, 2011 14:16:49 GMT -5
<<< Not understanding the origin of life doesn't disprove evolution, but merely shows we don't understand the origins of life. >>> ...bingo... so if LA wants to introduce their kids to one of the two prevailing theories on origin of life, so be it...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 2, 2011 14:19:41 GMT -5
<<< Not understanding the origin of life doesn't disprove evolution, but merely shows we don't understand the origins of life. >>> ...bingo... so if LA wants to introduce their kids to one of the two prevailing theories on origin of life, so be it... But, that isn't what LA is trying to do. They are trying to dismiss the theory of evolution, not provide alternatives to the origin of life. Life starting from god, from the big bang, or from someone sneezing doesn't change the theory of evolution.
|
|