Tag Archives: Evolution

Rick Perry’s record on teaching the controversy is mixed

From Evolution News.

Excerpt:

It has to be challenging to be a presidential candidate. After all, you are expected to dispense wisdom (or at least comments) on almost everything under the sun, and you never know what question is going to come up next. Still, some questions should be easier to anticipate than others. For example, it has become pretty typical for candidates (especially Republican ones) to be grilled at some point about their views on evolution. So Governor Rick Perry shouldn’t have been surprised when asked earlier today about his own views on evolution, especially given all the controversy over the topic in his home state of Texas. What was a surprise was Perry’s answer. According to the New York Times, Perry claimed: “In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools.”

That’s news to me. In fact, Texas public schools do not teach creationism, at least not anywhere in the approved curriculum. But under science standards adopted in 2009, Texas students are asked to “analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations… including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.” This sort of critical inquiry is supposed to apply to the discussion of Darwinian theory, and Texas students are also expected to “analyze and evaluate” the evidence for Darwinian claims about natural selection, mutations, cellular complexity, the fossil record, and more.

Alas, most Texas schools probably don’t engage in this sort of scientific weighing of the merits of Darwinian theory — due in large part to Perry’s own education appointees! Earlier this summer, Perry’s education commissioner recommended for use supplementary science curricula that fail to offer any critical analysis of Darwinian claims, contrary to the state’s own science standards. At the same time, Perry’s education commissioner allowed his staff to spike the one proposed curriculum that did try to follow the Texas science standards.

Perry will likely be excoriated for his comments by those on the left who think Perry is somehow a proponent of creationism. Ironically, the Texas Education Agency that Perry oversees has done its best to scuttle even a scientific discussion of the limits of Darwinian claims.

He’s not as good as Michele Bachmann on this education issue. I think that Bachmann would push control down to the state and local level, and abolish the federal Department of Education. She has had personal conflicts with the public school system – she’s hostile to them. She had conflicts with the school board, she homeschooled her own children, she started a charter school. I think she has had it with educational bureaucrats, and she would do more radical things to put control of children’s education in the hands of parents. She would be more likely to emphasize choice and competition, which is proven to lower costs and raise quality. She is more of a radical, and Perry isn’t radical enough.

William Lane Craig defends Michele Bachmann’s Christian faith

The world foremost living Christian academic debater defends Michele Bachmann from the scurrilous charges of the secular left elite.

The MP3 file is here. (13 MB | 14 minutes)

My friend Dennis Fuller sent him the New Yorker article, and he made this podcast. If anyone can defend Michele’s faith and her Christian views, it’s William Lane Craig.  He calls the New York article “religious McCarthyism”. His purpose here is not really to defend Michele, but more to defend the works of Francis Schaeffer.

In case you’d like to see who William Lane Craig is, and what he can do, watch this debate between Craig and Christopher Hitchens, the famous atheist.

That’s why he’s number one.

More about Michele Bachmann

Speeches:

Reactions from her first debate performance:

Profiles of Michele Bachmann:

And here are some of her media interviews and speeches in the House of Representatives.

Related posts

Do mainstream journalists understand the controversy over human origins?

When it comes to evolution, liberal and conservative commentators often have no idea what the controversy is actually about.

James Klinghoffer explains in this post on Evolution News. (H/T Mary)

Excerpt:

Among hot-button controversies of the day, Darwinian evolution may be unique in being a question on which people express forceful opinions all the time, at high levels of the media and politics, all under a protocol where it’s the norm to have not even a basic idea what you’re talking about.

So Wall Street Journal online columnist James Taranto tries to take to task author Jacob Weisberg for Weisberg’s column on Slate that includes this derisive reference to Republicans in Congress:

Some of the congressional Republicans who are preventing action to help the economy are simply intellectual primitives who reject modern economics on the same basis that they reject Darwin and climate science.

Weisberg has demonstrated ignorant prejudice in the past. He has written elsewherethat intelligent design is the assertion “that gaps in evolutionary science prove God must have had a role in creation.” But Taranto, a conservative, seems to understand even less than Weisberg.

He nicely offers that Weisberg could be more polite in casting insults:

Darwin is a red herring here. Although disparaging people for holding harmless religious beliefs as “intellectual primitives” is awfully uncivil, we agree with Weisberg that people who “reject” the theory of natural selection are mistaken.

I’ve never met a single person, nor heard of one, who “rejects” natural selection. This is not a matter of science but of sociology: They do not exist.

If anyone did reject natural selection, they would be not only “mistaken” but probably delusional. In reality, the evolution debate turns, in part, on the question of how much of life’s history can be explained in the neo-Darwinian terms of natural selection operating unguided on chance genetic variation. Darwin skeptics argue, not on the basis of “religious beliefs” whether harmless or otherwise, that the development of complex life may be explained in this Darwinian fashion only up to a point.

Read the rest.

If you are reading an article about intelligent design and evolution, and it is devoid of references to specified complexity, probability bounds and protein sequences, then stop reading that article. If the article contains any mention of God or the Bible, then it is also a useless article, because the controversy is about what the scientific evidence shows – not about religion.

Intelligent design is a scientific theory. Opposition to evolution is based solely on scientific concerns. There should be no talk of “beliefs” in articles about evolution and ID. There should only the experimental results showing what natural causes can and cannot do to produce certain effects in nature, like functional proteins. Either we have the means to create these effects using natural mechanisms, or we require intelligent causes to explain them (as in other sciences, like archaeology). That is the issue. Unfortunately, most journalists don’t know that, because they are not reading any science books written in the last 20 years.

To understand intelligent design, read this FAQ. Then read “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen C. Meyer.