Message from the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee:
This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory,
which some scientists present as scientific explanation for
the origin of living things, such as plants and humans.
No one was present when life first appeared on earth.
Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be
considered as theory, not fact. The word evolution may refer
to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that
occur within a species. (White moths, for example, may
evolve into gray moths). This process is micro evolution,
which can be observed and described as fact. Evolution may
also refer to the change of one living thing into another,
such as reptiles into birds. This process, called macro
evolution, has never been observed and should be considered
a theory. Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that
random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.
There are many unanswered questions about the origin of
life, which are not mentioned in your textbook, including:
Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the
fossil record, known as the Cambrian Explosion? Why have no
new major groups of living things appeared in the fossil
record in a long time? Why do major groups of plants and
animals have no transitional forms in the fossil record? How
did you and all living things come to possess such a
complete and complex set of instructions for building a
living body? Study hard and keep an open mind. Someday you
may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared
on earth.
I hope somebody blesses their tiny pea picking hearts.
Jois - regarding the message from OSTC - (1) evolution does not explain the origin of life, it explains the way species change over time (2) random forces are not part of evolution…the definite “forces” of natural selection, gene mutation, etc. are at work (3) there are examples of transitional fossils (4) “study hard and keep an open mind”…they should practice what they preach
I think this disclaimer contains a number of fallacies that I’m sure will be pointed out by others, but my favorite is this one:
Ummm, no. Evolution ain’t random. Variation can be affected by unpredictable influences, but the end result is inexorably connected with the environment. In essence, if it were possible to observe two, closed environments with controlled, identical elements, variations in biological populations within those environments would be identical. That’s about as far from random as you can get.
It seems obvious that there’s a little bit more than a bureaucratic ass-covering going on here… on one hand the student is urged to keep an open mind, yet he’s asked specific questions that require an academic understanding of concepts that are, in their words, “not mentioned” in the textbook. I have no issue with the need for a disclaimer concerning this issue. But if the basic message is to keep an “open-mind,” then the creationist who obviously wrote it should’ve kept one too.
Lordy me, I wouldn’t be merely dissatisfied; I’d make sure my children never attended a school that promulgated such hogwash. I might implement that by political action, private schooling, moving, whatever.
I agree 100% with the statements in the provided link. All I can do is quote from the end:
How do they preface the creationism part of the book?
This textbook discusses creation, a widely accepted theory, which some clergy present as a metaphysical explantion for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans.
Message from the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee:
This textbook discusses the human immunodeficiency virus, which some scientists controversally present as the causative agent of the disease known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS.
No one has ever been inside a T-cell. Therefore, any statement about the effects of a virus on a T-cell should be considered as theory, not fact. The word AIDS may refer to many types of disease. AIDS describes the presence of an HIV infections alongside any of a number of opportunistic infections. It also refers to an HIV infection and a CD4+ T-cell count of less than 200. Since scientists cannot agree on the definition of AIDS, their conclusions should be considered as little more than theory.
There are many unanswered questions about HIV and AIDS, which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: Why does AIDS occur primarily in homosexuals and IV drug users, two things that are clearly abominations to God? Why do some people get PCP and KS, even though they are HIV negative? How can such a tiny little wad of DNA and protein cause a devastating disease in a complex and wonderfully designed human being? Study hard and keep an open mind. Someday you may contribute to the theories of what causes autoimmune illness.
I think this demonstrates similarly bad logic and a similarly poor understanding of the subject matter as the anti-evolution statement.
I’ve often made this comparison to creationists–our textbooks say that AIDS is caused by the HIV, as if it were a fact. However, some scientists like Peter Duesberg believe that this is not the case. Therefore, I think that my belief that AIDS is simply the wrath of God against homosexuals and drug users should be taught in science classes alongside the other “theories”, since it is clearly just as valid.
It should say “almost every scientist” instead of “some scientists”
Second–Does anyone out there who opposes evolution know the meaning of the word “theory”? I’m guessing not. But you know what, the Pope does. Then again, he doesn’t oppose evolution (at least as long as you assign the human soul a divine beginning).
From Pope John Paul II’s message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996–
Both the Humani Generis and Pope John Paul II’s message push the idea of non-overlapping magisteria. That is, leave to science the work on the physical creation of the Earth and it’s creatures and leave to religion the spiritual aspects of the Earth, the human existence and the human soul.
Were they SERIOUS about what they were saying about HIV:
The only even remotely plausible alternative HIV hypothesis I have ever heard was that there was a 2nd (as of yet undiscovered) virus that causes the low T-cell count, which THEN allows HIV to increase. I seriously doubt there is actually any evidence to support that theory however (as opposed to a wealth of medical evidence for the HIV theory of AIDS). But even that alternate isn’t so bigoted as the one you quoted. sheesh.
I personally have no particular problem teaching both evolution and creationism…in parochial schools. Creationism (I feel) does not belong in public schools, as it is not a “scientific” theory, and also would force individuals of non Judeo-Christian heritage to be exposed to mainstream religious beliefs, which would seem to violate the whole separation of church and state thing. But that is just my opinion of course.
I think that the doctor was trying to show that the 2 statements, evolution and HIV, are equally moronic. Hell, you could even make up a statement like those about gravity.
Look, you creationist @#&%. Evolution is a FACT, NOT a "theory". How it works, exactly, is the "theory" part( and it is not impossible there was some "divine guidance"). We are as sure of Evolution as we are of the fact that the Earth goes around the Sun, altho there are a few rabid fundies that do not believe that either. I suppose Oklahoma schools posts THAT as a "theory" that "some scientists believe" too. And I suppose Pi = 3.141597.... is also a "theory" as the Bible says it = 3. I cannot express in words the disgust I have for these subliterate @#%@…
Yeah, but why don’t we see transitional forms between dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx? Or Arch and birds? Or in between those transitional forms? In fact, why don’t we find the whole progression from T. rex to parakeet lined up from top to bottom, with little tags giving the name of each perfectly-preserved specimen?
Can you tell me that? Huh?
And don’t even start with that “punctuated equilibrium” crap. I don’t understand that, so it can’t possibly be right.
Avalongod: [makes appropriate signal with hand over head] Neeeeeyow. I was just re-stating the situation in different terms. I’m sorry if I get overly sarcastic in these situations–it just boggles my mind when legislators and school boards “criticize what they can’t understand”, to quote the Scripture. Plus, I’m studying for my Boards, so I’m slowly losing my mind.
Dr. J
PS: You mean you don’t accept Dylan’s early albums as Scripture? Heathen!
To Daniel…Although I am a FIRM believer in evolution…as a scientist, I hesitate to call evolution a FACT…but that is only because I subscribe to Karl Popper’s philosophy of falsificationism…that their are no facts, just theories that haven’t been disproven. But I know what you mean, evolutionary theory (despite being a “work in progress”) is IMHO as probably “true” as any scientific theory.
Avalongod: I see what you mean, based on that, I am willing to accept Evolution (that it occurs, not how it occurs) as just as much a fact/theory as the Earth going around the Sun, and Pi = 3.14159… The Bible clearly states the Sun goes around the Earth, and Pi =3. So, fundies- do the wheels on your car roll? If so, the Bible is not always correct or literal. The Bible is a great work of wisdom, teaching and history, but some errors have crept in.
The Bible clearly states the Sun goes around the Earth, and Pi =3. So, fundies- do the wheels on your car roll? If so, the Bible is not always correct or literal. The Bible is a great work of wisdom, teaching and history, but some errors have crept in.