evidence against evolution 2001 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
“Evidence Against Evolution” 2001 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
“Evidence Against Evolution” 2001

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 34

“Evidence Against Evolution” 2001 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 116 Views
  • Uploaded on

“Evidence Against Evolution” 2001. Montana HB 588 Georgia HB 391 Ohio HB 679 Arkansas HB 2548.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '“Evidence Against Evolution” 2001' - farren


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
evidence against evolution 2001
“Evidence Against Evolution” 2001
  • Montana HB 588
  • Georgia HB 391
  • Ohio HB 679
  • Arkansas HB 2548
slide2
WHEREAS, compelling evidence exists in support of divergent scientific conclusions and validly competing theories of origin and the spirit of science requires that students be impartially exposed to all evidence, including scientific information tending to prove and disprove each theory; and…
evolution as unsupported science 2001
Evolution as Unsupported Science, 2001
  • Louisiana HB 1286 (“false or fraudulent information”)
  • Arkansas HB 2548
  • Michigan HB 4382 (“unproven theory”)
slide4

“This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, 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.

columbia county ga 1996
Columbia County, GA, 1996

The teaching of science should distinguish between theory and fact. Scientific hypotheses which cannot be proven or replicated, such as the theory of evolution, must always be taught as theories and not fact.

tennessee hb sb 1996
Tennessee HB/SB, 1996
  • No teacher or administrator in a local education agency shall teach the theory of evolution except as a scientific theory. Any teacher or administrator teaching such theory as fact commits insubordination, as defined in Section 49-5-501(s)(6), and shall be dismissed or suspended as provided in Section 49-5-511.
pillars of creationism
“Pillars of Creationism”

Evolution is a “theory in crisis”

evidence against evolution
(“evidence against evolution”....)
  • “Gaps in the fossil record”
  • Can’t get new body plans from mutation and selection
  • “Chance” can’t produce “design”
  • Life too complex to originate “by chance”
evidence against evolution1
(“evidence against evolution”....)
  • alleged difference between “microevolution” and “macroevolution”
  • Earth too young for evolution to have occurred
evidence against evolution icons
(“evidence against evolution”....Icons)

Haeckel’s embryos

Peppered Moth “Fraud”

Miller-Urey experiments

Cambrian explosion a “problem” for evolution

Archaeopteryx not a transitional form

slide12

TrueTrueTrueTrueTrue

TrueTrueTrueTrueTrue

Original Conclusion: Natural selection caused these changes — due to predation by birds.

mainly

• moths <1848 mostly light-colored• first dark moth found in 1848 • 47 years later, 98% dark moths• decline in dark moths began with use of cleaner fuels• today - dark moths are very rare

• parallel rise and fall occurred in the US.• predators (birds) in aviary went first to moths that contrast with backgrounds.• fewer light moths survive release in sooty woods• fewer dark moths survive release in clean woods• birds in wild go first to moths that contrast with backgrounds.

Wells’s version: “staged photos”; stresses sites that don’t match pattern; fusses about role of lichens

slide13

“. . . it became clear that he was intentionally distorting the literature in my field. He lavishly dresses his essays in quotations from experts (including some from me) which are generally taken out of context, and he systematically omits relevant details to make our conclusions seem ill founded, flawed, or fraudulent.”

The Pratt (OK) Tribune, December 13, 2000

Bruce Grant

William & Mary

pillars of creationism1
“Pillars of Creationism”
  • Evolution is a “theory in crisis”
  • Evolution and religion are incompatible
1998 coeur d alene id
1998 Coeur d’Alene, ID

(citizen proposal:)

Public secondary and elementary schools must give balanced treatment to the theory of scientific creationism and the theory of evolution....

(identical to Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act)

indiana hb 1356 2000
Indiana HB 1356, 2000

The governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.

oklahoma legislature 2000
Oklahoma Legislature 2000

SB 1129:

When adopting science textbooks, the [textbook] Committee shall insure that the textbooks include acknowledgement that human life was created by one God of the universe. (House vote 99 - 0)

distinguish science and religion as ways of knowing
Distinguish science and religion as ways of knowing

Distinguish between science as method and as philosophy

Inform students of range of religious views towards evolution (descriptively!)

the creation evolution continuum
The Creation/Evolution Continuum

Flat-Earthers

Creation

Geocentrists

Young-Earthers

Old-Earthers

Theistic Evolutionists

Materialists

Evolution

pillars of creationism2
“Pillars of Creationism”
  • Evolution is a “theory in crisis”
  • Evolution and religion are incompatible
  • It is only “fair” to teach creationism with evolution
santorum amendment 2001
Santorum Amendment, 2001
  • It is the sense of the Senate that
  • (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and …
santorum amendment 20011
Santorum Amendment, 2001
  • (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why the subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.
2002 education bill conference report 2002
2002 Education Bill Conference Report, 2002
  • The conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution) the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.
slide27

Thus the Santorum language is part of the law.

(OH Reps. John A. Boehner and Steve Chabot, 3/15/02)

slide28

“After a bitter fight, Santorum’s amendment to the education bill survived virtually unchanged.” Chuck Colson, BreakPointOnline, Oct. 2, 2002

slide29
"I offered some language to Senator Santorum, after he had decided to propose a resolution of this sort." Phillip Johnson,
cong miller on santorum
Cong. Miller on Santorum

Quality assessments involve the application of critical thinking skills, and perhaps this is nowhere more important than in science education. Teachers often encourage critical thinking through the introduction of controversial issues. While the subject of evolution was used as an example of a controversial issue in the report language, neither the teaching of evolution nor any other specific topic is mandated in NCLB or the conference report. (emphasis mine)Rep. George Miller to EC Scott,4/14/02

teach the controversy
“Teach the Controversy….”

At present many groups advise educators and administrators to ignore the controversy over design and to continue to teach a single theoretical viewpoint, ignoring scientific dissent and parental concerns about dogmatism and intellectual intolerance. In short, their approach is to suppress the controversy. We believe there is a better way. We suggest that public schools teach the controversy over biological origins in a way that faithfully reflects the debate that is actually happening among scientists. David DeWolf: Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook, p. 2.

teach the controversy1
“Teach the Controversy….”

We suggest that public schools teach the controversy over biological origins in a way that faithfully reflects the debate that is actually happening among scientists.

David DeWolf: Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook, p. 2.

pillars of creationism3
“Pillars of Creationism”
  • Evolution is a “theory in crisis”
  • Evolution and religion are incompatible
  • It is only “fair” to teach creationism with evolution
2 kinds of antievolutionism
2 Kinds of Antievolutionism
  • Bible-based
  • Young earth creationism; Creation “science”; Genesis literalist creationism
  • Design-based
  • Not biblically-based; attributes complexity of design to God’s direct action rather than natural cause